I hadn't thought of overtones. But this would explain why the more
"tonal" music actually sounds a lot better. Thanks for that thought.
Suzanne
-------------- Original message from "Roman Turovsky"
<r.turov...@verizon.net>: --------------
> It seems that the richness of lute overtones is NOT conducive to
gratuitous
> dissonance that is de rigeur in most modernist and neomodernist
music. And
> that naturally translates as acoustically inappropriate on a lute
> (especially baroque, much more than renaissance one).
> RT
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Rastall"
> To: "Mark Probert"
> Cc: "Lute list"
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:07 PM
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: New lute music
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Mark Probert wrote:
> >
> >> It seems, to my naif ear, that the composers don't really
understand the
> >> lute and how it works. Given the intervals and the tonality,
why not
> >> just play this stuff on a guitar?
> >
> > Why not indeed! Speaking for myself, I expect a certain type of
sound
> > from the lute, that I want to consider "historical", and when I
don't
> > hear that sound the lute can seem out of place. Your ear may not
be as
> > "naif" as you think. I can easily hear guitar in those pieces.
> >
> >> Please don't take me for a Luddite that is lost in the 16thC:
it just
> >> ain't so.
> >
> > I don't think one needs to be a Luddite in order to place the
lute in a
> > historical context. Not that it has to be imprisoned there, but
we
> > choose our battles: for some it's New Music On The Lute, for
others it's
> > Weiss, or Dowland, or whatever. Me, I'm lost in the 17th-
century lute at
> > this point (but that can change...).
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > DavidR
> >
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
>
>
>
--
