As far as technique is concerned, I wonder if there ever was an historical concensus on how the lute should be played. Sometimes it seems there are as many approaches to technique as there are lutenists and everybody's complaining about how the other guy plays. Kind of like today. So, I guess my question is, "Is there an "Historical Lute" that can be contrasted to a "Modern Lute" as far as technique is concerned?" Does not every modern approach have a precedent in history, i.e. thumb under v. thumb out, nails v. flesh, hand extended v. hand near bridge, etc?
Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tayler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:11 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Capirola question, now lute & classical guitar > Stephan hat geschrieben: > As far as I can see, lute and guitar are as separated in the > conservatories and so on as > cembalo and piano, probably even more, because you still have some > pianists who > occasionaly try to accompany someone on the cembalo. While we usually > think that the HIP > movement has resulted in a gap between lute and classical guitar, > it's interesting to see that > it still can be reasonable to play lute instruments with guitar > technique (with only minor > adjustments). > > DT writes: > I think these are very interesting and important points, but it is > perhaps not an either/or scenario. Of course it is reasonable to play > any way you wish. Obviously, there is no real authenticity police, > and that's a good thing. On the other hand, the rise of the > professional class has for better or for worse created a situation in > which historical performance per se is in the minority at the > orchestra level, yet still persists in lute circles and other circles > as well. One of the beauties of the movement is that it embraces such > a wide field of diverse & interesting viewpoints. > If we consider for a moment that HP (setting aside HIP as it has no > real antonym) represents a broad spectrum of possibilities, we see at > one end the "As Historical as Possible" (must be AHAP) and at the > other end, modern techniques, literature and materials. Many players > fall somewhere in between--thumb under, modern strings. Some players > go the historical limit, including raising their own sheep. Others > like the convenience and sound of modern developments. > But this is the strength of the instrument. > In this respect, it may be, and this is a point of debate, that the > parallel is not harpsicord and piano at all, but modern recorder vs > historical recorder, modern cello vs historical cello, and, of course > modern lute and historical lute. > Most "baroque" orchestral string players play hybrid instruments: > heavier bows, half modern strings, etc. > The extension of the professional movement results in the > disappearance of the AHAP instruments. For example, almost all > recorders have modern windways and fingerings because the originals > are too soft for modern use. The may look like old instruments, but > they are a fusion of old and new. A famous recorder builder once told > me he had not made a narrow windway recorder in twenty years. > The lute is one of the few instruments where you still see a very few > historical style instruments and players, but this is mostly for solo > repertory, songs & duets. The old style theorbos with gut strings, > often with double courses (though not always), have been replaced by > high tension, single strung instruments, mostly strummed, where the > loud instrument gets the gig, ironically in a way similar to the way > Stradivarius usurped Steiner. > > I think the conservatory is really the only institution that keeps > the historical side alive, and so the separation is good, others may > feel differently; in the US if I spent $40,000 at a conservatory I > would want a job when I got out. > > It may ultimately be a sign of progress if the lute & ren/baroque/ec > guitar takes the stance that there is modern lute and historical > lute, and things in between. Why shouldn't someone be able to really > study modern lute (including Hindemith's Concerto, although I suppose > there would be those who would play it on a Hauser), and seriously > include contemporary music? At the Hague, it is expected that people > play both modern and historical recorder, and the juxtaposition in > style & sound throws the differences in the instruments into relief. > Not to mention that the most progressive of the modern lutes is far > more suited to play in a modern orchestra. I know there is some work > being done in this area, but it could be widely formalized. > This would then free the modern lute to explore extended techniques, > as is done with all other instruments, recorder, harpsichord, etc. > Certainly the result has been for the recorder that the historical > end is, if anything, now more developed. > > So I think it is good that there is a refuge from professionalism of > sorts in Conservatory, and it not only reasonable but practical to > explore other options. I think we need a formal modern lute (which I > would argue we already have), and that such an idea would be good for > all aspects of the lute/guitar. Others may feel it is all one lute. I > do think we have to get away from any idea that one style is better, > or more "authentic", that is the undercurrent that prevents us from > exploring all the possibilities of the instrument, limiting us > somewhat to Historically Blurry Performances. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.10.11/909 - Release Date: 7/20/2007 4:39 PM > >
