"Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Anyway, this has been the argument, > but I'm not sure it is a show stopper, depending on why you want > to play the lute. I have two 8c ren lutes and there are times > when I would like to have 1 or two additional courses.
Agreed, the tone color of a well-designed 10c will vary from that of a well- designed 6c. But, not enough to be a major concern for someone not a professional. MOre important is the repetoire one wants to address. A shorter necked 6c instrument would be the choice of someone doing non-polyphonic or semi- polyphonic works rich in passagi; A large-bodied instrument for someone doing continuo and/or bass parts in ensemble. Some 9,10,11+ course pieces dont use all of the bass strings and can be adapted to an 8c by retuning; but your programme then has to allow the time to do that retuning. I would rather make my second and third instrument ones that contrasts by size or tone color - an orpharion, cittern, treble/bass lute. My first 'lute' was a lute-tuned classical guitar. The first lute I had access to was a loaner, a 7c by an unknown maker. The lute I now own is an 8c. I enjoy having the extra bass strings, but in reality they havent expanded the repetoire I do all that much (1600 and earlier). Hard to read your mind, and perhaps futile to try; a lot can be changed by chance encounters with exceptional performances of newly discoverd old material. > > ++You can think of the courses on a lute like tools in a toolkit. > If all you need are a few tools (e.g. 6 courses), why carry a large toolkit > (10c) to do a job that requires only a small one? > > And would it be any different if I "accidentally" didn't > bother to string the lower courses? > > ++You would be missing the advantages of a 10c lute. It might be OK > for practice. It would be like painting your gold medal flat black. > > I can see how it may not be desirable to go the other way--play X-course > music on 6-course instruments. > > ++You can come up with 6c versions of music written for 10c but > you will need to make some compromises and naturally you will need > to find another way to play it. It will be harder to play and it won't sound > as good. > > But since my having multiple lutes is not a > possibility in the near, intermediate, and probably even long-term future, > I'm trying to find a compromise that'll maximize the music I could play, > without doing undue violence to the musical text itself. > > ++What kind of music do you want to play? > > (Allow a me brief note on why lutes aren't popular in this day and > age. Instruments are expensive and fragile. > > ++Some of them are cheap. The problems are peg tuning, > > Repertoire is in a fairly unfamiliar idiom. > > ++With exposure to more lute music this problem goes away. > > I was originally put off guitar by the (relative > non-)complexity of having to choose 650 mm or 640 mm scale length, > cedar/spruce top, "country" vs. classical, and choice of back/side > wood. There's no decent lute tutor that I can find. > > ++There are books available on eBay. You can order very good > texts from various companies. I don't have time to write down all > the information, but email me if you want me to dig it up later. > I have five ren lute books, two in Italian and three in English. > > The instrument doesn't receive airplay or have superstars > prancing on stage--hunk, punk, or babe, variously. > > ++Thank God! Can you imagine Paul Odette "prancing" around > with a lute on stage? You can play or prance but not simultaneously. > > And, as Segovia is reported to have said, We live in a noisy age.) > > Tim B. > > Best > Marion > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > --
