Theo
I have only looked at the photos, obviously Mimmo Peruffo studied
the lutes at close quarters, and even I think played the Frei, as he
said it sounded beautiful. Thus, if he took the photo afterwards,
perhaps you can just make-out Mimmo's finger position ...
The fact these survived and have not been restored, could mean that
they only had one owner, and less wear, but not that they had not
been played at all. The wear marks seem fairly clear to me. The fact
that there is one clear mark on two of them, and a continuous mark on
the other, rather than two or three separate marks, could indicate
they had only had one player. I have no idea whether there are any
indications about the owners to be found at the museum.
These lutes would have been quite costly at the time when they were
baroqued. These were not Malers, but we do have the discussion by
Mace about two baroqued Malers.
Mace as you know says " There are diversities of Mens Names in Lutes;
but the Chief Name we most esteem, is Laux Maller, ever written with
Text Letters: Two of which Lutes I have seen (pittifull Old,
Batter'd, Crack'd Things) valued at 100 l. a piece. Mr Gootiere, the
Famous Lutenist in His Time, shew'd me One of Them, which the King
paid 100 l. for. (...). I have often seen Lutes of three or four pounds
price, far more Illustrious and Taking, to a common Eye".
We see that the king, and one of Jacques Gaultier's students bought
these lutes, not Gaultier, himself, who might have been showing the
same scorn about their pitiful state as Mace is doing here.
Nevertheless, the king and the wealthy student would have been taught
by Gaultier, and others like him. If they could afford the most
expensive lutes, they could afford the best teachers. One would
suppose the traces, they left would be very similar to those that
would have been made by Mr Gooti=E8re. That of course does not mean
they were good players, I would agree with you there.
Jacques did not just leave traces on lute bellies, by all accounts
(See Janet Snowman, in an article, dated December 2006, entitled
APOL LO Academy Pictures On-Line, Robert Spencer)
http://tinyurl.com/239h99
http://www.ram.ac.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FDD0941B-F4BC-41B9-B6C0-
BEDF2E6E3B4C/0/spencersheetfinal.pdf
where it is not question of << the goodness of his hands >> or his
delicate touch, but the quality of his dentition : << in 1643 a London
surgeon's casebook describe `Mr Ashberrie (a lutanist) at night was
bitten by Gottier, the French Luteniste in Covent Garden, had a piece
of his cheek bitten out, an inch or more down to the lower jaw. I
stiched it and dressed it'.
A little over literal in the practice of the mordent ?
Regards
Anthony
if what I see is a pattern of wear,
Le 17 dec. 07 =E0 12:35, T. Diehl-Peshkur a ecrit :
> Hello Anthony et al,
> I am very interested in this topic that is presently being
> discussed, but it
> reminds me a lot
> of the so-called =8Ccanals' on Mars that everyone insisted they
> saw, even
> though there was nothing there.
> Looking at the pictures here coldly and without any prejudice one
> way or
> another, I see nothing of the
> clarity in the points you mention.
>
> In fact all have vast areas of wear for various distances from the
> bridge,
> not particularized to just one small area.
> The newly discovered lute you show has so many scrapings along the
> soundboard from repairs and bridge
> adjustments that I could never say from the pictures anything about
> what is
> going on there.
>
> It is highly laudable to discuss these issues, please don't get me
> wrong.
> But I think we are going too far in
> assumptions.
>
> For me anyway, much more evidence comes from a more general
> standpoint:
> Playing nearer the bridge with the 11 course instruments: yes-
> that's clear
> in a general way by the pictorial evidence,
> and I think all using gut will agree to that unequivocally in terms
> of the
> kind of sound one can produce.
> However it only works when you don't need/require the ring finger.
> Once the ring finger is needed for arpeggios or special situations,
> the
> pinky near the bridge placement
> simply doesn't work. Even then, however, just moving a little bit
> away from
> the bridge is enough for a useful sound from the ring finger (for
> me: 1-2
> cm).
> And in later music there are enough examples where you have to- or
> otherwise
> stated, where the top players probably just did it anyway.
> As devil's advocate: We also have no idea if these lutes could have
> been
> owned by rank amateurs, who played three or four ditties on them
> constantly,
> or had poor techniques. Not every old instrument is useful or
> beautiful or
> informative just because it is old.
> I often suspect that the very best instruments, played by the top
> players
> disappeared first- played to shreds during their lifetime
> of performances and travel across Europe.
>
> I think going further than these =8Ctypes' of general statements,
> based solely
> on pics (and not the actual thicknesses of the worn out areas
> on the soundboard) is just too conjectural.
> Just my 2 cents of course, and positively meant!
> Cheers,
> Theo
>
>
>
> From: Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:08:34 +0100
> To: Robert Barto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: RH on the bridge?
>
> Robert
> I looked at the photos again, and noticed another variation apart
> from the one you mentionned which was as follows:
>
>> "Only the first is really close to the bridge. (1 and 3 are
>> relatively close):
>> 1) The first is the Hans Frei in Bologna; Matthias Fux/R=C3=B6m 1683'
>> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster1.JPG
>> 3) The third has no label
>> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster3.JPG
>>
>> 2 and 4 really not close to the bridge :
>>
>> 2) The second is a 'Magno dieffopruchar a venetia/1604 Matthias Fux/
>> R=C3=B6m. Kays. May- / Hoff-Lautenmacher in Wien 1685/
>> zuegericht'
>> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster2.JPG
>>
>> 4) The fourth is 'Jakob Wei=CE'/Lauthen-und Gei-/17 genmacher in
>> Saltzburg'. 13 course lute with broken bass rider
>> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster4.JPG
>>
>> But no sign of on the bridge or behind as one sees on many
>> portraits and instruments." RB
>
>
> First, I wonder whether this variation above is sufficient to
> consider it as relating to two different techniques: thumb completely
> out, thumb not completely out (but perhaps not in). other
> explanations seem possible.
>
> However, what surprises me, is that the last two (3 & 4) seem to
> have a very precise fixed finger position:
>
> 3) The third has no label
> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster3.JPG
>
> 4) The fourth is 'Jakob Wei=CE'/Lauthen-und Gei-/17 genmacher in
> Saltzburg'. 13 course lute with broken bass rider
> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster4.JPG
>
> This would seem to imply that any sound variation would be obtained
> by swivelling the hand, but keeping the little finger firmly placed;
> while the first two show a longish patch showing a more variable
> little finger position:
>
> 1) The first is the Hans Frei in Bologna; Matthias Fux/R=C3=B6m 1683'
> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster1.JPG
>
> 2) The second is a 'Magno dieffopruchar a venetia/1604 Matthias Fux/
> R=C3=B6m. Kays. May- / Hoff-Lautenmacher in Wien 1685/
> zuegericht'
> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster2.JPG
>
> This could show that sound variation was obtained by a movement on
> the soundboard, the finger not fixed.
>
> However, this interpretation implies that the lute was played by only
> one person. Can we be sure about that? Might the lutes 1 & 2 have
> been played by more than one person, but the lutes 3 and 4 by only
> one?
> The fact that there is no break in the moveable position could
> indicate that it WAS the same player.
>
> If the two positions: close to the bridge (1 and 3), but not so close
> to the bridge (2 and 4), could perhaps be explained by a player
> adapting to string type or tension or because of hand size, or
> perhaps thumb out (1 & 3), not so far out (2 & 4); however, the fixed
> finger (3 & 4), moveable finger (1&2) difference, can't be given such
> an explanation, and must surely imply two different playing
> techniques.
>
> The problem is that the little finger swivel, or glide techniques do
> not correspond to the "close to the bridge less close to the bridge
> position".
> It would have been easier to fathom had there been a coincidence
> between the two. Then we would clearly have two globally different
> techniques.
> Anthony
>
>
> Le 16 dec. 07 =E0 21:55, Robert Barto a ecrit :
>
>> Anthony,
>>
>> Thank you very much for these pictures.
>>
>> What's actually interesting about them is how two are close to the
>> bridge
>> and two are not. Only the first is really close to the bridge. (1
>> and 3 are
>> relatively close, 2 and 4 really not.) But no sign of on the
>> bridge or
>> behind as one sees on many portraits and instruments.
>>
>> So what does this tell us?
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
>
> --
--
