On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:43:23 +0800, Shaun Ng wrote > I use 6+8. To me it makes more sense to have F and G as diapasons > because they are used more often.
Sorry, but I don't get this. What has the statistical distribution of F (vs. F#) and G (vs. G#) to do with the question of whether F (and maybe G) are on the the short or long jeux? > It is probably worth mentioning that Campion, a late baroque source, > gives us the historical solution for the lack of a G#: play it up > the octave. He doesn't prefer this to the 'Maltot style' though. But, > as far as I know, 6+8 was most commonly used as suggested by other > (earlier) French treatises and the solo repertoire. Which other treaty talks about such things (i.e. 6+8 vs. 7+7 vs. 8+6)? And how would you deduce from a solo piece whether the 7th string is still on the fingerboard? > One could argue that Maltot's tuning is the result of the change of > musical style that France underwent because of the rise of the > Italian style in France. This is seen in the French cantatas of his > colleagues, such as Clerambault, Bernier, which Campion refers to in > his Addition. I fail to see what specific stylistic changes would require the possibility to finger G# and F#. Probably the most common reason for needing both the fa and the mi variant of a note is when that note the forth of the tone - you need the mi (raised) version to "modulate" [1] to the fifth of the tone by means of a 65 chord on the mi and you need the fa (low) version for the expected 42 chord on the forth position. To me it seems more likely that by the time of Malot (which must be _before_ 1730!) overspun strings made it possible to have a convincing G string on the fingerboard. Cheers, Ralf Mattes [1] in the modern meaning. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
