Hi Ned,

You can't tune a 67cm lute in g' at a'=440. The preferred pitch would be in the region of a'=392, which is why we often talk of a "lute in F". Life would be a whole lot simpler if the "modern standard early music pitch" was a'=392 instead of a'=415. There is no such thing historically, of course, but in our time it would simplify things considerably, not least when mixing modern and "baroque" style instruments (because a transposition of a tone is so much more sensible than a semitone).

Waissel played the c1c2d3c6 chord using the second finger to cover the first two courses, the third finger for the d3 and the first for the c6.

Best wishes,

Martin

On 17/08/2011 20:18, Edward Mast wrote:
Hello Martin,

      Thank you for your observations on historical lute sizes and string 
lengths.   When you say that the 67cm size is perfect for us, I'm not sure if 
you're talking about a g lute tuned to A=440, or a lower tuning.  (Since I play 
with ensemble players whose instruments are at A=440, I'm rather tied to that 
pitch).
       The examples of fingerings you give are interesting.  I can particularly 
see that the example from Waissel (c1c2d3c6, assuming he used 2nd finger on c6) 
might result in more consistent clarity.
-Ned

On Aug 17, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote:

Hi All,

I don't think there was ever a "norm" for string length.  Lutes were always 
made in a variety of sizes, and if our focus today is on solo lute music that is not 
necessarily typical of what happened in the past.   Many people sang to the lute, and the 
guiding principle would have been whether the size (therefore pitch) of the lute was 
suitable for your voice.

To the extent that there were some more or less standard sizes in northern Italy in the 
the late 16th C, they are 44cm, about 59cm, about 67cm, and about 78 cm (with a putative 
"bass" of about 88cm rather lacking in historical examples).  In terms of the 
fossil record, the 67cm size is probably the commonest, but one could debate whether or 
not that was the size most commonly used for solo music.  The 59cm and 67cm sizes are a 
tone apart, which suggests they may be the sizes intended for tone apart duets, for 
instance, and by implication, also suitable for solos (in the Matelart duets, one part is 
a solo).

Modern lutenists have been unduly fixated on the idea that a lute must be "in G" and at 
modern pitch and have therefore gravitated towards the 59cm size, whereas historically things were 
obviously much more varied.  In fact the 67cm size is perfect for us, as we tend to be a bit larger 
than our Renaissance forbears.  Paul O'Dette has very small hands and a marvellous technique, and I 
doubt that "stretches" per se figure very largely in his calculations.

Just for the record, I have quite small hands (not as small as Paul), and I can 
play that Ab chord (f1b2d4b6) on my 67cm lute quite comfortably, so I reckon 
most people can manage that size of lute reasonably well.  I know people's 
hands vary not just in size, but in stretch, and I agree with all the notes of 
caution about not straining yourself.

One interesting thing about historical lute fingerings is how they depart from modern 
"norms".  Just to give a couple of examples, there are times when it makes sense to use 
the first and second finger "the wrong way round" when they are required on the same fret 
(e.g. c1a4c5 can be played with the first finger on the first course and the second on the fifth 
course, as documented by Newsidler); and using one finger to cover two courses (e.g. a1b2b3d5, 
h1f3f4d6, f1c2d3e4e5c6; and an interesting example from Waissel, c1c2d3c6, where most of us would 
use a barré, but he preferred to cover the first two courses with the first finger.

Best wishes,

Martin

On 10/08/2011 17:58, Edward Mast wrote:
The more I read about the lute during the 16th century, the more it seems to me 
that the norm for string length then was closer to 65 cm than the 60 cm which 
seems more favored and common today.  Are we (myself included) - who choose the 
shorter mensur - wimps?  If classical guitarists of all shapes and sizes can 
manage a 64 cm mensur, should we lutenists not be able to do likewise?  Just 
wondering . . .
-Ned



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