> Hmmm .. we agree that it makes plucking just the lower of the
octave
pair easier if one wishes to do this (eg possibly in scalic passages
from the third to the 4th course),
...and of course in polyphony (or, as some say in Britain,
counterpoint).
> But it makes things like campanella
play trickier - where one wishes much of the sound to be in the same
register as the upper course notes of the passage.
Isn't that very much a matter of technique? It still remains perfectly
possible to bring out the high ocaves convincingly. And there arealso
lots of campanelas in music for 'French' tuning, which stillhas one
bourdon. Since there seems to be no historic information at all about
leaving out the bourdons in 'cascading scalar passages' I think we
should be careful with supposing that that was the norm. We just don't
know
>So I'm really not
so sure about the general desirability of what you suggest below -
this
seems to me to be advocating the dubious position of always
requiring a
low 'bass' line rather than simply accepting the unique idiomatic
sound
of the period instrument.
Who advocates that there should always be sounding a low bass? That is
certainly not what I intend to say. Also with an octave string adjusted
lower at the bridge it is well possible to mainly bring out the treble
strings. It's not a matter of black or white.
And what if someone like the champion of campanelas (Bartolotti) would
have preferred to use bourdons? I know some on this list do not believe
that, but I feel there are enough reasons to take this as an serious
option.
It seems to me that the 'unique idiomatic sound of the period
instrument' could well be a modern paradigm. Would a guitar with
bourdons not be capable to produce that unique sound?
Lex
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
