Dear All,
Unlike many of the contributors to this thread, I don't have a
problem with 8-course lutes. They suit Terzi and Molinaro, of
course, but you can use them to play earlier music like Capirola,
and to some extent later music where nine or ten courses are
required. If you want to buy many instruments, by all means buy a
6-course for Milano, a 7-course for (some) Dowland, an 8-course
for Terzi, a 9-course for Francisque, a 10-course for Vallet, and
then splash out on an 11-course for Mouton, a 12-course for
Wilson, and a 13-course for Weiss. Why stop there? Why not spend a
few more thousand quid on various sorts of theorbo and archlute,
and throw in a mandora or two?
If, instead, you want to compromise, and not fill your house with
lutes, simply buy one 8-course lute, at least to start with.
Having low F and D as open strings is useful for Dowland, you
don't have the complexities of a lute with lots of strings, and
you can happily play anything from the 16th century. If a note is
too low for one's instrument, either play it an octave higher, or
re-tune the lowest course down a tone (e.g. 8th-course D to C), as
Capirola did (from 6th-course G to F).
More significant than the number of strings, is the tuning of the
strings, i.e. whether or not to tune the 4th and 5th courses in
octaves. That makes far more difference to the sound than the
number of courses.
If I might add to what Ron has written, the heart-shaped Pesaro
manuscript copied in the 15th century, contains music for a 7-
course instrument; the music in Osborn fb7 is for a 7-course lute,
and dates from about 1630. Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme
chose. Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist
refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses
more than necessary?
Best wishes,
Stewart McCoy.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Andrico"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "G. Crona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Bocchicchio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:42 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Dear Michael, G=F6ran & all:
While G=F6ran gives an eloquent summary of our received notion of
the development multiple courses on lutes throughout the 16th
century, there is evidence that the matter was not quite so
clearly defined. No surprise.
H. Colin Slim, in his excellent article, 'Musicians on
Parnassus,' (Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 12 (1965), pp.
134-163) describes the poem Monte Parnasso by Philippo Oriolo da
Bassano. Bassano appears to outdo Rabelais' Pantagruel in the
art of name-dropping within the poem, which Slim dates to circa
1519-1522.
Cantos XIX, XX and XXI name several theorists, composers and
instrumentalists, including Spinacino and Francesco da Milano,
Canto XX describes a contest between two lutenists playing lutes
with 13 and 17 strings. Presumably, the poet was counting
individual strings of the courses. Slim notes that Sebastian
Virdung also mentions lutes with fourteen strings as early as 1511.
We seem to have a collective need to create neat categories and a
progression of events for historical music but the real story is
always less systematic and more complex.
Best wishes,
Ron Andrico
http://www.mignarda.com
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:48:43 +0100> To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?>
> Hi Michael,> > when I got my first lute in the early 80's,
after playing lute music on> guitar since the early 60's, my
teacher recommended an 8-course, arguing in> favour of a
versatile instrument which could be used for a time span of>
roughly the whole 16th century. As you know, course development
was roughly:> 6c - ca. 1500-ca. 1575; 7c - ca. 1565 - 1590; 8c -
ca. 1585 - 1600; 9c - ca.> 1600 - 1615; 10c ca. 1615 - 1630; 11c
- thereafter aso. (with slight> overlappings).> > For me, the
switch from 6 string guitar to 8 course lute was a _steep_>
learning curve, with the thumb under and all. Not so much for
the left as> for the right hand. After several years of
unsatisfying trial, I decided,> that my synapses were not coping
and that I wasn't enjoying it very much, in> spite of the
"silvery sound", so I s!
old the instrument although it was a> very fine one.> > I've
often held the view on this list, that for a lute novice, or the>
transition from guitar should preferably be to a 6c (or a 7c with
the 7th> removed) and playing the 1500 to ca. 1570 repertory.
After a year or two,> when the hands have been properly trained,
and are familiar with the> instrument, one could progress to 7c
for a year and then 8c for a year and> so on. In this way the
student will have a natural progression, and at the> same time
get familiar with the repertory and all its characteristics for>
the different epochs and regional differences. The 6c will be
much easier to> play on, and therefore give a higher feeling of
mastering it all and> consequently be more rewarding. The ground
work will then be set, and I > believe that further development
will be quicker and more effective.> > Others will perhaps argue,
that you can remove the 7th and 8th course in the> beginning and
add them when progressing wh!
ich is certainly an option, but I> think that there are many o!
ther iss
ues when approaching the music, which> speak for playing on the
right instrument. (Right number of courses, right> width and
breadth of neck aso. although again, some will argue that there >
never was any "right" measures, and that lutists/lutenists in
those days > differed as much then as they do now.)> > But IMV
all this talk about HIP somewhat looses its meaning, if not
played> on an instrument for which the music was intended. I also
think that much of> the virtuoso polyphonic music beginning
around ca. 1560 should be played on> a smaller, perhaps even
descant lute, as the stretches are sometimes> forbidding on an
instrument with a long mensur, however better the sound.> > So to
answer your question plainly: Yes, the eight course is best
suited for> a short span of english and italian music in the last
decade of the 16th> century. The reasons for it becoming the
instrument par exellence for> beginners today might have
something to do with the lute-revival in the> early t!
o mid 20th c. starting mainly in England, (but I'm on thin ice>
there), and the traditional belief thereby to be getting a
versatile > instrument where the advantages excel the drawbacks.>
> If the student plans to go into lute playing seriously, and not
just as a> "nice pastime", get a 6 - or 7c first, and that will
work much better and be> both more enjoyable and lead to more
effective learning in the long run.> > If you prefer Baroque,
(and this indeed seems to be the preference nowadays,> at least
with the posters on this list) I don't know if it would perhaps
be> better to get an 11 - course from the start and just learn to
cope with all> the extra courses, or spend a couple of years on a
6 course first, to get> the bearings. As I've never played an 11
- 13 course lute, others will have> to give feedback on that.> >
IMV there is much to be gained from following the epochs
consequently,> starting with early Renaissance and progressing
from there. The pieces are> often m!
ore suited for a beginner but still musically rewarding. This !
way one>
will be able to understand the development as it occurred and
probably> become a more "compleat musitian".> > B.R.> > G.> >
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Bocchicchio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>> Sent:
Monday, November 26, 2007 7:24 AM> Subject: [LUTE] Is 8c really
the standard?> > > >> > People who have purchased lutes from me
in the past have all come to me> > with the common wisdom that
the 8c. is the standard. Why would this be?> > Is it true now?
Was it true in the past or something like that?> > Furthermore,
for who? A first time buyer? A graduate school student> >
studying guitar , who will only need one lute to complete the
Masters> > program requirements? A Renaissance Fair performer? I
wonder if this> > notion is a holdover from a time when
historical or true> > lutes were hard to come by and players had
to chose instruments for their> > versatility rather than for
their appropriateness for a given period of> > music.> >!
In fact, it seems to me that the greater body of Renaissance
lute music is> > for 6 and 7c instruments. Eight course music
seems limited to the very> > end of the 16th century, and mostly
English. French music seems to jump> > from 7c to 10c beginning
with Francisque c.1600. I'm not quite sure about> > how the dates
went for Italy, Netherlands, and Germany, but it would> > seem
that 8c music is a small body of music by comparison, no? If I
have> > made too gross a generalization or am just plain wrong,
please correct me.> > Even as an amateur player, I know that the
instrument needs to fit the> > music---why would you want the
sympathetic ring of an 8c when playing> > Milan? As a luthier, I
fined that the popular 58-62cm instruments do> > best as 6 and 7
courses as a large bridge can choke a small sound board.> > I
would think a 7c at 62-63cm is a good way to go, but appear to be
"going> > against the grain".> > If an 8c is "the standard", can
someone explain this to me?> !
>> > --> >> > To get on or off this list see list information !
at> > ht
tp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html> >> >
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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database:
269.16.7/1151 - Release Date: 11/25/2007 4:24 PM
