On Nov 26, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Stewart McCoy wrote:
> 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?
I would say yes, we do. The evidence being that we ourselves do it
today. I realize that's not anything that a historian/musicologist
would be willing to accept as "evidence," but nevertheless if we are
going to evaluate our experience in the light of what people did
centuries ago, then we have to allow that evaluation to work both ways.
Our ideas are evolving, just as theirs did. We operate according to
our own 20th-century lute mythology: the "renaissance" meaning the
16th century; until quite recently the 58-60 cm 8-course lute in G
tuning as the standard all-purpose "default" renaissance lute; thumb-
under as the compulsory right-hand renaissance lute technique; FAP
("Fast-As-Possible") as the standard speed for all diminutions etc.
etc. And the evolutionary process continues: more recently, right-
hand fingers extended, and thumb sort of out?? but not quite?? as the
currently standard right-hand Baroque lute technique; plus we're
evolving single-strung archlutes and amplified lutes...all grist to
the mill of our modern-day myth-making.
So with regard to playing on 6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-whatever
courses, I believe it's completely valid historically to go with
whatever our personal preferences are.
DR
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
