Chris, Danny, Dan, et al, Very well stated!! Ditto!! I am surprised at some of the remarks, although very friendly & civil, of disdain for 8 course lutes, as only Molinaro or Terzi used them. For example, labeling it inappropriate to play Dowland on an 8 course lute, in that 7 course lutes were used.
I did have an 8 course lute built 5 years ago, and I enjoy it very much. As Dan Winheld said, he views his 8 course lutes as "double 7 course lutes". Very clever Dan, but there is a tone of seriousness to his remark.. In general, much of Dowland and other Elizabethan composers used a comparative low D, where the continental used a comparative low F. I did own a 7 course lute, but I had difficulty in reconciling the 7th course, so after I had the 8 course lute built, I liked it much better, as I had the choice of either the F or the D without having to compromise the tuning or tension, either way, or having to finger the 7th course to get the bass F from D. So, in my viewpoint, it works for 7 course music for both Elizabethan _and _continental lute music of that time. While not having the historical perfection some are implying, it is a wonderful compromise, in my book. Why should I limit my repertoire because I do not have a 6 or 7 course lute, when I can play it all? I recorded my French renaissance CD on that instrument, in all gut, with octaves starting at the 4th course, and of all the comments I received about that recording (hundreds of comments), nobody commented that, "You should have used a 6 course lute". If I owned one, I would have used one. With the gut basses, it really sounds no different than a 6 course lute (I tried many of the same model, by the same builder). What _IS _important is how it was strung, in terms of string material (gut) and pitch (octaves starting at the 4th course). Paul O'Dette plays 8 course lutes, and so does Hopkinson Smith. Are they wrong? On a King's Noyse CD, PO'D used an 8 course lute for French renaissance pieces. If I wanted to play all the renaissance repertory using only strictly the correct instrument, I would have to have a 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 course lute. I have not the money, or space to store them! As Chris states, some of the very "lute gods" thinking strictly that "only a certain number of courses can be used for certain repertoire" play on wound or overspun strings, using nylon, nylgut, or carbon strings. Given the choice, I opt for a beautifully played 8 course lute well strung in gut over a less beautifully played 7 course on synthetic strings. Let us not get stuck on the idea that only 1 kind of lute can be used for certain repertoire. That is too limiting. Great discussion! ed At 02:16 PM 11/29/2007 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Wayne, > > > Yes and no. Certainly, lutenists of the past were >not into "early music" the way we are now, but many of >the "greatest hits" of past eras remained popular well >into periods in which the mainstream style - or the >lute itself - was quite different. > > Just look at the Augsberg manuscript that contains >most of the works of Hagen. This very late collection >contains "La Belle Homicide" by Denis Gaultier. This >is at least a hundred years out of date - and talk >about stylistic dissonance! Gallot shows up in the >London manuscript, too. This would be like a someone >today having a song by T-Pain and the Tin Pan Alley >song, "Shine Little Glow Worm" on his or her iPod. Of >course, there are other examples - Francesco's music >outlasted the six-course lute for which he wrote. > > I also believe this road of super-specialization >(i.e. _must_ use a 7-course for this piece, _only_ a >9-course for this..., etc.) is an _extremely_ >dangerous road to go down for the entire field. Its >great to really get into a particular style or >composer. Ideally the insights gained by spending a >lot of time with one period or lute should help you >grow as a performer and strengthen your skills with >other repertoire. I've always believed that variety >is the spice of life. However, when we specialize TOO >much all we really end up doing is boxing ourselves >in. How can you program a whole concert that >features, for example, "Italian Music, 1538-42" or >"German Music, 1712-20" and have it interest anyone >but diehard specialists? I personally love music from >both of these periods, but I have to confess that a >whole concert of either puts even a fan like me in the >mood to snooze after about 20 minutes. > >This also starts to sound ominously like the >philosophy laid out in Milton Babbitt's 1958 essay >"Who Cares If You Listen?" (interestingly, the >original title was "The Composer as Specialist") >stating that it didn't matter if a regular audience of >Joe Blows related to a composition at all: what >mattered was that the piece remained faithful to a >system of arbitrarily selected parameters that were >academically accepted by a small group of >self-appointed cognoscenti. Well, were is Babbitt's >music today? If a student tried to major in >composition at a university in 2007 and submitted >pieces with the application inspired by Babbitt's >parameters they'd be laughed out of the room. And >were is this style of music on the concert stages? > > Too much artificially academic specialization has >lead to the absolute downfall of contemporary music in >its entirety as a legitimate cultural force. >Contemporary classical music is still present at the >university level were it is supported by grants and >endowments as if it were some kind of research rather >than art. But no one really pays it much attention or >respect. (I've played on contemporary music festivals >where the paid professional performers literally just >barely restrained themselves from laughing during the >performance. On this list, I can't repeat some of the >words used in rehearsals, but the phrase "this piece >makes me want to puke" shows very regularly.) > > The fortunes of early music seemed to have wained >in the past ten years or so. Why draw a line in the >sand about something as trivial as whether having an >extra two strings on your instrument is an offence >against the lute gods or whether you may allow your >eyes to stray forward or back ten or twenty years >along the time line? > > >Chris > > > > >--- Wayne Cripps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I would think that in the old times, a lutenist > > would mostly play > > music from his or her time. They obviously would > > not play > > anything from their future, but I am sure they were > > mostly > > not too interested in music of the past, except > > perhaps for > > a few master works. I doubt that lutenists were > > into "early music" > > the way we are. Which means that if we are really > > trying to > > recreate the sprit of those times we to should > > probably select > > one time period and stick with it. > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > From: "gary digman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > I'm a little perplexed by this discussion. Is the > > assertion being made that > > > lutenists who played 10c lutes at the inception of > > these instruments only > > > played music specifically written for 10c and > > ceased playing music that > > > appeared before unless they also had a 6c, 7c or > > 8c instrument? > > > > > > In the 10c repertoire a given piece of music will > > sometimes go several > > > measures without anything happening in the > > bourdons. Would not these > > > passages be subject to the same problems > > supposedly accompanying > > > (accompaning?) the playing of 6c, 7c or 8c music > > on the 10c? > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. >Make Yahoo! your homepage. >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1158 - Release Date: >11/28/2007 9:11 PM
