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
