Thanks Chris and Tom...(and everyone else who chimed in...!)
Very good information!
Best regards,
Brent
----- Original Message ----
From: Christopher Stetson <christophertstet...@gmail.com>
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Tue, July 19, 2011 12:27:40 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Mace
Agreed, Thomas, and ditto, IMO, for Molinaro 1599, though if memory
serves it's only 7 courses. Italy 1500-1550 for that matter. No
slouches there. Kapsberger (Libro 1), on the other hand, I find
surprisingly finger-friendly (but don't forget to count!).
Is Zamboni available online?
Best to all, and keep playing,
Chris.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Walker
<[1]twlute...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hey all,
Interesting discussion. I have to say, I'm with Sterling & Roman
et al
on this one. I started on renaissance lute (actually, guitar
before
that), and D minor baroque lute is still a secondary instrument
for me.
But if you can find the basses (most of us can with some patient
work), there is a vast repertoire that is available, and much
easier
than most of Dowland, for instance.
From my perspective, the hardest lute music is Italian, c.
1580-1620.
Piccinini's music, straddling the two epochs, is unrelentingly
difficult. The bass work isn't too bad (even Toccata XX from his
1623
print doesn't demand too much of one's "thumb radar"), but the
left
hand work is brutal.
Zamboni's music for archlute doesn't spend a lot of time below the
9th
or 10th course (I think most of it you could play on a veil ton
10c
lute), but even as his textures are leaner than Weiss', the left
hand
work is considerably more demanding. D minor works!
Cheers,
Tom Walker, Jr.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
[2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:twlute...@hotmail.com
2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
