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


Reply via email to