I think this is not the first time this question is raised - back in the
early 20th century there were several revivals of early music. We
remember them because of the effect thy had on modern music: Ravel,
Manuel Ponce, Respighi. But at the time, the question was to revive
music from the past. This time, it is to revive an instrument.
I remain convinced that the early music revival movement of our times
(since the 1970-80s) was a a product of new technology: facsimile
publications and high quality recordings chiefly. The second one in
particular allowed us to enjoy early music in a context similar to the
one an audience may have heard it: the comfort of your room. Lute music
gets lost in a mid-size concert hall. It is heaven on ear phones.
Meanwhile, bread and butter music is still made in concert halls, and
in spite of Sting's efforts, it just does not work for lute music: you
have to amplify the instrument and in the process, you lose the quality
of the sound. So we have a dichotomy: earning a living as a performer
and composer takes a live audience at the concert hall (if not the local
bar), and loses his quality de facto. Quality recording is done in the
studio, but loses exposure to the public. In theory, YouTube resolves
the problem - but no-one makes a living from YouTube except YouTube.
The mini series Versailles - I watched it recently - makes an attempt at
playing period music - a De Visee theorbo piece - but it gets lost in
both poor sound quality and in the action (the director did not have the
same flair for music as Kubrik in Barry Lyndon, even though card games
were also taking place) - So, my point is that the lute is a very
difficult animal to sell, except in the confines of a very intimate
style of recording/performing.
Second: if you want "serious" modern compositions, you need two things:
a large pool of players and some ability for those players to make a
decent living out of their own material. Both are lacking today. And we
won't have a Ravel or Respighi because they revived music, not an
instrument, which allowed them to fit the revival within their own
modern environment: piano, orchestra, etc.
So we are stuck. Because, unless this music revival fails to transform
modern music to some extent, it will die without an inheritance. Sting's
efforts and failure (in my opinion) are tragic because they are on the
right track. They don't fail because of him, but because of the
instrument's limitations given the current environment.
This is no reason why a performing lutenist should not stick at least
one of her fancies into the program in a small venue though, just for
the fun of it. Because, who knows, that might catch the audience's
attention, if only for one memorable (largely unpaid) minute.
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
