Here is the instrument:
(I' m worning you that it's not so horror) [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich and here is the music: [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal You can't go wrong and especially you can't get sick... :) Good luck! --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Eugene Kurenko <eugene.kure...@gmail.com> wrote: From: Eugene Kurenko <eugene.kure...@gmail.com> Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? To: "Luca Manassero" <l...@manassero.net> Cc: "Lute List" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:07 PM 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][3]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][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html References 1. [3][5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:[6]l...@manassero.net 2. [7]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 3. [8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal 3. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=l...@manassero.net 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 6. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=l...@manassero.net 7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
