The gittern: a short history

Angelic gittern player, from the Cathedral Saint Julien du Mans, France, c. 1300–1325. The gittern was the most important stringed instrument of the late medieval period. Loved by all levels of society, it was played by royal appointment, in religious service, in taverns, for singing, for dancing, and in duets with the lute. Yet we know of no specific pieces played on this instrument. What we do have are many representations of it being played in a wide variety of contexts from the 11th century onwards and one surviving instrument of the mid–15th century, and from this we can reconstruct something of the history and repertoire of this widely-loved instrument. Includes a video of a French estampie played on gittern.

(Click picture to play video - opens in new window.) Ian Pittaway playing a gittern based on the surviving Ott instrument, with Andy Casserley on simfony, together playing as The Night Watch. La Quinte Estampie Real (The Fifth Royal Estampie) is from one of the oldest manuscripts of French courtly repertory, Manuscrit du Roy, compiled c.1250 (songs) and c.1300 (dances). Both the gittern and simfony in this video were made by Paul Baker.
(Click picture to play video – opens in new window.) Ian Pittaway playing a gittern based on the surviving Ott instrument, with Andy Casserley on simfony, together playing as The Night Watch. La Quinte Estampie Real (The Fifth Royal Estampie) is from one of the oldest manuscripts of French courtly repertory, Manuscrit du Roy, compiled c.1250 (songs) and c.1300 (dances). Both the gittern and simfony in this video were made by Paul Baker.

What is a gittern?

First we need to be sure of which instrument we mean. In the 16th century, the 4 course renaissance guitar was referred to as the gittern in England and France, and this isn’t that. Much as various websites and even reference books would have you believe otherwise, the medieval gittern which is the subject of this article is not a type of guitar, nor is it related to the guitar. There was also a baroque gittern, which was a type of very small cittern, and this isn’t that, either. The seemingly haphazard same-naming of different instruments and multiple naming of the same instrument in the medieval and renaissance periods can be confusing. So what exactly was the medieval gittern?

The gittern was strung with gut, had 2, 3, 4 or 5 courses (single, double or triple strung), was played with a pletrum made from a quill or fashioned from horn (both seem to appear in iconography), and its bowl and neck was carved from a solid piece of wood. It could have a variety of entertaining carvings on the pegbox, such as the head of a man, woman or animal, or an acorn, which you can see in the images on this page.

The increasing popularity of the gittern

The earliest depiction appears to be that painted on a pillar of the Bayeux Cathedral crypt in Normandy, dated to the 11th century, clearly a general approximation of a gittern and angel. More reliably-drawn instruments appear in the beautifully decorated Cantigas de Santa Maria, a richly-illustrated paean of praise to the Virgin Mary. This song book was compiled in 1260-1280 during the reign of Alfonso X, King of Castilla and other regions in modern day Spain and Portugal.

Left: Possibly the earliest depiction of a gittern, painted on a pillar of the Bayeux Cathedral crypt, 11th century, Normandy. Right: Gittern on the left and rebec on the right, as portrayed in the Cantigas de Santa Maria, 1260-80. The gittern and rebec were essentially the same bowl-back instrument carved from a solid piece of wood, but the gittern was plucked and fretted and the rebec was bowed and unfretted, which meant they had different bridges. If this representation is entirely accurate, then both instruments in this time and place shared 3 single strings and D shaped sound holes, unlike other depictions showing courses (pairs of strings) and a rose (decorated sound-hole).
Left: Possibly the earliest depiction of a gittern, painted on a pillar of the Bayeux Cathedral crypt, 11th century, Normandy. Right: Two gitterns, one being played, the other tuned, in the Cantigas de Santa Maria, 1260-80. According to this representation, (some?) gitterns in this time and place had 3 single strings and D shaped sound holes. This makes it essentially the same design as the rebec, an instrument that seems to have emerged in the 12th century. Rebecs had 3 single strings, D holes and, as with the gittern, were carved from a solid piece of wood into a bowl-back instrument, the chief difference being that gitterns were plucked with a quill and fretted and the rebec was bowed and unfretted, necessitating different bridges and necks.

Certainly by the 14th and 15th centuries the gittern was an important and popular instrument across Europe, loved by all classes of people. The 14th century French poet, Eustache Deschamps, gives evidence of the gittern’s rise in popularity, writing that “at royal courts everyone wants to play the trumpet, gittern, and rebec.” Late medieval Italian royal courts recorded the hiring of several gittern masters and Charles V of France’s court in the 14th century owned four gitterns. In his Canterbury Tales, written between 1387 and 1400, Geoffrey Chaucer makes regular reference to the gittern as a popular instrument, associated with the harp, lute and psaltery, with minstrelsy, with taverns and with popular music-making.

From The Pardoner’s Tale

In Flaundres whilom [once] was a compaignye
Of yonge folk, that haunteden [practised] folye,
As riot, hasard [gambling], stywes [brothels], and tavernes,
Wher as with harpes, lutes, and gyternes
They daunce and pleyen at dees [dice], bothe day and nyght,
And eten also and drynken over hir might

In The Miller’s Tale, Absalon the parish clerk knew 20 dances, played a small rebec to accompany himself singing …

and as wel coud he play on a giterne.
In all the town n’as [there never was] brewhous ne [nor] taverne,
that he ne visited with his solas [= solace = entertainment to forget your cares] …
and Absalon his giterne hath y-take,
for paramours [lovers] he thoghte for to wake …
[and thought to wake one paramour in particular, the carpenter’s wife, so early in the morning he sings outside her window]
He singeth in his vois gentil and small …
Ful wel acordaunt to his giterninge.

The gittern and the lute

The gittern was smaller and therefore of a higher pitch than the lute, but we know from Johannes Tinctoris in the 15th century that they were identically tuned in relative terms. While they may look quite similar, the gittern and lute are distinguishable in three ways:

  • the backs of lutes are made of several ribs glued together, with the neck being a separate piece of wood attached; whereas the bowl of the whole gittern, including the neck, is carved from a solid piece of wood;
  • the strings on a lute are attached to the bridge, which is glued to the soundboard, whereas gittern strings are attached to hitch pins on the edge of the instrument and pass across a ‘floating’ bridge, i.e. it is not glued and is kept in place by the pressure of the strings;
  • the pegbox of a lute bends back from the neck at an obtuse angle, whereas the gittern pegbox has a gently curving sickle shape.
Lute and gittern playing together from Pere Serra’s Virgin of the Angels, 1480s (detail), a section of an altarpiece now in the National Museum of Art of Cataluña.
4 course lute and 3 course gittern playing together from Pere Serra’s Virgin of the Angels, 1480s (detail), a section of an altarpiece now in the National Museum of Art of Cataluña.

Surviving instruments

There appear to have been two sizes of gittern. We must beware of drawing broad conclusions from slim evidence, but paintings do appear to correspond roughly to the two surviving instruments we have. One fell into a latrine in Elblag/Elbing, Poland (it’s been part of both Poland and Germany, and so has two names), presumably by accident, since the instrument was dropped intact, with even its strings recovered. It is dated 1350-1450 and has a vibrating string length of 30-33cm, depending on bridge placement (the bridge became detached on impact and was found beside the instrument). This is the eastern European form of fretless gittern, the koboz or kobza. The surviving western European gittern was made by Hans Ott of Germany, c. 1450, and has a vibrating string length of 44cm.

Above, the 4 course gittern excavated from a latrine in the city of Elblag / Elbing, southeast of Danzig, Poland, and dated to c. 1350. Also found were a recorder and fidel. Vibrating string length of around 31cm. Below, 5 course gittern by Hans Ott, who made instruments in Nuremburg from 1432 to 1463. This instrument is dated to c. 1450, and is now in Wartburg, Eisenach, Germany. Vibrating string length of 44cm.
Above, the 3 course koboz excavated from a latrine in the city of Elblag/Elbing, southeast of Danzig, Poland, and dated to 1350-1450. Also found were a recorder and a fiddle. Vibrating string length of around 30-33cm, depending on bridge placement. Below, 5 course gittern by Hans Ott, who made instruments in Nuremburg from 1432 to 1463. This instrument is dated to c. 1450, and is now in Wartburg, Eisenach, Germany. Vibrating string length of 44cm.

Repertoire

We have no music for the gittern, or for virtually any other specific medieval instrument, but we do have clear indications of its repertoire from iconography. Because it was played with a quill or horn, we know it could only play single lines or adjacent courses. The fact that it duetted with and was tuned the same as the lute, but at a higher pitch, shows that it shared the lute’s repertoire. If the earliest lute repertoire we have, from the late 15th century, is a guide, then the gittern’s repertoire was also a mixture of secular love songs, religious music, dance music and ricercares (semi-improvised pieces upon a musical theme). We know from iconography that the gittern was played for singing, for religious purposes, for dancing, and in the service of official occasions. The fact that it was played by royal appointment must have meant that its repertoire included serious, artful and skilled music.

The many uses of a gittern. Top, left to right: Religious use, as seen on the Apostle's Door, Valencia Cathedral, Spain, 14th century. Royal service, a detail from Simone Martini, 14th century, Saint Martin is knighted. To accompany a singer, from The Ethics Of Aristotle, translated from Latin to French by Nicole Oresme in 1376 by order of King Charles V of France. Bottom left: To accompany dancing (left) and singing (right), a miniature from Romaun de la Rose (Romance of the Rose), France, c.1230–1275. Bottom right: Dancing, from the margin of a Flemish manuscript, 1338-44 (Bodl Lib 26).
The many uses of a gittern. Top, left to right: Religious use, as seen on the Apostles’ Door, Valencia Cathedral, Spain, 14th century. Royal service, a detail from Simone Martini, 14th century, Saint Martin is knighted. To accompany a singer, from The Ethics Of Aristotle, translated from Latin to French by Nicole Oresme in 1376 by order of King Charles V of France. Bottom left: To accompany dancing (left) and singing (right), a miniature from Romaun de la Rose (Romance of the Rose), France, c. 1230–1275. Bottom right: Dancing, from the margin of a Flemish manuscript, 1338-44 (Bodl. Lib. 26).

Courses

How was the gittern strung: how many strings, configured in how many courses? Put one way, the iconography is inconsistent; put another, there seems to have been no one standard way of stringing a gittern. We do have to be cautious with iconography, as medieval artists were often more concerned with creating an impression than with artistic realism, as we regularly see when the numbers of strings and tuning pegs don’t match. However, there is such a high degree of consistency within diversity that I’m inclined to suggest we can draw conclusions, and that standardisation was not on the mind of the medieval gittern player. This was certainly true of the medieval vielle, with its variety of stringing and tunings.

The survey of 12 images below is in chronological order.

GitternStringing
As with all pictures, click for larger view.

My formula below for the iconographical survey above shows number of courses = number of strings on 1st course + number of strings on 2nd course + etc., followed by the year and source.

Top row, left to right:
2c = 2+2 – 11th century. Bayeux Cathedral crypt, France.
3c = 1+1+1 – 1260–80. Cantigas da Santa Maria, Spain/Portugal.
4c = 3+2+2+2 – 1330. Master Juan Oliver, Cathédrale de Pampelune, Spain.
2c = 2+1 – early 15th century. French translation of Boccaccio Giovanni, De Mulieribus Claris, originally 1374.
2c = 3+2 – 14th century. Ormesby Psalter, Bodleian Library, Oxford, England.
3c = 1+3+3 – 14th century. Apostles’ Door, Valencia Cathedral, Spain.

Bottom row, left to right:
4c = 2+2+2+2 – 1312–1325. Simone Martini, Saint Martin is knighted, Italy.
4c = 2+2+2+1 – 1400–1424. Church of Saint Bonnet Le Château, Loire, France.
5c = 2+2+2+2+2 – 1460-1490. Master of the Lyversberger Passion, Germany.
3c = 1+2+2 – c. 1450. Window in Saint Mary Magdalene Church, Newark, England.
5c = 2+2+2+2+2 – c. 1450. Gittern by Hans Ott, Wartburg, Eisenach, Germany.
3c = 2+2+2 – 1480. Pere Serra, Virgin of the Angels, Catalonia.

We see from this survey that:

3 string gittern in Coronation of the Virgin by Fra Angelico, painted 1434-1435.
3 string gittern in Coronation of the Virgin by Fra Angelico, painted 1434-1435.
  • Gitterns could be strung in single, double or triple courses, sometimes mixed. Further iconography (example right) shows that single- and double-strung gitterns both continued into the 15th century.
  • A mixture of single, double or triple string courses were in use from the 14th century, the triple string course appearing on any of one or more courses, including the top course; with the single string appearing either on the top or the bottom course.
  • In the 14th century, 2, 3 and 4 course gitterns were played contemporaneously, the 2 course gittern becoming obselete in this period.
  • The first evidence of the 5 course gittern is the surviving instrument by Hans Ott, c. 1450.
  • The arrival of the 5 course gittern did not supersede 3 and 4 course gitterns.

What we make of this variety of stringing in terms of playing styles can only be speculative. The existence of the triple-string course is intriguing: was this 3 unison strings or 2 upper octaves and a lower octave, as on the later renaissance cittern? This may have depended on the course. It may be that a 3 string course was always in unisons on the first course, but possibly in octaves for lower pitches; or it may have been that octaves on any triple course, including the first, were there to enlarge the sound and introduce an element of re-entrant tuning. We lack evidence either way: the iconography is too imprecise and writers are silent on the issue. Johannes Tinctoris, composer and music theorist from the Low Countries, in his De inventione et usu musicae, 1481-1483, wrote of the “thinness of sound” of the gittern: was the triple-string course an attempt to thicken the timbre?

There is also a question of identification. As we have seen from the Elblag find, eastern Europe had (and still has) the fretless cousin of the gittern, the koboz or kobza. Some of the instruments shown above, such as those in the Bayeux Cathedral crypt and the Church of Saint Bonnet, appear to be fretless kobozs rather than fretted gitterns, suggesting that the koboz was also played in the west. Criteria for identification will be explored in a dedicated koboz article, to go online around March 2017.

Tuning

VielleGitternTuning
The tuning of the citole and gittern, as shown in the Berkeley Theory Manuscript, written before 1361.

There is only one piece of surviving evidence for 4 course gittern tuning, in a puzzlingly neglected source. The Berkeley Theory Manuscript was probably written by Johannes Vaillant, a 14th century Parisian music teacher, who died in 1361. His manuscript is a compendium of music theory, including drawings and tunings for the citole, gittern, harp and psaltery. The drawing of a gittern gives a tuning of e b f’ c’’, which is most odd, and is clearly wrong, since it is contradicted by the text. The citole is shown with a tuning of c d g c’, followed by the comment that the gittern tuning is the same, but with the 4th course loosened to a fourth below the adjacent course, clearly giving a tuning of A d g c’ (or an octave higher, depending on the size of the instrument). How was the mistake made on the drawing? If the e b f’ c’’ tuning is reversed to c f b e’ then we have a tuning entirely in fourths, as described in the text, if we also flatten the b and e. It appears that the author simply wrote the tuning backwards on the drawing and omitted the flats.

Iconography shows a smaller and larger gittern size and, at this point, absolute pitch was not fixed, so the important point is that the 4 course instrument was tuned entirely in fourths, as presumably were 2 and 3 course gitterns. This concurs with the anonymously authored Summa Musice, c. 1200 (probably French), which stated that fingerboard instruments were “tuned in the consonances of octave, fourth and fifth”.

This changed with the addition of a 5th course on the gittern, as it did on the related lute. In the early 15th century, the lute gained a 5th course. The evidence from manuscript witnesses indicates that some added the extra course at a higher pitch, some at a lower pitch. The adding of lower and lower pitches was a trend that was to continue for the next 2 centuries. By the time Johannes Tinctoris wrote his De inventione et usu musicae, 1481-1483, the gittern had also gained a 5th course (as we also see on the earlier Ott gittern, c. 1450) and the lute occasionally now had a 6th. Tinctoris stated that the gittern had “the same tuning and method of playing as the lute, though it is much smaller”. He described the tuning of 5 and 6 course lutes as fourths, except for an interval of a major third between courses 3 and 4, which was to be standard renaissance lute tuning. This, then, is also how the 5 course gittern was tuned. This means that both gitterns and lutes were tuned entirely in fourths until the advent of the 5th course, which added the ‘new’ interval of a major third between the third and fourth courses or, occasionally, between the second and third courses.

The end of the gittern

Gittern_MasterOfTheLyversbergerPassion1460-1490_detail (These gitterns uniquely have a glued bridge. An experiment or an artist's mistake?)
The gitterns in this detail from a painting by the Master of the Lyversberger Passion, Germany, 1460-1490, uniquely have glued bridges rather than floating bridges and hitch pins. It is impossible to know whether this was a luthier’s experiment, a gittern more in the style of the lute that was superseding it, or an artist’s mistake.

Iconography shows that the gittern thrived into the last quarter of the 15th century. Tinctoris testified that by then the gittern was “used most rarely”, and the lute was now beginning to be played in a new way, with the fingertips, displacing the long-established quill technique by c. 1500. This reflected a radical change in music-making, from the quill playing of either a single line, or a melody with a drone, or polyphony on adjacent courses, to complex and delicate polyphony and counterpoint on any course now possible with the freedom of independently playing fingers.

Gittern players did not make the transition from quill to fingers and the fuller sound of the lute was favoured, thus the gittern in the latter part of the 15th century gave way to the lute in this new style. The changeover was complete by 1500: there would be no more royally appointed gittern masters, as that role was now to be bestowed upon royally appointed lutenists across the courts of Europe.

Was this the end of the gittern? Yes and no. The gittern as such was no more by 1500, but there are good grounds for believing it continued in a modified form, as the renaissance and baroque mandore.

11 thoughts on “The gittern: a short history

  • 6th May 2016 at 6:41 pm
    Permalink

    The last image, in Ethics of Aristote, shows a white curved plectrum – in my opinion – erroneous interpretation of the finger played gittern : This probably never existed, especially because the gittern was played in a monodical way. Even in Italy, the finger played lute coming from Germany through the visit of Paumann in the 1470’s was seen as something very unusual … The “gittern” name was changed into “mandore” and was played (with quill) at royal court, see for instance the mandore music by Chancy for Louis XIII Court in France (1629). So not only lutenists, but also mandore players played at courts after 1500 and even after1600… Not to mention the mandolin (also with quill) in Paris around 1760-1780 … Not so easy … You should mention authors you use.
    Best regards.

    Reply
  • 8th May 2016 at 10:51 am
    Permalink

    Hello, JP, and thanks for your contribution. You’re quite right: the Ethics of Aristotle image does show a white curved plectrum, almost indistinctly drawn, not outlined as the rest of the illustration, and thus I missed it. I’m grateful to you for pointing it out. The gittern player in Giovanni Boccaccio’s De Mulieribus Claris, 1374, also has a thin and almost indistinct plectrum, drawn with an impossible hand shape which wouldn’t support it (though we’re asking a lot of medieval iconography to be 100% realistic).

    “the gittern was played in a monodical way.” Yes, the manner of playing almost demands it – almost – though some polyphony is possible with plectrum playing. I’ve written an article on this site linking the mandore with the gittern, but I don’t think it’s true to say, as you suggest, that “the “gittern” name was changed into “mandore””. In other words, there is an almost certain organological link, but I need to be convinced by evidence – which is lacking – that they were completely identical instruments. Indeed, they cannot have been identical since all gitterns were carved and mandores were made in both carved forms, like gitterns, and with multi-ribbed backs, like lutes.

    Occasionally, in these articles, I cite all my sources, particuarly in the long, detailed analyses. In these shorter articles I tend not to. The information citing sources such as Tinctoris, for example, is not hard to find. Sometimes the research is my own. I’ve never seen any article discuss the range of music played by the gittern or its stringing, so the work on gittern repertoire suggested by iconography, and the diversity of gittern stringing, is my own.

    My best wishes.

    Ian

    Reply
  • 9th May 2016 at 12:33 pm
    Permalink

    Dear Ian

    Thanks for your reply!

    About the thematic of tunings, plucking, organology compared to soprano lute, iconographical sources linked to the name, evolution to mandore, and repertoire proposal, I published in the French Lute Society an article in 1997, which is online here (sorry, in french): http://www.apemutam.org/instrumentsmedievaux/articles/bazinguitern.pdf

    This article has a short bibliography, and is not intended to contrafact Page, Young, Lockwood, Wright, Rey, Spring and others, but to summarize and complete information … For instance, the gittern picture in Barthelemy Langlais treatise had never been emphasized before … It is also quite short (publication driven) and does not go deeply into details of my research and understanding. Moreover, my knowledge has improved since 20 years, mostly through discussions with Basel school and the much better availability of sources online, and some ideas may be slightly modified or completed, but those newer thoughts are not written yet !

    Best regards, and again thank you for publishing about my favorite topic !!!

    Cheers

    Jean-Paul

    Reply
  • 15th October 2016 at 5:48 pm
    Permalink

    I made an attempt to write the mandore article on Wikipedi and to improve the gittern. I can’t say I am satisfied with the articles, but editorial limitations dictated I put in only what could be properly sourced. I was blown away by the beauty of your articles on the gittern and mandore. I just wanted to say that I have a new favorite place to read online.

    Reply
  • 16th October 2016 at 4:15 pm
    Permalink

    Jack, thank you so much – that’s very much appreciated. I agree that the mandore and gittern articles on Wiki, better now, have been hopelessly confused in the past, the sorts of articles that need starting again rather than rewriting, including the sorts of entirely erroneous statements that one could see someone would logically make if they didn’t know the subject properly. Thank you for the compliment and please keep up the good work. My best wishes. Ian

    Reply
  • 22nd October 2016 at 4:51 pm
    Permalink

    Ian, the history is fascinating, thank you. However this question is from a player, not an historian. Some years ago Paul Baker, who pointed me in your direction, made me a large 5 course gittern. After some debate I had it tuned ddaad’d’g’g’a’a”. It works, but my other string instrument is guitar and I have never become a fan of dad’g’a’ (and swapping between two string tunings and my wind instruments confuses my poor brain). I am about to restring and would like to get as close to conventional guitar tuning as I can. Assuming I keep the three middle pairs as they are, do you think it would work if I went for a lower e and an upper b’, i.e. ead’g’b’? Or are there any other possibilities? I pose the question without first trying it because nylgut strings are neither easily available nor cheap.
    My apologies to any purists who read this, but my understanding is that medieval musicians had a pretty cavalier attitude towards tuning.

    Reply
  • 23rd October 2016 at 8:11 pm
    Permalink

    Hello, Gordon.

    The dd aa d’d’ g’g’ a’a” tuning (is that final a” correct?) is close to the one I developed through experimentation – dd’ aa d’d’ g’g’ a’a’ – before I discovered that 5 course gitterns were in lute tuning, as indeed were 4 course gitterns, the difference being that 4 courses were entirely in fourths and 5 courses also had a third, as you’ll see below.

    You can, of course, tune a gittern in any way you want, but I can’t recommend this for a historical instrument. Your suggestion of e a d’ g’ b’ – guitar tuning – is close to lute tuning, as we know 5 course gitterns were tuned. Your historical choice on 5 course gittern would be between putting the third between courses 2 and 3 or between the more usual 3 and 4. On Paul Baker’s larger Ott size gittern with 5 courses, the pitches make more sense, I think, dropped a tone below your suggestion, i.e. d g b’ e’ a’, with the third between courses 3 and 4 and the rest in fourths. It’s likely that the bottom course, possibly the bottom 2 courses, were tuned on octaves.

    Nylgut strings are not especially expensive and are easily available from https://bridgewoodandneitzert.london/ who can also advise on gauges if you give them the vibrating string length. Decent strings are a good investment. I’ve almost never had a nylgut string break or go untrue. Those that have – very rarely – are the thinnest strings, which won’t apply in this gittern tuning. For thicker strings, such as the 5th course in this case, I would avoid overwounds at all costs, which neither look right nor make the right sound. Instead, go for the Savarez KF synthetic gut basses, which are excellent, and couple it with an octave string.

    I wouldn’t say it’s true that medieval musicians had a cavalier attitude towards tuning. From what we know, plucked instruments had standard tunings, based around various formations of fourths, fifths and octaves, depending on the particular instrument, and a range of scordatura, non-standard alternatives for particular pieces.

    If, like me, you’ve never been able to successfully slice a quill into a plectrum, I would highly recommend using an oud risha, which are available from several places, including Ebay. They provide just the right amount of flexibility and produce much better sounds from my gittern than either a whole quill or a guitar plectrum ever did in my earlier days of gittern experimentation.

    All the best with the stringing.

    Ian

    Reply
    • 23rd October 2016 at 9:46 pm
      Permalink

      Ian,

      I confess that my ddaad’d’g’g’a’a’ tuning was based on yours. I was then a little wary of strings in octave – at that time my only experience of non-standard guitar tuning was to drop the bottom string to d to play the Sarabande. I have an old guitar that owes me nothing so I’ll tune that dgb’e’a’ and see where we go from there. It will be single strings and will sound different but it will give me some idea of how the tuning falls under my fingers.

      It is a long time since I bought any nylgut, they do seem to last forever and I probably did it the hard way getting them from Italy. I’ll use the people you suggest. Quills are not a problem. My neighbour is a falconer and keeps me supplied with Eagle quills. However, when playing for my own pleasure I have been using a soft guitar pick, so I’ll get an oud risha. Cavalier attitude to tuning was badly phrased – my thought was that instruments were evolving and were locally made with corresponding local variations.
      Thank you for your response. It was very useful. The next few weeks should be interesting.

      Reply
  • 24th October 2016 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    My pleasure, Gordon. Yes, getting nylgut from Italy can be a long wait! I’m glad to be of service. If there are any further questions along the way, please do ask.

    All the best.

    Ian

    Reply
  • 24th October 2016 at 6:49 pm
    Permalink

    Going well so far – that tuning is much more natural for someone who started as a classical guitarist. Thanks

    G

    Reply
  • 26th October 2016 at 11:34 am
    Permalink

    That’s great, Gordon. You’ll probably find that the interval relationship between the third course and those either side – the equivalent of taking a guitar string from g to f# – makes some figures in 15th century music (as this is a 15th century tuning) much more logical to play.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *