On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey <r...@dorseymail.com> said: > 1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. > We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of > the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant > writings.
All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. > 2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously > attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Just as books were offered unbound (to be bound later), I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? > 3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not > avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. > we have no hard evidence of how fast not true, the human heart beat is a strong indication of tempo, and has not changed dramatically; at least not beyond the range of variation an individual experiences in performance today. We have practical confirmation of tempo in dances with leaping steps such as the galliard, humans go up as fast and far as they like, but the come down at the speed of gravity, which has not changed significantly, and which limits the range of tempos at which galliardes can be played for live dancers. > If we had a time machine, we might go back and > embarrass ourselves mightily. Dance music gives us a sort of time machine, English country dance remains popular today and is a sort of link to the past in that many of the tunes found in Playfords 1651 edition were known a century or more before, and remain in use today. The dances he describes from then are enjoyed today (Jenny pluck pears, Grimstock, Rufty Tufty ...) with gusto. Doesnt matter if the band is playing hoboys, violins, orpharions and viols da gamba; a good time will be had by the dancers so long as the refreshments hold out. -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
