https://theguitar-blog.com/?p=4123&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=robert-de-visee-and-the-french-tuning Blog by the guitarist Nacho Bellido Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:58:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 https://theguitar-blog.com/?p=4123#comment-115199 Monica Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:58:16 +0000 http://theguitar-blog.com/?p=4123#comment-115199 This article is seriously inaccurate and misleading. The translations of De Visee's French preface are simply wrong. It is quite clear that the pieces in staff notation in the book are the originals and De Visee has arranged them for guitar, transposing them where necessary to fit the compass of the guitar which is only two octave - from G to g". Eisenhardt's suggestion that what De Visee means is "You should at least add a low octave string to the fourth course - even though it may be more costly than the kind of strings you are used to" is disingenious. De Visee has not said anything of the sort. The rest of the article is confusing drivel. There is no doubt whatsoever that the "French" tuning is the one that De Visee and his contemporaries always used. This article is seriously inaccurate and misleading. The translations of De Visee’s French preface are simply wrong. It is quite clear that the pieces in staff notation in the book are the originals and De Visee has arranged them for guitar, transposing them where necessary to fit the compass of the guitar which is only two octave – from G to g”. Eisenhardt’s suggestion that what De Visee means is “You should at least add a low octave string to the fourth course – even though it may be more costly than the kind of strings you are used to” is disingenious. De Visee has not said anything of the sort. The rest of the article is confusing drivel. There is no doubt whatsoever that the “French” tuning is the one that De Visee and his contemporaries always used.

]]>