Dear Daniel and All, I think most people would agree with Bob Spencer's (1976!) article that there are two things called "archlute". One is the Italian solo lute of the 17th century, typically 58/85cm with 14 courses (*all* double, according to surviving examples). The other is the continuo instrument, a converted lute with a theorbo neck and typically 67/140cm with 6 double strings on the fingerboard and 8 single basses. To me these are not interchangeable. The sound of the long single basses on the continuo lute is quite different from the shorter octaved basses on the little liuto attiorbato, and this is a serious problem when the bass and treble are widely separated and a "hole" appears in the middle of the music, a hole which is filled by the upper octaves of the basses on the small lute. I know Paul used to play a little lute with single basses but I don't know what the historical precedent for it is. The instruments made in Venice in the 1630s and 40s by Matteo Sellas and his workshop seem to me to epitomise this kind of lute and as far as I know they were all double strung throughout (and no overspun basses, of course....).
Best wishes, Martin Daniel Shoskes wrote: > I am currently having an archlute built for me and at the LSA I asked Paul > O'Dette for any advice on specifications, since he has an archlute by the > same builder. Interestingly, POD suggested single stinging as an option. Now > I don't know whether that recommendation was because of my personal > circumstances (amateur player, won't travel with it so size not a big > concern, used mostly for continuo and not solo (unless Sting asks me!)) or > whether he considered this a reasonable option for anyone. > > In the end I opted for the more conventional 1x1, 2x5, 1x8 approach. > > DS > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
