Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...??? Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit more complex than that, isn't it?
Best, Jean-Marie ================================= == En réponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == > I vote only for sound and playability! > > Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total > horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play > it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments > with that flowers, hearts etc. > IMHO theese nice "things" suits well on instruments for women but not > for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more > like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which > looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) > 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero <[1]l...@manassero.net> > > Hi, > very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: > 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you > found it) > 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers > dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments > like > "this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC". > Fine, > what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) > 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it > happens > to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in > XVI > and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is > "unauthentic" ;-) > 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out > of a > lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) > 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very > careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not > much > about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century > players) > 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a > good > sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected > the > right way...) > I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, > OK. > If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point > on my > list either. > Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions > :-) > Thanks! > Luca > > William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote: > I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been > chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be > interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various > characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. > The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): > * playability (action, string spacing etc) > * sound (which I can't easily define) > * authenticity of design/construction > * materials used > * quality of craftsmanship > * reputation of maker > Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be > refined, > clarified or broken down. > Thoughts, please? > Bill > -- > To get on or off this list see list information at > > [1][2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > References > 1. [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > >References > > 1. mailto:l...@manassero.net > 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > ========================================
