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
--
