On May 25, 2008, at 12:46 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: > Very good mt dear Howard - but really not at all. I very much > welcomed your informed contributions as testing the envelope of > knowledge by citing early sources and organological data rather > than assertions based simply on personal preference. Sorry if you > thought it at all wrathful! > > However, my complaint about Barber goes back many years (when I had > the temerity to first question his identification of the 'Chambure > vihuela' as a typical instrument for the early 16thC repertoire and > his continuing failure to mention organolgical work undertaken by > many others), and more recently (pasted below) when I pointed out > that, despite his most recent criticism (and personal abuse)of me > for advocating large theorbos, in fact his own website supported my > position!
You have an expansive view of what supports your position. I suppose this is because your view is essentially an answer without a real question, and thus meaningless, or at least nonsensical. Making a blanket statement about the historical size of theorbos without factoring in the question of absolute pitch is like making a blanket statement about how long a piece of rope should be. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
