"Anthony Hind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On the other hand, the marks on the Matheus > Buchenberg/ Rome/early 17th century, in Edinburgh, show this : > "The sound-board is stained with finger grease along the lower side > of the rose and at the upper end of the upper side of the rose, > indicating the right hand playing position most often used.". > http://tinyurl.com/yojeds > I would admit that the photo is not conclusive, but the museum is > categoric about this.
Obviously, they lack lute players who could have told them. The dark zone at the bass course side does by no means indicate a RH playing position. The tiny dark zone at the upper rose margin does, if at all, indicate a highly improbable RH playing position. -- Mathias > This lute is a 9 course lute and dates from c1620 (according to the > University page). This would mean that the owner would have been > playing it as late as 1640. Could he have been playing TI? If so, it > is very difficult to consider that the number of courses was and > stretch was the automatic reason for TO. > I really don't know what to think about this lute. Perhaps it was a > very conservative amateur, but nevertheless he did play near the > rose, if we judge from the remarks above, and possibly TI around 1640. > Regards > Anthony > > Le 8 janv. 08 à 23:07, Martin Shepherd a écrit : > > > Dear Rob, Bruno, and All, > > > > I was surprised how different the two recordings (the first > > "doodle" and then the chaconne) sounded - I thought the treble > > sounded well in the doodle, hardly at all in the chaconne. I think > > the hand position must have had a large part in this. > > > > Just for info - the top string was initially a .44, giving a > > tension of about 40N at the "inbetween" pitch of about a'=400 which > > is where the lute was when the first recording was made. This is > > about the same tension as I would use on a renaissance lute top > > string - high by some people's standards, but I felt it was > > necessary to balance the second course, which always seems to sound > > very strong on Dm tuned lutes, for obvious reasons. > > > > An interesting sidelight is thrown on this by Dowland (VLL, 1610), > > writing when the lute had acquired nine courses but still in the > > old tuning (and with a double first course): > > > > [referring to the strings for the first course] "let it not be too > > small, for those give no sound, besides they will be either rotten > > for lacke of substance, or or extreame false." > > > > and > > > > "...first set on your Trebles, which must be strayned neither too > > stiffe nor too slacke, but of such a reasonable height that they > > may deliver a pleasant sound, and also (as Musitions call it) play > > too and fro after the strokes thereon." > > > > Modern stringmakers tell us that the thinnest string the Old Ones > > could have made (using whole guts) was about .43mm - if so, > > Dowland's first course must have been at a pretty low pitch, > > otherwise the tension would have been enormous. I'm also inclined > > to agree with you that the new tunings involved lowering the first > > course - so the "bass string problem" is even bigger than we have > > hitherto realized. Dowland's nine-course lute is perhaps the most > > difficult of all to string because it has the biggest open string > > range, two octaves and a major seventh (the bottom course was > > frequently tuned down a tone to a nominal BBb) - as compared with a > > range of two octaves and a fourth for an 11c lute in Dm tuning. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Martin > > > > > > Rob wrote: > > > >> Thanks Bruno, > >> > >> I don't know the tension of the first string, but maybe Martin > >> Shepherd does > >> as he built the lute and put the string on. He did in fact choose > >> the string > >> for tuning at 415, but I like French music at a low pitch so > >> lowered the > >> pitch accordingly. My theory is that dm tuning was discovered > >> through a > >> process of lowering the first course to allow a greater resonance > >> with lower > >> tension. Because the string travels a bit more from side to side when > >> plucked, it becomes necessary to pluck closer to the bridge to > >> control the > >> string better. So I did not do it primarily because that is the > >> way it > >> appears in some paintings. Of course, not all paintings show the > >> little > >> finger on the bridge, and I think the Mouton portrait is the > >> closest to my > >> present position. I quite like his wig too... > >> http://www.rmguitar.info/French.htm > >> > >> I agree that the bass is overpowering the trebles, which is why I > >> no longer > >> use this technique. I think I have a more balanced sound now that > >> I have > >> moved a little bit away from the bridge. I did the recording as an > >> experiment because I had read many negative comments about such a > >> technique, > >> but it didn't sound so bad to me. But please keep in mind that > >> this lute was > >> a new one, completely strung in gut - all this might sound > >> different in a > >> year or so. > >> > >> Rob > >> > >> www.rmguitar.info > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Bruno Correia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 January > >> 2008 19:29 > >> To: Lute Net > >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: RH on the bridge > >> > >> Rob, > >> > >> Good job with the chaconne! Hearing your playing I really can't > >> find any > >> trace of harshness, it's really a surprise from someone playing so > >> close to > >> the bridge. But I think the bass is overpowering the trebles, the > >> lute is > >> sounding almost like a deep theorbo! You said the pich was A 392, > >> this means > >> a G in A 440, so your first string which is suposed to be an F is > >> in fact an > >> Eb... What about the tension you have on your first string? > >> > >> I know Toyohiko Satoh has the same setup, but what is the reason > >> for this > >> approach? Just to use the RH on the bridge like the paintings? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
