Greetings Mark, Rather peripheral to the interests of this list, but I work with the North American Great Lakes based from the Ohio State University. Bio-Cheers to you!
I come to the music from folk music in my distant past, then hard rock, then modern classical guitar and mandolin, then jazz, and I still love and dabble in it all. My heart really is with classical and early mandolins, but I rarely find the opportunity to indulge. It sounds to me like you have made a bourdon selection that works for you. Excellent, and enjoy. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: Ann&Mark Ahern [mailto:a-mah...@bigpond.net.au] > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:39 AM > To: 'Vihuelalist'; Eugene C. Braig IV > Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again > > Dear Eugene, > > This is my first post to the list. I was amazed to hear that you are a > biologist in your day job as I am too (Sydney University). I also am an > amatuer and have tried to follow this debate as best I can. > > Like you I can see merits in both sides of the bourdon argument. I have > to > say that from a pragmatic point of view the "bourdon on the 4th course" is > the option that I have chosen in order to play the widest repertoire I > can. > > Like Chris I have come to early instruments through flamenco guitar and > having spent many years playing in this idiom, I think that the flamencos > approach to notes/sounds is the best. Flamenco guitarists know that > technically some notes do not belong "in" a particular cadence, but when > they play a phrase ( a falseta) that contains "wrong notes" (they term > them > blues notes) they do so because they like the sound, not because it is > right > or wrong. > > For me, the single bourdon approach is best because I can play a wider > range > of music that sounds good to my ears and those of my listeners (a rare > occurance that I have them!) and also supports me having only one > instrument. > > Cheers > > Mark > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <brai...@osu.edu> > To: "'Vihuelalist'" <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:14 AM > Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again > > > >I am a dabbler in early strings. I don't ever intend to be anything but. > > However, I am a fan of scholarship (a biologist on the day job) and this > > extends to my appreciation of music. I watch this bourdon-vs.-not > debate > > periodically because both sides tend to have insight that I appreciate. > I > > don't take sides because I tend to feel arguments from both sides are > > correct; I would side with both. I hear the music as both contrapuntal > > and > > sparsely homophonic (if I may be permitted use of that term without > > immediate consultation of Groves, Oxford, or similar reference), > sometimes > > more one than the other and often with both textures contained within > > singular pieces, sometimes even within singular passages. If others > hear > > differently (or come to different conclusions based upon more in-depth > > analyses), I'm OK with that. > > > > Having not consulted all the originals directly myself (in fact, having > > consulted only a small handful in facsimile or translation) I think > Monica > > has catalogued what was relatively conclusively written on the subject > of > > stringing the 5-course guitar quite nicely, usefully, and objectively. > > There are a great many composers to have not written so conclusively, > and > > any approach to that music requires a greater degree of speculation. > That > > speculation can (regarding "HIP", probably should) be evidentially > driven, > > but without explicit text by the composer, that evidence is largely > > circumstantial. There is a difference between evidence and conclusive > > evidence. That's OK. Both concepts have their uses. > > > > Some composers did write pretty clearly on stringing preferences, and > some > > expressed clearly differing preferences. Also, with so many not > > explicitly > > describing a preference, the end result today is that any one stringing > > paradigm is compromise when applied across the extant body of > repertoire. > > I'm OK with that. I actually like hearing the famous Sanz Pavanas as > much > > without bourdons as with. They are different; with competent > performance, > > I > > can find both enjoyable and neither offensive. (I admit, the one thing > > that > > does cause me to raise my skeptical eyebrow is the use of a g' on the g > > course.) Even if Sanz himself may have been offended to hear a bourdon > > playing his music (speculation), given his acknowledgement that the use > of > > bourdons was so prevalent where he lived and listened, I'd be willing to > > wager some Spanish guitarist bought Sanz's book in the late 17th c. and > > played that music fully bourdonned...and sounded good doing so. Again, > > any > > singular stringing paradigm embodies compromise. So what? Pick > whichever > > works best to your ears for the music you'd most like to play. > > > > Live long and prosper, all brethren and sistren in pluck, > > Eugene > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
