I'm not sure just how an eight course instrument is going to slow you down?
Is it not a matter of not playing the strings you do not use or need at the
time? In theory, if not fact, it is possible to play many Lute pieces on a
six course instrument and never play the sixth or even the fifth course for
that matter and this does not seem to be an issue.
So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument
can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six
course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a
large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you
down physically but musically is another question.
The Lute is what it is, and as such it is an instrument possessing many
strings. If anyone is going to progress beyond the first part of the
Sixteenth Century they are going to have to deal with "many strings".
I want to add something here: I am not challenging anyone to a flame war.
I know it is hard to tell tone of voice from an email and depending on the
passion one has for a certain subject words are often taken as challenges
when they are not meant to be such. So all due respects to all who have
contributed to this discussion, I respect both you and your opinions.
VW
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Tayler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:06 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
As a musicologist, I think Martin has such a lucid description that
I'm totally persuaded.. And rereading all the insights I can tell
that ppl have really thought this through.
The only thing I would add, purely subjective, is that as a
performer, a question:
Will the 8 course slow you down in the long run?
And my experience is that it does, if that is your main lute.
Again, everyone is different.
But I think it changes the idea of practicality versus authenticity
to practicality versus deveolping skill.
I'm not saying that you can't be a great artist on an 8c, I think it
just isn't the best tool for the job.
Having said that, if you have a really nice 8c, don't trade it in for
an Aria. And there are some pieces that it is great on.
dt
At 03:04 PM 11/28/2007, you wrote:
I agree to a point David, I think a six course instrument strung in
the Continental style will probably be a better choice for F.
DaMilano's music. But; try playing Molinaro's music on that
instrument and you miss a lot of the music played in the base
registers. My point is that in an ideal world we would all have
every Lute configuration possible so that we could do justice to
every piece of music we encounter.
Knowing that most of us do not have the financial resource with
which to explore such an approach we have to find what is within our
means and go with that until fate or fortune provides us with better
options. For me that option is in making my own instruments---but
not everyone can do that either. By the way I did not say they were
any good they simply suit my needs for now.
VW
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Rastall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "vance wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lute List" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:37 PM, vance wood wrote:
The "We" we are discussing happen to be a group of Historically
Correct Mavens that look at the issues of historical correctness
more closely than we look at the practicality of the things at hand
Hi Vance,
Certainly we've all been known to do that at times. But it seems to
me (the Great Disclaimer) that generally speaking (another Great
Disclaimer) most HIP afficionados will take historical purism as far
as it takes to satisfy their intellectual curiosity, and beyond that
will do exactly what musicians have always done: whatever's
necessary to make good music. In other words, every musician starts
with the specifics of his or her chosen instrument, and will sooner
or later move on to the general considerations of "good music" in
whatever guise they choose to play it in. That's my belief anyway.
This whole discussion about 8-c lutes seems to be two-pronged: our
sense of historical correctness vs. our personal musical
preferences. I guess my point is that I don't see those two things
as incompatible.
David Rastall
; like the number of strings on our respective Lutes. If I could
get a decent sound out of a wooden cigar box strung with rubber
bands I might be tempted to play the thing, lacking anything more
musical to accomplish the task of playing a tune thought not
suitable for the instrument at hand.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Rastall"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lute Net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:37 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
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.
--
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: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date:
11/28/2007 12:29 PM
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date:
11/28/2007 12:29 PM
