I know that this must be a bit off topic but beside the issue of accessing
the additional bases as a criteria for thumb out one has to ask why was
thumb in used in the first place, especially when you consider how the thumb
and second finger sometimes interfere with each other?
I will answer my own question before you all start shooting at me. When I
started playing the Lute in the 70's I used what is euphemistically called
Guitar technique. When I made the switch to thumb in I discovered that with
the thumb in it is far easier to cause both strings of a given course to
sound than with the wrist cocked as in Guitar technique. So I would
conclude from this experience that the thumb in was used because it sounded
better, it's as simple as that. It is not so much an issue of thumb
position as it is wrist.
Going back to thumb out here is the difference. Going from in to out you
must adjust the right hand so that the fingers still have the same or
similar attack on the string or you will have the sound of one string in a
course sounding rather than both. But in all honesty, with the thumb out
all you really are doing is playing the way the instrument dictates. You
are not going to be able to reach those bases with the thumb in. The
critical issue as I see it is the position of the wrist.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Winheld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 2:03 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: RH on the bridge?
>I have to contribute my two cents worth of opinion here. I am firm
in the belief that no one from the 16th through 18th centuries
really cared a whit about proper right-hand technique, other than
doing what is necessary to produce a pleasing tone.
Here we go again. Vallet.. Besard... Stobaus... "No one"? No sense
restating previous available material, just refer to the LSA Journal,
Vol. XII, 1979, Paul Beier's article that brings it all together.
Yes, they did care- very much in fact and they had the same stupid
fights about it that we have now. The only difference was it wasn't
about being "historically correct", just playing more effectively the
newer styles of music on lutes that had also changed. And being more
physically graceful in a very manners-appearance centered society.
They sure as hell did care about appearance, posture, the whole
"socially graceful" thing. Maybe shallow concerns, but in those days
it mattered. They did not go abroad in jeans and t-shirts, let alone
eat out or do gigs dressed that way.
We want to understand the milieu in which our heroes operated, why
they did the things they did; we cannot discount anything in the
picture without first examining and understanding the whole.
The question of 'what is historically appropriate right-hand
technique?' is entirely a modern day phenomenon, created in the
1970s so lutenists could distinguish themselves from guitarist who
'doubled' on the lute.
I never gave a damn about distinguishing myself from the guitarists
back in the '70's (Hell, I was one!) I just couldn't get a decent
sound or free movement to save my life using late 20th Century
Classical Guitar RH technique & hand position on my first "real"
Renaissance lute. Either I mastered "thumb under" business or call
the whole project off.
There is ample evidence that 'thumb under' technique was preferred
up until the time additional bass courses added to lutes became
commonplace. It is a matter of practicality that the thumb must
take a different position to accomodate additional bass courses. We
know from his published works that Dowland's lute employed 7 to 9
courses. This has to be the reason he was described as using a
'thumb out' technique towards the end of his life. I don't think
I'm the first one to point this out.
Yes, indeed- again, check out Stobaus in Beier's Journal article.
It is now the 21st century, and we are far enough away from the
'lutenist versus guitarist' issue of the 1970s that I think we can
safely put it to rest. Maybe we should be asking ourselves, 'How
can we get more young people interested in playing the lute?'
Yes indeedy again.
" Playing the devil's advocate here, I've always found it hard to >
believe the best lute player in the world (some must have thought
so), Dowland, would change his technique suddenly. Maybe the sources
got it wrong or were purposefully misleading? What would be his
motivation to change? Just a sec, let me get my flame shield."
Martin Eastwell wrote "I would tend to assume that a player like
Dowland would not go off on a European tour having just made a major
technical change." Ed Durbrow
Maybe it wasn't so sudden (Stobaus did not specify the amount of time
it took Dowland to change over.) Maybe he took his sweet time getting
it right. I was able to do it effectively within two years and I most
certainly am not "the best lute player in the world" let alone a
Dowland (ha ha). I did give a successful, well reviewed Carnegie
Recital Hall concert in 1979; I got my lute back in 74 or so; was
playing publicly within 2 years of changing my technique... yeah, I
think old JD could have done it. And a whole lot of other lutenists
back in the day. OK, turn off your flame shield now. Dan Winheld
--
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: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: 1/5/2008
11:46 AM
