David, Clearly the overall size of an instrument and things like string spacing are relevant to the ease of playing. But if a player struggles with a particular size and/or specification of lute, before jumping to erroneous conclusions it's important to see if the player's posture and hand position/technique are not the real culprits.
Regarding the 'wrong' size instrument: a player may seem to struggle with a larger instrument than that they are used to simply because they are holding it an unsuitable/inappropriate manner - rather that their arms/hands are intrinsically incapable of the stretch required. For example, if a player holds a large lute instrument as a modern 'classical' guitar (ie cradled low down in the lap and at a relatively low angle to the ground) they may find left arm stretch difficulties which can readily be overcome by adopting a posture with the instrument resting on the right thigh (as often seen in early representations). This can result in the instrument now being held some 10/15cm to the player's right and bringing the nut a similar distance closer to the left hand and so stretches which had previously seemed difficult may be more readily achieved. Holding a large instrument in a more upright position also helps since it better fits with the arm/body geometry and increases the effective stretch of the left arm. The end result of all this is to give up to 15cm extra left arm stretch and thus increasing the effective left arm stretch from, say, 76cm string length to around 90cm. Similarly, if a player is playing well up to the rose rather than close to the bridge, the natural tapering of string separation from bridge to nut will result in a small, but noticeable, reduction in string separation at the actual plucking point which is not the fault of the string spacing at the bridge but of the player's own technique. Finally, specifically with regard to the theorbo, as Lynda Sayce points out ([1]http://www.theorbo.com/Theorbo/Theorbo.htm), if a theorbo player is trying to employ ordinary lute fingered chords, rather than those appropriate to the theorbo, they may also struggle. In short, before blaming an instrument's size and specification the player should look to themselves first and ensure the problem isn't with their own posture and technique. Martyn --- On Mon, 9/4/12, David Tayler <vidan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: From: David Tayler <vidan...@sbcglobal.net> Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? To: "lute" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Date: Monday, 9 April, 2012, 22:27 Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my experience that the player will have to go through a very long retraining period after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers, the size of the hand (and fingers) and the rules which govern the span and spacing of strings. Without these two numbers in balance, it is impossible, or very difficult to make a good sound. When these numbers are in balance, it is easy to make a good sound; in fact, it is difficult to make a bad sound. No one would wear size 4 or size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though the lute is from the age of "custom made". Equally sadly, most people do not understand the basic physics of twang, thwack and pluck, which involves some simple experiments with a special bridge and nut that are universally adjustable. Generally speaking, and I mean VERY generally, the plucking-point spacing is wrong, that is, the place where you actually pluck the string, and it is almost always too narrow. However, it is the ratio of the bridge to nut, factoring the string length, and figured at YOUR plucking point that gives numbers for the "thou shalt not buzz" dimensions. Empirically, anyone can see that the spacing is different at any point on the string. A player with years of experience can give you some advice, after watching you play, about the setup. You may have to compromise somewhat on the overall span, or use a sliding scale so that the treble has more room. After these two biggies, there is a seemingly endless list of features, all of which are important. And here you will need some experience to guide you. However, I would add that most lutes made nowadays are not copies of originals. They are rescaled, resized, rebarred, rebridged, reglued, revarnished. Available is everything: everything-except-original. Now, you may want that. Personally, I think everyone needs a reality check instrument that is a copy of an original. Otherwise, it is just a guitar, basically, with wonky pegs. Since you asked about sound in your list, it is no fun playing a monochromatic instrument of any kind, but that is just a personal preference. I would say most lutes made today lean towards monochromatic. Main thing is to make a good sound. If you aren't making a beautiful sound, it isn't you: your lute is set up wrong, is the wrong size, or both. Lute players may think that their feet are the wrong size, but when you think about it, this cannot be the case. Everyone is different, and the instrument must fit. My teacher told me that you don't choose a lute, it chooses you. Maybe that is true. dt __________________________________________________________________ From: William Samson <[2]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk> To: Lute List <[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Sat, April 7, 2012 6:25:47 AM Subject: [LUTE] What makes a good lute? 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][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.theorbo.com/Theorbo/Theorbo.htm 2. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=willsam...@yahoo.co.uk 3. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/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
