I was rather thinking of a singer being accompanied by a single lute, in which 
perhaps the choice of lute might be secondary and determined by the best range, 
and tonal agreement with the singer. In the case of a singer adapting to an 
orchestra, I imagine you would be right.

Anthony



----- Mail original -----
De : Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
À : William Samson <willsam...@yahoo.co.uk>; "baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" 
<baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>; Anthony Hind <agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
Cc : 
Envoyé le : Mardi 29 Novembre 2011 12h58
Objet : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392


   Dear Anthony,

   Unless outside their range, won't singers simply transpose to fit with
   the key/pitch of the accompaniment rather than the band having to
   change instruments?

   regards

   Martyn
   --- On Tue, 29/11/11, Anthony Hind <agno3ph...@yahoo.com> wrote:

     From: Anthony Hind <agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
     Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392
     To: "William Samson" <willsam...@yahoo.co.uk>,
     "baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" <baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
     Date: Tuesday, 29 November, 2011, 11:41

   For accompanying singers, also, the answer, unfortunately, is to have a
   number of different sized lutes.
   Anthony
   ----- Mail original -----
   De : William Samson <[1]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk>
   A : Anthony Hind <[2]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>; sterling price
   <[3]spiffys84...@yahoo.com>
   Cc : "[4]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
   <[5]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   Envoye le : Mardi 29 Novembre 2011 10h27
   Objet : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392
      As far as I can see the only show-stopper for a lute tuned to 392Hz
   is
      ensemble work, when the other musicians are tuned to a higher pitch
      standard - usually 415Hz.  That's where a 66cm baroque lute would be
      useful.  Having said that, not many lutes that small have survived.
   Of
      course, the old guys (unlike me) might have been able to transpose a
      semitone up without any trouble.
      Bill
      From: Anthony Hind <[6]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
      To: sterling price <[7]spiffys84...@yahoo.com>
      Cc: "[8]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
   <[9]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
      Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2011, 9:06
      Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392
        My 70 cm Warwick works well at 392Hz. While going from 407Hz to
      392Hz,
        I wanted to raise the tension of the basses slightly, so I just
      shifted
        them along one increment (C1 to D2 etc). However, I changed most
   of
      the
        mid and top strings.
        The basses were two years old, but still seem good.
        A smaller lute, as Ed suggests, might be better at 415.
        Anthony
        PS My intuition might be that certain pieces are better played at
      392,
        but perhaps not all.

   __________________________________________________________________
        De : sterling price <[1][10]spiffys84...@yahoo.com>
        A : howard posner <[2][11]howardpos...@ca.rr.com>; baroque lute
   list
        <[3][12]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
        Envoye le : Mardi 29 Novembre 2011 5h18
        Objet : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392
          Hi-After just playing it now, I like the basses but the 1st and
          2nd courses could be higher tension of course so I think I will
   go
        that
          way.
          Just curious--how many of you are playing baroque lutes at
   A=392? I
          think it works quite well on a larger lute, but I'm not
   convinced
      it
          should be done on a smaller lute(ie below 69cm). My 70.5cm
      Burkholzer
          will stay at 415.
          -Sterling
          From: howard posner <[1][4][13]howardpos...@ca.rr.com>
          To: baroque lute list <[2][5][14]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
          Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 7:15 PM
          Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392
          On Nov 28, 2011, at 5:15 PM, sterling price wrote:
          > My question is: should I
          >  just tune the same 415 strings down or get a new set of
   strings
        for
          >  392?
          Yes.  Those are pretty much the only two options.
          > Right now it is at 392 but I'm wondering if it might sound
   better
          >  with new strings. Any thoughts?
          Do you like it at 392 now?
          --
          To get on or off this list see list information at
          [3][6][15]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
          --
        --
      References
        1. mailto:[7][16]howardpos...@ca.rr.com
        2. mailto:[8][17]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
        3. [9][18]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
      --
   References
      1. mailto:[19]spiffys84...@yahoo.com
      2. mailto:[20]howardpos...@ca.rr.com
      3. mailto:[21]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
      4. mailto:[22]howardpos...@ca.rr.com
      5. mailto:[23]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
      6. [24]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
      7. mailto:[25]howardpos...@ca.rr.com
      8. mailto:[26]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
      9. [27]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=willsam...@yahoo.co.uk
   2. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoo.com
   3. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=spiffys84...@yahoo.com
   4. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   5. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   6. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoo.com
   7. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=spiffys84...@yahoo.com
   8. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   9. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
  10. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=spiffys84...@yahoo.com
  11. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=howardpos...@ca.rr.com
  12. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
  13. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=howardpos...@ca.rr.com
  14. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
  15. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
  16. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=howardpos...@ca.rr.com
  17. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
  18. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
  19. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=spiffys84...@yahoo.com
  20. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=howardpos...@ca.rr.com
  21. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
  22. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=howardpos...@ca.rr.com
  23. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
  24. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
  25. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=howardpos...@ca.rr.com
  26. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
  27. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html



Reply via email to