I'm not talking about the copies we know about, I'm talking about the copies we don't know about. There's a difference. The ones we don't know about--and they are everywhere--are the good ones. The idea that the guilds were strictly enforced in quite charming--have you looked at court records from the time? Seems like everyone was either a spy or a snitch.
You can of course claim that there are no unknown forgeries--but history would not be on your side. Historical instruments are rarely tested with the specialized tools used in paintings--and even ifthere were, there is less information available about the materials. Strads and some other fiddles being the exception. It's a question of economics. The other reason s that musea rarely devalue their collections by tossing out the "opera dubia"--it also makes them look silly when they admit they have been showcasing a fake. As far as daft, well--I like to think of myself as an historian, Historically, daft was the same word as deft. dt At 07:00 AM 2/6/2009, you wrote: >While your 30% idea can be good enough for Blue Peter, in no way you >can spread sweeping generalisations like that on historical lutes, >that's really daft. The very idea of lute forgery in the period >from, say, early 16th - early 18th century (the 'golden era' of the >lute) would not be possible by default, simply because of the guild >regulations that were in place. One could not just belong to the >business by being an amatory maker and / or even apprentice but only >when the necessary skills are reached and the examination passed (in >making of an instrument of certain complexity). And this is why one >can see such a difference between a genuine lute and a forged >substitute by, for example, the first historical forger Franciolini. >Think about it. Or get yourself a copy of the lute catalogue from >the Cite de la Musique where there are some good examples of >historical lute 'forgeries' (all not earlier than mid-19th century of course). > >You say you prefer 'copies' but what is 'the copy' anyway in your >understanding? Is it a 'copy' in appearance and some physical >parameters or in acoustical terms? Strictly speaking, neither of >these is possible to replicate completely and hence there is no such >thing as an 'exact replica' of the lute! That was my original point >anyway. However, by applying the main principles of historical lute >construction we can reasonably well approach the ancient tradition >of lute making and, ultimately, the sound idea. > >Once again, there is no point in drawing examples from books, >painting, scores etc here. The difference may not be evident to you >but it is there if you know where to look. > >Alexander > >----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tayler" <vidan...@sbcglobal.net> >To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:55 AM >Subject: [LUTE] Re: was trench fill now exact replica > > >>What I'm saying is that it is possible to build an exact replica >>because it has already been done on a large scale for , sculpture >>and musical instruments. >>Hey, the Capirola Lutebook could be a forgery. It is a good >>candidate. Some of the forgers were true geniuses. >> >>I'm not sayng we should do that--although I prefer copies, >>myself--I'm just saying it has been done, wholesale. >>People say it isn't possible, but it has been done. >> >>dt > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
