Re: Period vs Modern instruments?

Sightreader wrote:

> "Jerry Kohl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > But have you ever heard one played? I have, and though the results were
> > mixed, it was not a case of "not working at all", as you implied.
> >
>
> It doesn't have to be totally broken to not work: simply
> being too problematic is enough to do in a lot of designs.
> It might be worth taking a look at the problem again and
> seeing if there's any new ways of getting around the
> problem of 6 strings crowded on one bridge.  I know
> how annoying it is to play on a violin with a real flat
> bridge: it's not a matter of poor technique, it's just
> physically impossible to play forte without hitting both
> adjacent strings.  From the rumors I heard, the
> Arpeggione suffered the same problem, and I'm not
> surprised at all: it seems like the problem is common
> sense.

The arpeggione's problems are, to my ear, more acoustic than to do with six
strings on one bridge. Viola da gamba players manage very well with six and
even seven strings on one bridge--it's a matter of proper bridge curvature
and technique. The problem with the 19th-century inventors of the arpeggione
seems to have been that they were unaware that it had been done before, and
so they were denied the benefit of several hundred years of experience in
building such instruments. The baryton seems to have been somewhat less
encumbered with this problem, probably because it was developed when the
gamba was still more or less fresh in makers' memories.

--
Jerry Kohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."