Thank you fr ths Lex,
I take yr points and, in particular, that Sanz was only recording his
recollection of Roman practice. Nevertheless, does it not represent a
compelling piece of contemporary (allbeit reported some 20 yrs after his visit)
evidence for re-entrant stringing rather than
Thank you Lex,
Regarding posn of low octave on 4th and 5th courses:
I do, of course, well understand that modern general practice is for low basses
to be 'closest to the floor' (hence my continuation dots..), my reason in
raising this matter with you was that if strict part writing in
I do, of course, well understand that modern general practice
is for low basses to be 'closest to the floor' (hence my continuation
dots..), my reason in raising this matter with you was that
if strict part writing in BC was expected on the 17thC gtr
(as, I understand, is yr view - I'm
You are correct - but the notes on the 5th course are also supposed to sound
in the upper octave. This is a simple 6-4/5-3 cadence on G on the 3rd course.
Monica
Yes - I did, of course, discount examples where the melody is clearly on the
5th course.
Naturally with these tunings
What makes you so sure that the notes (ie both strings) of the 5th course are
'also supposed to sound at the upper octave'; doesn't this rather beg the
whole question?
Like you, my overall position remains that re-entrant tuning was in general use
but I'd also like to reserve judgement
How about the context? If we would suppose the tuning with 2 bourdons, the P
chord in the bar before would be 6-4, the bass connecting to the c in the
2nd bar of the line. That chord would be c minor (root) and the next G major
in 6-3. The top melody is likely to be on the 4th c. How about the
I must apologise for that - some of my comments aren't meant to be taken
too seriously. I sometimes forget that you might understand what I am
saying
in a different way.
Immediately accepted. Let's all learn Dutch.
That is really the whole point. Statements of any kind.
I'm afraid the
