That sounds really exciting...please let me know what was the
conclusion... [24.gif]
Caius
--- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier <jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
From: Jean-Marie Poirier <jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
To: "hera caius" <caiush2...@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 7:08 PM
No problem Caius (I finally unserstood that Caiusmust be your fist
name, sorry about that !)
Anyway, we can discuss that with Luca (but not only) in Vicenza next
week :-) !
Best,
Jean-Marie
=================================
== En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:49:47 ==
>
>
> Sorry for the "p".
>
> Maybe i forgot to say: "IN MY OPINION..."
> --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier <[1]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
>
> From: Jean-Marie Poirier <[2]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
> To: "Lute List" <[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:24 PM
>
> Not a very easy question to answer and by the way not a very
relevant
> question. The very notion of "good" applied to a lute or anything
is
> obviously subjective. The few potentially objective criteria are
> evident : craftsmanship, woods, string action and price. All the
rest
> is open to debate.
> I do not quite agree with Hera to say that Paul Thomson (no "p" by
the
> way ;-) and Joel Van Lennep are the best makers to date, however
good
> they may be, ans they are good !
> There are, thank God, several other excellent makers, who produce
> excellent lutes as well, not to name them : Martin Haycock, David
Van
> Edwards, Alexander Batov in England, Andy Rutherford in the US,
Julien
> Stryjak or Stephen Murphy in France, Hendryk Hasenfuess in Germany
and
> the list could be made much, much longer...
> All these people ARE excellent makers too.
> Now the problem is aesthetics, what you are after in your mind,
your
> "ideal" of sound; and the price may be another good reason to go to
> this or that maker rather than the supposed top brass ! If you want
the
> same lute as say Paul O'Dette, ok, go to the other Paul (Thomson)
but
> if you have; if you hope to emulate Hoppy, then go to Joel in
Boston.
> But if you have a precise idea of the lute you would like, the
sound
> you would like for such or such repertoire, I am sure it will be
easier
> to discuss details, and to experiment with makers who are not
reputed
> to be simply the best...
> I know people who have sold their Thomson's lute because the sound
> eventually did not correspond to what they were after.
> My twopence anyway !
> All the best,
> Jean-Marie
> =================================
>
> == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 16:39:34 ==
> > 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][1][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
> >References
> >
> > 1. [2][5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
> ========================================
>
> --
>
>References
>
> 1. [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 2. [7]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
========================================
--
References
1. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr
2. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr
3. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
