Martin as usual has it exactly right historically. 6,9,10 BTW, years ago I wrote about a Dowland piece in Francisque (Pipers Galliard), does anyone know if it has been recorded? I'm sure it has, I just don't have a big CD collection (cheap).
dt At 01:13 AM 11/28/2007, you wrote: >Dear All, > >It seems I am not alone amongst lutemakers in questioning the >motives of my customers when they say they want an 8c lute. There >still seems to be an assumption that a 60cm 8c lute is what everyone >should have first, before they branch out into other types. > >As has already been said, 6c lutes cover virtually the whole of the >"renaissance" lute repertoire, so a 6c lute is an obvious first choice. > >If you really want to play all those difficult 7c pieces (Forlone >Hope, etc.) you need 7 courses, not 8. A 7c lute can be OK for >earlier music too, especially since there is evidence of 7c lutes >going right back to the late 15th C. The style of the instrument >and the barring/thicknessing might become issues, though. > >As has been said, there is not much music specifically for 8c - two >big collections which come to mind are Reymann and Molinaro, and >Terzi's second book. The main reason for having the extra course is >surely to have both the F and D available all the time, but you pay >a price in extra string tension, longer bridge, and greater >"stiffness" in sound, especially on a small lute. > >9c lutes have been almost overlooked in modern times, but were >clearly very common around 1600. Francisque (1600), Besard (1603), >Dowland (1604), Dd.9.33, Fuhrmann (1615), Margaret Board - it's a long list. > >10c lutes have probably less repertoire than 9c, but maybe not if >you include all the "transitional tunings" stuff which is mostly >hidden away in manuscripts. Incidentally I wonder if Kapsberger >actually wrote for a liuto attiorbato, as he uses an 11th course >once and although the classic liuti attiorbati have 14 courses I'm >sure they existed with less. If I remember correctly, Piccinini's >only had 13 courses, with the 13th tuned to a high note to fill in >missing chromatics. > >As for size of lute, the idea that lutes have to be "in G" still >seems to have a real stranglehold (remember all this stuff about >putting a capo on a guitar so it's at "lute pitch"?). We know lutes >existed in a variety of sizes, and now that we have started to >explore the bigger sizes we're beginning to learn that often bigger >is better. Anything which is difficult on a 60cm lute is still >difficult on a 67cm lute, but still possible. When I made a 76cm >lute a while ago I discovered that I could play almost any solo >music on it, and it sounded wonderful. My conclusion is that we >should be much more flexible about what we consider normal. > >And don't get me on to the sizes of theorboes, ebony veneers, or >unison vihuela stringing..... > >Best wishes, > >Martin > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
