It's an interesting trend and I don't know what to make of it, Dan.

A few years ago I went to a concert of a well-known poster on this list and the Francesco pieces were played on an 8-c lute and the Dowland on a single strung archlute. It could easily be argued this was standard practice that a period player living a few years post- composer-mortem would have played their pieces thusly. (I do notice, however, the FdM pieces in British sources only appearing in predominently 6-c mss tho the Cavalcanti bucks the trend) But now I see so many single strung arch lutes replacing the double and now this Liuto Forte/arch guitar(?) that I continue to marvel.

Why are we seeing so many future instruments playing past compositions? Do they really sound better? (in a sense, they sound great though I miss that 4th octave!) Are those instruments more convenient since the 'future' instrument can play more repertories? I remember years ago at LSA seminars 10-c lutes were so popular because you play Dalza to Dowland and I heard great players playing Sermisy, frottole and Pivas. Yes they sounded great but when they were played on 6-c's there was such a greater dimension to the sound. And in playing the smaller lutes more idiosychrosies came to light. (thumb around the neck, sympathetically ringing bass notes, right arm position, etc)

In my case, I have tried to limit my instruments to 6-courses and this week I'm lucky enough to have a wonderful gig on Sunday w/ some period dancers. For the Arbeau and branles all is well. But the request has been made to explore Caroso and Negri in the future. I've only started to compare Il Ballerino (1581) and the Nobilita (1600). And I'm seeing my "limitation" very nicely in the F chords: the earlier books will unabashedly have an inversion to use as low a bass course as necessary (as in Capirola). If I were to find a 7-c for the later book should I faithfully preserve the idiosynchrosies when playing from the earlier?

Ok, that's splitting hairs but there is a larger trend of future instruments on past pieces and it does raise questions --and ocassionally hackles.

Oh, and here's my latest conundrum re: the Iodone concerti. What is the HIP lute for that? I suspect most of our period ren. and baroque players would not be equipped for it. The Liuto Forte certainly wouldn't be period, either, but may sound nice!

Sean


On Aug 23, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Dan Winheld wrote:

One more thought/question regarding the Liuto Forte; it seems that there is/has been a trend for more single-strung archthings these days; I tried one once- tension felt pretty tight, and the string spacing rather wide. Hmmmm!?!

On 8/23/2013 10:29 AM, Dan Winheld wrote:
Franz;

Very well reasoned & eloquently written response- you have made me quite curious to see & try one of these things out. I have an instrument of my own that fits no historical classification but provides an alternative tone color; a seven string steel-string guitar acquired cheaply on a whim while awaiting the completion of my vihuela. I have it strung/tuned as a "G" tenor lute at a=415; it works best as a fake Orpharion (flexibility of modern steel strings allows tuning to the relative Bandora intervals, more creative fakery!) Of course, it is no closer to a real Orpharion/Bandora than the modern Classical guitar is to the lute, but it does provide that wire string sound- and is far more satisfactory for Renaissance music than the modern Classical guitar with its boomy, opaque bass response and dull lack of clarity (on most guitars) if played without nails.

One more wrinkle about polyphonically oriented lutes- My Chambure model vihuela is strung with a doubled 1st course. This has the salutary effect of integrating that course with all the others in tone color; becoming the "soprano" section of the choir instead of the solo prima donna, singing alone above the chorus. But it took time to work out the best tension/diameter/pitch combination- and then, the very hard work (for me) of refining the right hand touch for clean sound without clashing or twanging of the strings- which then benefits good touch on all other courses as well.

While done or at least attempted historically at certain times, the doubled 1st seems to have been mostly considered too troublesome (and probably too expensive!) to be worth while over the longest haul. But we do have Caravaggio's paintings showing at least one doubled 1st on a 7 course, and then on up to Dowland's and Robinson's clearly stated preference for this set up; and apparently even into the middle and later 17th century some players persisted with doubled 1st (Mace?) while the majority had already gone over to the single 2nd as well as 1st. Of course, all of this well past the time of the Renaissance ideal of polyphony.

Dan

On 8/22/2013 11:55 PM, Franz Mechsner wrote:
   Dear Bruno,

I own a guitar made by Mario Gropp and a vihuela by Alexander Batov and
   am very happy with both instruments. I also had a Liuto Forte for
several years, which I unfortunately had to sell for financial reasons.
   I miss that beautiful instrument a lot.

   First of all, it is a wonderful instrument in its own right, so I
estimated it highly such as I estimate my guitar and my vihuela. There
   is no need to compare any of these instruments on the cost of the
others - every of these has something the others have not and the other way around, which is trivial of course but has to be told to purists of any sort. Recently I've had the privilege to host Andre Burguete who invented the instrument. It was pure joy to hear him fill the house with his beautiful and tasteful playing, still a wonderful memory. He plays with nails but recently developed a playing technique somewhat different from Segovia style to serve the possibilities of the Liuto
   Forte best.

So most importantlyl, the instruments of the Liuto Forte family are beautifully crafted and sound beautiful. In that respect they can only
   be praised highly. Really highly, to my humble judgment.

If you have to classify the sound of a Liuto Forte on a scale between early music lute (or vihuela, if you like) on one end and the guitar on the other end, it would certainly be closer to the guitar than to the early music lute or vihuela, while you can shift the position closer to early music instruments when you play the Liuto Forte without nails.
   But to leave it with that one-dimensional judgment of sound
   characteristics would not really do justice to the instrument.

It has to be said that the Liuto Forte has an astonishing range and variability of sound characteristics which can neither be covered by a modern guitar nor by a lute. When played with nails, the strings feel somewhat softer than guitar strings and can be played with less force. This is no wonder as string tension is lower than on a guitar. Overall, to my impression a Liuto Forte sounds more transparent, which serves polyphony. This is particularly so in the bass range where a guitar often (or probably usually) sounds somewhat "thick" and "too strong" while a Liuto Forte has more clarity here as well as a better balance between bass and treble in my judgment. Not to forget the possibilities
   that open up with the enlarged bass range and the variability made
   possible by the family of instruments.

One may well say, the lute family is all one needs and be happy with this. I have nothing to say against such a stance except that this is
   only spoken from a certain taste and viewpoint which is open to
discussion to say the least. I myself do much welcome a new family of instruments which mirrors the world of lutes in a way the violin family mirrors the viol family. I feel quite strange seeing them dismissed in a sentence, called them "fake lutes" etc. Couldn't one call, with equal
   right, a modern violin a "fake viol", or a modern guitar a "fake
guitar" as it is not a Renaissance or Baroque guitar, or a Bach concert
   played by a modern orchestra a "fake concert". There are certainly
people who do so... I see no reason why I shouldn't love all of these instruments and ways of playing music (if well done of course...). As said, there's nothing to say against different tastes and viewpoints here, but much to say against dogmatic and dismissing viewpoints. (By
   the way, the Liuto Forte team was, awarded the European Innovation
   Award for Musical Instruments in 1999 given by Robert Schuman
Foundation and the Europaeische Kulturstiftung. So it seems I'm not the
   only one with my high esteem.)

   The Liuto Forte sounds well also without nails. Thus you can play
romantic music without nails to an astonishing effect. It sounds quite intimate and soft. I never played a parlor guitar thus I cannot compare but I loved the possibility to use the Liuto Forte in this way which is
   not possible with the modern guitar. You can also play lute music
   without nails which produces - in my view - a sound which quite
deviates from normal guitar sound and may give more justice to, say,
   Renaissance lute music as a guitar would. I played some English
Renaissance music without nails in a room filled with about 200 not
   always silent people sitting around tables, on the occasion of a
   Christmas celebration. It worked really well.

Professional guitarists seem to like, in addition, that Liuto Fortes
   can be well heard in ensembles.

In sum I would say: if you like the sound a Liuto Forte you can enjoyed that beautiful instrument its own right and also play it in concert simply because you like it. Depending on what your equipment and needs
   are, there might be opportunities where you might prefer playing a
   Liuto Forte not only for subjective taste reasons but also for
   practical reasons.

   Please take this as the opinion and experience of a non-expert who
   loves music and simply likes the Liuto Forte regarding sound and
   possibilities as well as regarding design.

   Best
   Franz
   -----------------------
   Dr. Franz Mechsner
   Zum Kirschberg 40
   D-14806 Belzig OT Borne
   franz.mechs...@gmx.de
   +49(0)33841-441362





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