[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I'm a little perplexed by this discussion. Is the assertion being made that lutenists who played 10c lutes at the inception of these instruments only played music specifically written for 10c and ceased playing music that appeared before unless they also had a 6c, 7c or 8c instrument? In the 10c repertoire a given piece of music will sometimes go several measures without anything happening in the bourdons. Would not these passages be subject to the same problems supposedly accompanying (accompaning?) the playing of 6c, 7c or 8c music on the 10c? Gary - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:41 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? --- David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 The Galliard is a later composition, and probably designed for the amateur market--it is a fine piece, just not that difficult. Amateur, really? Lightening-quick divisions over a moving bass easy amateur material? The combination of the faster notes with less chords was irrestible, presumably because they are easier to play yet sound more difficult. Hmmm... interesting perspective. Personally, I've never found fast runs to be all that easy. And if one were to play Mozart's Opus 2 followed by B's Hammerklavier, then you would need two pianos, or play the earlier piece on the later instrument. Of course, of course... we know that no musician would attempt to play works written before the invention of the specific instrument he or she is currently playing. Just look at classical guitarists - I can't name a single modern guitarist - professional or amateur - who would ever even THINK of playing music by Giuliani or Sor on something like a modern nylon-strung CG. That's why the most popular composers on classical guitar programs continue to be Carter, Henze, Takemitsu and Krenek. Well, um, wait... Er... nevermind... ;-) Chris dt .At 06:51 AM 11/28/2007, you wrote: Dear David, Your reasoning is historically correct, but this puts us in something of a quandry from a practical performance view. Just take Dowland, for example. His Lachrimae lute solo exists in a version for six-course lute, (its 7-course in Board and Folger) Flow my teares is for 7-courses, the lute used in Seven Sad Pavans is 9-courses and the Galliard to Lachrimae is also for 9. Now, if you want to pair the Lachrimae Pavan with its Galliard on the same concert program, what should you do? You're quite right that none of the above mentioned pieces requires the 8-course lute, but, according to your line of reasoning, would it be any more acceptable to play the 6-or-7-course Pavan on a 9-course instrument? (What about playing a 9-course piece on a 10-course? Out, too?) Certainly, the tonal distinction between the 6 and 9 coursers would be much greater than between the 7 and 8 courses that you suggest is significant. Or would you suggest our performer should play the pavan on a six-course lute, put it down, fine-tune the 9-course and go? Would Dowland? Clearly, the answer is that Dowland adapted the music to the instrument at hand. There's no shame in us doing the same. Chris --- David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's important to play 6 7 course for the renaissance repertory. I understand the issues of resale value, etc, but I really think for most of the 16th century the three instruments, 6 course, 7 course _F and 7 course D give the most insights into the music. Also, if you are going to sell the lute it is best not to buy it :) As important as course, ideally one should have an instrument set up for intabs and one for ricercars, and the optimum setup really requires the right number of courses. It's possible that without the best setup, it might be harder to learn certain techniques, and that an eight course could become a bit of a tugboat. There's a big difference in the sound when the eighth course goes on, which is immediately attractive, but for me, ultimately, later sounding, rich rather than clear. Many instruments share these issues of practicality and range. When buying an Italian harpsichorp, people have to decide whether to buy an instrument with a very wide range, so they can play everything, or an historical instrument. But there is a fundamental difference in the sound; sound vs practicality: no easy answers. dt To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
This slow you down aspect is one that I am finally able to address personally after over 35 years of lute playing. I finally got my first 7 course lute last year; an Andreas Holst, 62 cm. SL. All my previous R lutes- 57 to 72 cm- had all been 8 course. (I'm not counting the 10 course and Baroque lutes for this discussion). The slowing down thing is a tactile/mental manifestation rather than a technical feasibility thing. I could always (and frequently did) play anything and everything much too fast on any of my 8 courses- what I feel on the 7 course is an incredible ease and freedom- things flow very naturally; whatever the tempo. Everything in the repertoire that I can fit on this lute just falls under the fingers almost without conscious thought or effort- some pieces now go slower because there's less to fight against. I wish I had gotten this instrument 30 years ago. And it's not that it's a fabulous instrument, it's just very good; but everything about the neck width, thickness, and general proportions works in an ergonomic way that I have never experienced on an 8 course lute- only on my 6 course- which with the 8ve basses is restricted to the earlier stuff. Just my subjective experience here. We do know that Dowland at least had a one-night stand with an 8 course; Sir John Langton's Pavan and the King of Denmark's galliard in the Varietie are genuine 8 course pieces. Another issue is the 10 tied frets on a 9 course lute. (Anyone ever see/build one of those?) Again, read Dowland's comments in the Varietie. -Dan I'm not sure just how an eight course instrument is going to slow you down? Is it not a matter of not playing the strings you do not use or need at the time? In theory, if not fact, it is possible to play many Lute pieces on a six course instrument and never play the sixth or even the fifth course for that matter and this does not seem to be an issue. So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically is another question. The only thing I would add, purely subjective, is that as a performer, a question: Will the 8 course slow you down in the long run? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: So...i cant take the lute with me :-(
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 18:32, Omer katzir rattled on the keyboard: And for three days (27-29.12) i'm going to be alone in brussels. Any one knows about good lute concerts there in those dates? damn... I'm going to miss my precious Francesca. And if i mentioned her name... any one knows where i can find tabs for Francesca Caccini works? (yes, my lute name is after her) http://ace.acadiau.ca/score/facsim5/caccini/site.htm There are no tabs of these works. You need to play continuo. Taco To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Luca Manassero écrit: I made the same question to the French-speaking lute list about 18 months ago. Where is this French lute-list? Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Le_luth/ Luca dc on 29-11-2007 10:29 wrote: Luca Manassero écrit: I made the same question to the French-speaking lute list about 18 months ago. Where is this French lute-list? Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
So really it is more a head issue than a tactile one? Interesting but understandable. I have always had problems playing something on someone else's instruments right out of the gate. One has to get acquainted with the Lute to play it, it seems to me. vw - Original Message - From: Daniel Winheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:05 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? This slow you down aspect is one that I am finally able to address personally after over 35 years of lute playing. I finally got my first 7 course lute last year; an Andreas Holst, 62 cm. SL. All my previous R lutes- 57 to 72 cm- had all been 8 course. (I'm not counting the 10 course and Baroque lutes for this discussion). The slowing down thing is a tactile/mental manifestation rather than a technical feasibility thing. I could always (and frequently did) play anything and everything much too fast on any of my 8 courses- what I feel on the 7 course is an incredible ease and freedom- things flow very naturally; whatever the tempo. Everything in the repertoire that I can fit on this lute just falls under the fingers almost without conscious thought or effort- some pieces now go slower because there's less to fight against. I wish I had gotten this instrument 30 years ago. And it's not that it's a fabulous instrument, it's just very good; but everything about the neck width, thickness, and general proportions works in an ergonomic way that I have never experienced on an 8 course lute- only on my 6 course- which with the 8ve basses is restricted to the earlier stuff. Just my subjective experience here. We do know that Dowland at least had a one-night stand with an 8 course; Sir John Langton's Pavan and the King of Denmark's galliard in the Varietie are genuine 8 course pieces. Another issue is the 10 tied frets on a 9 course lute. (Anyone ever see/build one of those?) Again, read Dowland's comments in the Varietie. -Dan I'm not sure just how an eight course instrument is going to slow you down? Is it not a matter of not playing the strings you do not use or need at the time? In theory, if not fact, it is possible to play many Lute pieces on a six course instrument and never play the sixth or even the fifth course for that matter and this does not seem to be an issue. So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically is another question. The only thing I would add, purely subjective, is that as a performer, a question: Will the 8 course slow you down in the long run? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 12:29 PM
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Dear Martin and All I go regularly to an amateur music salon, once a month, where I have the good fortune of hearing a lutist who can choose between 33 lutes (including 3 Baroque Malers, and 4 Baroque Freis) according to the repertoire he is playing. He usually does make judicious choices, and briefly explains why he has chosen that particular instrument (for a repertoire between 6c Renaissance through transitional to French Baroque. He has no 13c lute). Obviously, we can't all be in that position, and this is an extreme case, but it does bring home to me that I am bound to be loosing so much by owning just one 7c lute. Nevertheless, he regularly juggles between five different lute types in one evening. This gives interest to his performance through the different shades and colours of the lutes he chooses, and he does often seem to make right choices. The only small advantage I have is that my 7c lute is entirely gut strung, it would be impossible to string 33 lutes in gut, and if I had played as long as he has on his 33 instruments, I might have ended up knowing my lute far better than he can ever hope to know each one of his. Perhaps as he is French he gives more importance than many to the transitional repertoire, and he does have a number of different 10c lutes. I am not sure whether he has any 9c ones. As I would also like to explore the transitional repertoire, I felt that 6c, 7c, and 10c were good solutions, and perhaps mistakenly, I imagined that once you reached 9c, the additional course of the 10c would be barely noticeable. I certainly feel that is not the case when you move from 7c to 8c, so I am probably wrong here too. I notice that POD, in his Bacheler recording states that Bacheler switched from the standard 8-course Elizabethan lute to the French 10 course instrument during this period and his works often explore the rich sonorities of the low basses of the new lute. Now when POD says Bacheler, switched lutes. It surely doesn't mean he took up juggling (in the above sense). Would he not have stayed with his new lute type, just possibly juggling between different string lengths; and would that not be true of all historic players. They may have dropped one lute type and picked up another, perhaps occasionally going back to their previous choice. Their hands-on knowledge of their chosen lute type surely would have been much greater than ours: they would have developed subtle left-hand and right hand techniques corresponding to that lute-type which a modern day lute juggler can not possibly hope to acquire. Thus we do need the right lute for the type of music, but perhaps, regrettably, we should juggle less. I say regrettably, as I admit to longing to play French Baroque, while not wanting to give up my Renaissance lute. This 10c transition should now lead me to ask what the standard Baroque lute should be; but a recent recording by LIz Kenny of Cuthbert Hely on her Lawes' songs CD, shows me that there is not even one ideal transitional to French baroque lute. The dark slightly indirect sound of her large multi-ribbed 10c lute goes so well with that sombre music. There is no way that a 10c/11c 8 or 9 ribbed Frei, or Maler could convey that, at least I don't think it could. On the other hand, I just can't see Liz Kenny's multi-ribbed lute, in a 10/11c form, playing Charles Mouton. I think both the multi- ribbed sound and the appearance (due to constant reminder of the Fr. de Troy painting) would not make this easily acceptable. However, this not being the Baroque list, I may come back to this question later. I would just like to say that when I asked several lutemakers what their favourite lute types were, they seemed to have no hesitation in replying, the 6c lute for Renaissance music and the 11c lute for Baroque. They all told me that those were the ones that had the best balance and poise, as well as clarity of sound, in each music type. Best regards Anthony Le 28 nov. 07 à 10:13, Martin Shepherd a écrit : Dear All, It seems I am not alone amongst lutemakers in questioning the motives of my customers when they say they want an 8c lute. There still seems to be an assumption that a 60cm 8c lute is what everyone should have first, before they branch out into other types. As has already been said, 6c lutes cover virtually the whole of the renaissance lute repertoire, so a 6c lute is an obvious first choice. If you really want to play all those difficult 7c pieces (Forlone Hope, etc.) you need 7 courses, not 8. A 7c lute can be OK for earlier music too, especially since there is evidence of 7c lutes going right back to the late 15th C. The style of the instrument and the barring/thicknessing might become issues, though. As has been said, there is not much music specifically for 8c - two big collections which come to mind are Reymann and Molinaro,
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Yep, I've followed this baby too. And thought it finally almost settled down till these paragraphs, Vance. So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically is another question. What would slow me down would be to buy another instrument type and choosing yet another rep to play. I had an 8c (ok, still do) and I've made my choice of limits. Limits are good things. Some play lutes also; some play lutes only; some play only baroque or ren lutes The Lute is what it is, and as such it is an instrument possessing many strings. If anyone is going to progress beyond the first part of the Sixteenth Century they are going to have to deal with many strings. There seems to be an assumption here of progress meaning moving temporally forward in time. Ie, Johnson is good but to progress one should go to whoever followed him. I don't buy it. I don't want to move on from my chosen repertory. I've got more than my remaining lifetime's worth of music within the 6-c rep. Yes, I miss playing some Terzis, Molinaros, Cuttings and Dowlands but I don't need to spread myself thinner. Instead I apply myself more focused on my daCremas, Gintzlers and Spinacinos. Even if I were a beginner now it would be perfectly authentic to play a 6-c for an entire lifetime. Plenty did and were no less the lutenist for it. Slow me down. Fa. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I can't argue with the experience and ears of others, but I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by many of the statements being made about the huge differences between 6, 7 and 8 course instruments in terms of playability and inherent sound. My first real lute was an old 10 course that Pat O'B lent me and then I bought a beautiful Nurse 8 course. It was much easier for me to play and had better sound, but then it was a much better instrument. I have played some Ren music on my new Archlute just to get accustomed to the spacing, and it is obviously more difficult due to the tight spacing. I guess I'm a little concerned for the beginners lurking on this list who will read this thread with fear, dread and an empty pocketbook. We are fortunate in the lute world that the finest instruments around are cheep compared with other top notch classical instruments ($10,000 for the best lute around, $20,000 for a decent student cello without the bow). Unfortunately for the beginner, our entry level lutes are more expensive than beginner violins, cellos and guitars. I can't argue that most Ren music is well playable on 6 course, but I think that many guitarists, like me, come to the lute with dreams of Dowland in which at least a 7th course is mighty handy. FWIW, I have never enjoyed playing a 6 course and paradoxically have found them harder to play than my 8 course, but I have never owned one so it may be simply the learning curve. Like Chris, I would challenge anyone here to a blind listening test to distinguish a competent player playing the same 6 course music on a 7 or 8 course instrument of comparable quality and stringing. McFarlane's Milano sounds just fine to me, even on his 14 course. I've got a good day job and an understanding wife, so I can afford an instrument for every half century, but I suspect most lutenists are not so fortunate. My personal belief is that skill at tone production and musical interpretation is far more important than number of courses in the final result. I'm willing to believe that when everything else is equal, some may hear a benefit for 6 course music played on a 6 course, but whatever instrument you begin with, tone production is king. DS On Nov 29, 2007, at 4:25 AM, Luca Manassero wrote: Dear all, I have been following this thread with the greatest interest, reminding that I made the same question to the French-speaking lute list about 18 months ago. It's funny to read similar answers popping up: I tend to believe that a certain recent period really left a strong imprinting on many of us. I have restarted learning the lute 4 years ago after too many years of guitar and a short-lasting tentative 20 years ago. I went shopping for a nice lute and bought an 8 course instrument from Barber Harris. A great instrument, but after a short time I started questioning my choice. With most of my time spent bending (I am a little short-sighted) on Italian fac-similes I realized quickly that an 8 course lute was not the ideal one for that repertoire. On Holborne and Dowland goes now a lot better: I have to admit that I restarted enjoining it when I first started reading Dowland. I strongly believe that the difference between a 6 course and an 8 course is HUGE. The point is not in a dry academic discussion, while an academic study on this point is still missing, as far as I know. Music written for a 6 course sounds a lot DIFFERENT on an 8 course, even if you rework your stringing, I am afraid you'll never really have the right feeling for Canova, Borrono, Capirola, etc After one year just mumbling my feelings, I asked my teacher to try his lute (a 6 course, of course!) on a Capirola Spagna and saw the light. I understand the economical reasons, I fully support them. But you'll miss such an enormously important point when you go for an 8 course first lute, that as a teacher or a lutemaker (or both) one should always question that choice. And by the way, isn't the economical value (or the perception) of an 8 course so good, only because there are so many used 8 course? Ever asked you why there are so many 8 course lutes for sale? Isn't possibly because many people just made the same experience? All in all, I suggest the 8 course shoudl be a later instrument, NOT the first one. For what concerns ME, I'm not going to sell my 8 course for two good reasons: 1. It is a BEAUTIFUL, sweet sounding instrument 2. Molinaro and Terzi (and others) ..but I am going to have a 6 or 7 course lute soon, setted up for the Italian repertoire and possibly with a different sound colour. It'll take some time to find it, but I laready have an idea. Not sure I want to live in a lute museum (nor my family...), but I guess this is what happens when you get this particular sickness. Thank you to absolutely ALL of you for your contributions to this list: it's an amazing
[BAROQUE-LUTE] 13 course rider/swan
Dear all, I know this subject has been discussed before, and I have recently followed the interesting discussions on the d minor continuo lute the last week. However, regarding the choice of rider vs. swan necked instruments for solo work, I have checked the archives, but I still have some doubts about the =8Cgeneral consensus' re: one or the other for late works such as Weiss, Bach and others. A number of modern players have dropped using the 13 course swan necked instruments (like R. Barto) to the rider type for several musical and technical reasons. O'Dette has also chosen a rider type for his Bach works Vol. 1 (so far at least!) and there is a general feeling that the swan neck variety is more a continuo type instrument. But my gut feeling (no pun intended!) is that the swan neck type was primarily popular because it could use plain gut strings instead of any overwinding (of whatever type). I really see the smaller, circa 70cm (stopped) swan necked instruments as really fitting that role. To put it differently: could it be that the use of more modern stringing has given an impression of =8Ctoo much sustain' and other such difficulties with the 13 course swan necked instruments? As yet I have never had a chance to hear one entirely strung in good gut. Any comments insights on this point by the experts among you here would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Theo -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Sean: I understand, a six course instrument is the appropriate instrument for the music you choose to play. But let us assume you also wished to play Molinaro---not good fair for the six course instrument. I know one size fits all is an awful choice given all of the subtleties of period music and its appropriate instrument, but some desire to play all of this stuff but don't have the financial resources to purchase another Lute or two. So for a good portion of us having one instrument for everything is the only reasonable choice. VW - Original Message - From: Sean Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Yep, I've followed this baby too. And thought it finally almost settled down till these paragraphs, Vance. So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically is another question. What would slow me down would be to buy another instrument type and choosing yet another rep to play. I had an 8c (ok, still do) and I've made my choice of limits. Limits are good things. Some play lutes also; some play lutes only; some play only baroque or ren lutes The Lute is what it is, and as such it is an instrument possessing many strings. If anyone is going to progress beyond the first part of the Sixteenth Century they are going to have to deal with many strings. There seems to be an assumption here of progress meaning moving temporally forward in time. Ie, Johnson is good but to progress one should go to whoever followed him. I don't buy it. I don't want to move on from my chosen repertory. I've got more than my remaining lifetime's worth of music within the 6-c rep. Yes, I miss playing some Terzis, Molinaros, Cuttings and Dowlands but I don't need to spread myself thinner. Instead I apply myself more focused on my daCremas, Gintzlers and Spinacinos. Even if I were a beginner now it would be perfectly authentic to play a 6-c for an entire lifetime. Plenty did and were no less the lutenist for it. Slow me down. Fa. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1159 - Release Date: 11/29/2007 11:10 AM
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? (fwd)
The Cambridge Manuscript seems to indicate that the latest Dowland of the time was grouped together with F. DaMilano in the same book. VW - Original Message - From: Wayne Cripps [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 10:00 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? (fwd) I would think that in the old times, a lutenist would mostly play music from his or her time. They obviously would not play anything from their future, but I am sure they were mostly not too interested in music of the past, except perhaps for a few master works. I doubt that lutenists were into early music the way we are. Which means that if we are really trying to recreate the sprit of those times we to should probably select one time period and stick with it. Wayne From: gary digman [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm a little perplexed by this discussion. Is the assertion being made that lutenists who played 10c lutes at the inception of these instruments only played music specifically written for 10c and ceased playing music that appeared before unless they also had a 6c, 7c or 8c instrument? In the 10c repertoire a given piece of music will sometimes go several measures without anything happening in the bourdons. Would not these passages be subject to the same problems supposedly accompanying (accompaning?) the playing of 6c, 7c or 8c music on the 10c? Gary To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1159 - Release Date: 11/29/2007 11:10 AM
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? (fwd)
On Nov 29, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Wayne Cripps wrote: I would think that in the old times, a lutenist would mostly play music from his or her time. They obviously would not play anything from their future, but I am sure they were mostly not too interested in music of the past, except perhaps for a few master works. I doubt that lutenists were into early music the way we are. Not the way we are, but the past has a way of intruding on the present. The tendency to cling to the music of your youth was probably just as strong for them as it is for us, and by the time you account for generational overlap -- for example, an older teacher using music of his youth to teach a young pupil -- you find music, and musical styles, hanging on for a few generations. The Marsh Lute Book (c. 1600) has modern pieces by Dowland and Holborne cheek by jowl with pieces by Francesco da Milano (1497-1543) and Albert de Rippe (c. 1480-1551), and intabulations of music by Verdelot (c. 1480-1530), Taverner (d. 1545) and Claudin de Sermisy (1490-1562). So a lutenist in the 17th century would play music written by composers born in the 15th century. Put less dramatically, some music was played for 70 or 80 years. Marsh doesn't seem to be an aberration. Piccinini's 1623 and 1639 books have both Mannerist baroque toccatas (the cutting edge at the time) and renaissance polyphonic fantasies of the sort he played, and might have written, when he was growing up in the 1570's. Monteverdi's 1641 Selva Morale has mass sections in the latest baroque style alongside mass sections in the style of Palestrina, who died in 1594 when Monteverdi was 27. Zarlino, who was four years old when Josquin died in 1521, was still using Josquin's music as examples in the 1580's. Heinrich Schutz, who died in 1672, studied with Giovanni Gabrieli, who was born around 1555. Wayne's basic point is more or less valid. Elizabethan lutenists may have played Francesco da Milano's music, but probably didn't know or care how Francesco himself had played it, and wouldn't have thought for a moment about changing techniques or instruments to do it. HP -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Specialization (was: 8-course?)
Wayne, Yes and no. Certainly, lutenists of the past were not into early music the way we are now, but many of the greatest hits of past eras remained popular well into periods in which the mainstream style - or the lute itself - was quite different. Just look at the Augsberg manuscript that contains most of the works of Hagen. This very late collection contains La Belle Homicide by Denis Gaultier. This is at least a hundred years out of date - and talk about stylistic dissonance! Gallot shows up in the London manuscript, too. This would be like a someone today having a song by T-Pain and the Tin Pan Alley song, Shine Little Glow Worm on his or her iPod. Of course, there are other examples - Francesco's music outlasted the six-course lute for which he wrote. I also believe this road of super-specialization (i.e. _must_ use a 7-course for this piece, _only_ a 9-course for this..., etc.) is an _extremely_ dangerous road to go down for the entire field. Its great to really get into a particular style or composer. Ideally the insights gained by spending a lot of time with one period or lute should help you grow as a performer and strengthen your skills with other repertoire. I've always believed that variety is the spice of life. However, when we specialize TOO much all we really end up doing is boxing ourselves in. How can you program a whole concert that features, for example, Italian Music, 1538-42 or German Music, 1712-20 and have it interest anyone but diehard specialists? I personally love music from both of these periods, but I have to confess that a whole concert of either puts even a fan like me in the mood to snooze after about 20 minutes. This also starts to sound ominously like the philosophy laid out in Milton Babbitt's 1958 essay Who Cares If You Listen? (interestingly, the original title was The Composer as Specialist) stating that it didn't matter if a regular audience of Joe Blows related to a composition at all: what mattered was that the piece remained faithful to a system of arbitrarily selected parameters that were academically accepted by a small group of self-appointed cognoscenti. Well, were is Babbitt's music today? If a student tried to major in composition at a university in 2007 and submitted pieces with the application inspired by Babbitt's parameters they'd be laughed out of the room. And were is this style of music on the concert stages? Too much artificially academic specialization has lead to the absolute downfall of contemporary music in its entirety as a legitimate cultural force. Contemporary classical music is still present at the university level were it is supported by grants and endowments as if it were some kind of research rather than art. But no one really pays it much attention or respect. (I've played on contemporary music festivals where the paid professional performers literally just barely restrained themselves from laughing during the performance. On this list, I can't repeat some of the words used in rehearsals, but the phrase this piece makes me want to puke shows very regularly.) The fortunes of early music seemed to have wained in the past ten years or so. Why draw a line in the sand about something as trivial as whether having an extra two strings on your instrument is an offence against the lute gods or whether you may allow your eyes to stray forward or back ten or twenty years along the time line? Chris --- Wayne Cripps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would think that in the old times, a lutenist would mostly play music from his or her time. They obviously would not play anything from their future, but I am sure they were mostly not too interested in music of the past, except perhaps for a few master works. I doubt that lutenists were into early music the way we are. Which means that if we are really trying to recreate the sprit of those times we to should probably select one time period and stick with it. Wayne From: gary digman [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm a little perplexed by this discussion. Is the assertion being made that lutenists who played 10c lutes at the inception of these instruments only played music specifically written for 10c and ceased playing music that appeared before unless they also had a 6c, 7c or 8c instrument? In the 10c repertoire a given piece of music will sometimes go several measures without anything happening in the bourdons. Would not these passages be subject to the same problems supposedly accompanying (accompaning?) the playing of 6c, 7c or 8c music on the 10c? Gary To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[LUTE] Re: Specialization (was: 8-course?)
On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also believe this road of super-specialization (i.e. _must_ use a 7-course for this piece, _only_ a 9-course for this..., etc.) is an _extremely_ dangerous road to go down for the entire field. ** * How can you program a whole concert that features, for example, Italian Music, 1538-42 or German Music, 1712-20 and have it interest anyone but diehard specialists? Really, really bad example. Lots of ensembles do German Music, 1712-1720. They title it Complete Brandenburgs and sell lots of tickets. This also starts to sound ominously like the philosophy laid out in Milton Babbitt's 1958 essay Who Cares If You Listen? (interestingly, the original title was The Composer as Specialist) stating that it didn't matter if a regular audience of Joe Blows related to a composition at all: what mattered was that the piece remained faithful to a system of arbitrarily selected parameters that were academically accepted by a small group of self-appointed cognoscenti. I think we should let Babbitt speak for himself. I'll just copy a few sentences from Who Cares if You Listen without expressing any opinion about whether it's self-important crap with logical flaws that a retarded chimpanzee would avoid. Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary music has reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Advanced music, to the extent that it reflects the knowledge and originality of the informed composer, scarcely can be expected to appear more intelligible than these arts and sciences to the person whose musical education usually has been even less extensive than his background in other fields. But to this, a double standard is invoked, with the words music is music, implying also that music is just music. Why not, then, equate the activities of the radio repairman with those of the theoretical physicist, on the basis of the dictum that physics is physics. The whole essay can be found at http://www.palestrant.com/ babbitt.html#layman. I find Babbitt's prose mildly more palatable than his music. Well, were is Babbitt's music today? Right where it always was. I daresay it has as many rabid fans as it always did -- about 37. Too much artificially academic specialization has lead to the absolute downfall of contemporary music in its entirety as a legitimate cultural force. Contemporary classical music is still present at the university level were it is supported by grants and endowments as if it were some kind of research rather than art. I think this is barking up the wrong tree. All sorts of popular music is as specialized and limited in its way as Babbitt's, but it sells. Lots of blues or country guitarists are more picky about their instruments than lute players are. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Specialization (was: 8-course?)
Chris, Danny, Dan, et al, Very well stated!! Ditto!! I am surprised at some of the remarks, although very friendly civil, of disdain for 8 course lutes, as only Molinaro or Terzi used them. For example, labeling it inappropriate to play Dowland on an 8 course lute, in that 7 course lutes were used. I did have an 8 course lute built 5 years ago, and I enjoy it very much. As Dan Winheld said, he views his 8 course lutes as double 7 course lutes. Very clever Dan, but there is a tone of seriousness to his remark.. In general, much of Dowland and other Elizabethan composers used a comparative low D, where the continental used a comparative low F. I did own a 7 course lute, but I had difficulty in reconciling the 7th course, so after I had the 8 course lute built, I liked it much better, as I had the choice of either the F or the D without having to compromise the tuning or tension, either way, or having to finger the 7th course to get the bass F from D. So, in my viewpoint, it works for 7 course music for both Elizabethan _and _continental lute music of that time. While not having the historical perfection some are implying, it is a wonderful compromise, in my book. Why should I limit my repertoire because I do not have a 6 or 7 course lute, when I can play it all? I recorded my French renaissance CD on that instrument, in all gut, with octaves starting at the 4th course, and of all the comments I received about that recording (hundreds of comments), nobody commented that, You should have used a 6 course lute. If I owned one, I would have used one. With the gut basses, it really sounds no different than a 6 course lute (I tried many of the same model, by the same builder). What _IS _important is how it was strung, in terms of string material (gut) and pitch (octaves starting at the 4th course). Paul O'Dette plays 8 course lutes, and so does Hopkinson Smith. Are they wrong? On a King's Noyse CD, PO'D used an 8 course lute for French renaissance pieces. If I wanted to play all the renaissance repertory using only strictly the correct instrument, I would have to have a 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 course lute. I have not the money, or space to store them! As Chris states, some of the very lute gods thinking strictly that only a certain number of courses can be used for certain repertoire play on wound or overspun strings, using nylon, nylgut, or carbon strings. Given the choice, I opt for a beautifully played 8 course lute well strung in gut over a less beautifully played 7 course on synthetic strings. Let us not get stuck on the idea that only 1 kind of lute can be used for certain repertoire. That is too limiting. Great discussion! ed At 02:16 PM 11/29/2007 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wayne, Yes and no. Certainly, lutenists of the past were not into early music the way we are now, but many of the greatest hits of past eras remained popular well into periods in which the mainstream style - or the lute itself - was quite different. Just look at the Augsberg manuscript that contains most of the works of Hagen. This very late collection contains La Belle Homicide by Denis Gaultier. This is at least a hundred years out of date - and talk about stylistic dissonance! Gallot shows up in the London manuscript, too. This would be like a someone today having a song by T-Pain and the Tin Pan Alley song, Shine Little Glow Worm on his or her iPod. Of course, there are other examples - Francesco's music outlasted the six-course lute for which he wrote. I also believe this road of super-specialization (i.e. _must_ use a 7-course for this piece, _only_ a 9-course for this..., etc.) is an _extremely_ dangerous road to go down for the entire field. Its great to really get into a particular style or composer. Ideally the insights gained by spending a lot of time with one period or lute should help you grow as a performer and strengthen your skills with other repertoire. I've always believed that variety is the spice of life. However, when we specialize TOO much all we really end up doing is boxing ourselves in. How can you program a whole concert that features, for example, Italian Music, 1538-42 or German Music, 1712-20 and have it interest anyone but diehard specialists? I personally love music from both of these periods, but I have to confess that a whole concert of either puts even a fan like me in the mood to snooze after about 20 minutes. This also starts to sound ominously like the philosophy laid out in Milton Babbitt's 1958 essay Who Cares If You Listen? (interestingly, the original title was The Composer as Specialist) stating that it didn't matter if a regular audience of Joe Blows related to a composition at all: what mattered was that the piece remained faithful to a system of arbitrarily selected parameters that were academically accepted by a small group of self-appointed cognoscenti. Well, were is Babbitt's music today?
[LUTE] Re: Specialization (was: 8-course?)
On Nov 29, 2007, at 6:55 PM, howard posner wrote: Lots of blues or country guitarists are more picky about their instruments than lute players are. No pun intended, I hope... DR [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Specialization (was: 8-course?)
On Nov 29, 2007, at 5:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...How can you program a whole concert that features, for example, Italian Music, 1538-42 or German Music, 1712-20 and have it interest anyone but diehard specialists? I personally love music from both of these periods, but I have to confess that a whole concert of either puts even a fan like me in the mood to snooze after about 20 minutes. I take your point, Chris, but I can't help thinking that lots of people will happily sit through an entire evening of Andrew Lloyd Webber, or a Wagner opera, or a ballet by Stravinsky. I can sit through entire CD's of Corelli, Handel etc., doing absolutely nothing but sitting listening to the music. I've sat through many concert performances of the big sacred blockbuster requiems, and loved every minute! (Although I'm not sure I could sit through all the Brandenburgs...) ...Too much artificially academic specialization has lead to the absolute downfall of contemporary music in its entirety as a legitimate cultural force. Contemporary classical music is still present at the university level were it is supported by grants and endowments as if it were some kind of research rather than art. But no one really pays it much attention or respect. (I've played on contemporary music festivals where the paid professional performers literally just barely restrained themselves from laughing during the performance. On this list, I can't repeat some of the words used in rehearsals, but the phrase this piece makes me want to puke shows very regularly.) Once again, point taken. But it's not all that way. Consider Piazzolla: he's a cultural force. Listening to L'Histoire du Tango is for me like strolling through a gallery of modern art. It's a bit like a modern-day version of Pictures At An Exhibition. ...Why draw a line in the sand about something as trivial as whether having an extra two strings on your instrument is an offence against the lute gods or whether you may allow your eyes to stray forward or back ten or twenty years along the time line? No reason that I can see. David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Specialization (was: 8-course?)
One can have a lovely program that is a stitch in time that is not just lute solos. I think most entertainments would have had songs and consorts. The lute preludes ricercars might just be the ideal glue, but not the whole horse. dt At 07:59 PM 11/29/2007, you wrote: On Nov 29, 2007, at 5:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...How can you program a whole concert that features, for example, Italian Music, 1538-42 or German Music, 1712-20 and have it interest anyone but diehard specialists? I personally love music from both of these periods, but I have to confess that a whole concert of either puts even a fan like me in the mood to snooze after about 20 minutes. I take your point, Chris, but I can't help thinking that lots of people will happily sit through an entire evening of Andrew Lloyd Webber, or a Wagner opera, or a ballet by Stravinsky. I can sit through entire CD's of Corelli, Handel etc., doing absolutely nothing but sitting listening to the music. I've sat through many concert performances of the big sacred blockbuster requiems, and loved every minute! (Although I'm not sure I could sit through all the Brandenburgs...) ...Too much artificially academic specialization has lead to the absolute downfall of contemporary music in its entirety as a legitimate cultural force. Contemporary classical music is still present at the university level were it is supported by grants and endowments as if it were some kind of research rather than art. But no one really pays it much attention or respect. (I've played on contemporary music festivals where the paid professional performers literally just barely restrained themselves from laughing during the performance. On this list, I can't repeat some of the words used in rehearsals, but the phrase this piece makes me want to puke shows very regularly.) Once again, point taken. But it's not all that way. Consider Piazzolla: he's a cultural force. Listening to L'Histoire du Tango is for me like strolling through a gallery of modern art. It's a bit like a modern-day version of Pictures At An Exhibition. ...Why draw a line in the sand about something as trivial as whether having an extra two strings on your instrument is an offence against the lute gods or whether you may allow your eyes to stray forward or back ten or twenty years along the time line? No reason that I can see. David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Specialization (was: 8-course?)
Howard, --- howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, really bad example. Lots of ensembles do German Music, 1712-1720. They title it Complete Brandenburgs and sell lots of tickets. But this isn't quite fair - Bach and Brandenburg Concerto are names people recognize. Beatles tribute bands sell a lot of tickets too, (sadly, probably much, much more than the Brandenburgs schtick) but I doubt too many folks are dropping their change to see the ultimate tribute to Herman's Hermits or The Troggs. (I would not be surprised to find dedicated members of a Herman's Hermits tribute band on this list - but this will only prove my point.) Now, how many rock bands specialize in British Popular Music, 1965-1968 unless they're some sort of novelty act? I don't wanna be a novelty act. This is with Bach, a recognized name with works of true substance. But even a concert of all-Weiss masterworks would be a hard sell to all but hardcore lute players. (A somewhat well-known viola da gamba player I know claims Weiss is weird and incomprehensible. What the...???) These will also be works of great substance, but if you get folks to come, you'll have a lot of empty seats after intermission. Well, were is Babbitt's music today? Right where it always was. I daresay it has as many rabid fans as it always did -- about 37. Unfortunately, rabid is the word. While this type of music has always had relatively few fans, Babbitt simply gave voice to the agenda of an academic cadre that sucessfully elevated atonal serialism into a position of undisputed hegemony in university composition programs throughout the world during the 50's and 60's and that limped along as a real force well into the 1990's. (Without contradicting myself, I can say that there were some great masterpieces composed in this style.) It didn't matter how many people liked or hated the music - what mattered was how RIGHT those in positions of authority within academe _thought_ they were. During this time period, if you wanted to be taken seriously as a composer, there was almost NO OTHER WAY than to write music like this. Forget about the fact that the only people in the audiences are a couple of other composition professors and students. Those philistines in the Outside World don't appreciate the Serious Importance of the Esoteric Issues we have agreed to address in our sonic constructs, anyway... and why... why, the poor unwashed fools probably wouldn't be able to tell the Massive Difference in tone between a 7-course and an 8-course lute even after having it repeatedly explained to them in painstaking detail! The future of early music isn't quite this bleak, but I have been disturbed to a couple of EM concerts in which the audience was made up almost entirely of musicology students... Chris Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Specialization (was: 8-course?)
On Nov 29, 2007, at 8:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, really bad example. Lots of ensembles do German Music, 1712-1720. They title it Complete Brandenburgs and sell lots of tickets. But this isn't quite fair - Bach and Brandenburg Concerto are names people recognize. You accusin' me a' cheatin? You're the one who set it up by picking an example of narrow specialization that would include six chart- toppers. Narrow specialization doesn't mean lack of interest. It's precisely those programs that sell. Violin concertos by Venetian composers published in Amsterdam in 1725 seems arcane, but audiences will come to hear The Four Seasons. Viennese chamber music written in 1806 sounds bland, but they'll come to hear Beethoven's opus 59 quartets. Italian operas written for Prague theaters in 1787 is a loser; Don Giovanni is a winner. Concerts of music by one well-known composer are safe programming bets. But even a concert of all-Weiss masterworks would be a hard sell to all but hardcore lute players. II can think offhand of all-Weiss CDs by Lutz Kirchhof, Konrad Junghanel, Yasunori Imamura, Toyohiko Satoh, Hopkinson Smith (2), Robert Barto (8?), Richard Stone, Jakob Lindberg, John Schneiderman, Michel Cardin and Franklin Lei, and I'm sure half the folks reading this post could double the listing. Please don't, by the way. The point is that somebody other than lute players must be buying the bloody things. And whoever's buying is more likely to by Weiss Lute Sonatas than German Lute Music of the 18th Century. (A somewhat well-known viola da gamba player I know claims Weiss is weird and incomprehensible. What the...???) He's right. Weiss on the gamba is weird and incomprehensible, particularly if the gambist plays directly from the tablature. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Specialization (was: 8-course?)
David, --- David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 29, 2007, at 5:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Once again, point taken. But it's not all that way. Consider Piazzolla: he's a cultural force. Listening to L'Histoire du Tango is for me like strolling through a gallery of modern art. It's a bit like a modern-day version of Pictures At An Exhibition. Piazzolla worked for most of his life as an outsider on both sides of the fence. He received death threats from the hardcore traditional tango fans who wanted no change to the genre as they perceived it. He studied serious composition with the by then arch-conservative Nadia Boulanger. During his life he was certainly no force at all in serious music - no one who wanted to be recognized in academia would dare write in Piazzolla's style. There is no Piazolla school the way there is a colorist school, postmodern school, etc. Besides, his music has only really taken off in popularity since his death. I know there are plenty who would disagree with me, but personally I often find his music pretty bland. The rhythms are nice, but I find the harmonies rather predictable and dull in the scheme of things. The music seems rather cliche-driven and, taken as a whole, there are far too many decending chromatic sequences in which a short motif is repeated step by step by step for my taste. But really, shouldn't we be talking about what kind of lute to use when playing the Cinco Piezas? ;-) Chris ...Why draw a line in the sand about something as trivial as whether having an extra two strings on your instrument is an offence against the lute gods or whether you may allow your eyes to stray forward or back ten or twenty years along the time line? No reason that I can see. David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
[LUTE] Re: Specialization (was: 8-course?)
In this somewhat nihilistically arcane vein I recall Dmitri Shostakovich's instructions on playing his 15th string quartet: I want you to play it so that flies drop dead in midair, and that by the end of the first movement the entire audience has gotten up and left the building. -as best as I can recall, from an English translation. -Dan This is with Bach, a recognized name with works of true substance. But even a concert of all-Weiss masterworks would be a hard sell to all but hardcore lute players. (A somewhat well-known viola da gamba player I know claims Weiss is weird and incomprehensible. What the...???) These will also be works of great substance, but if you get folks to come, you'll have a lot of empty seats after intermission. Unfortunately, rabid is the word. While this type of music has always had relatively few fans, Babbitt simply gave voice to the agenda of an academic cadre that sucessfully elevated atonal serialism into a position of undisputed hegemony in university composition programs throughout the world during the 50's and 60's and that limped along as a real force well into the 1990's. (Without contradicting myself, I can say that there were some great masterpieces composed in this style.) It didn't matter how many people liked or hated the music - what mattered was how RIGHT those in positions of authority within academe _thought_ they were. During this time period, if you wanted to be taken seriously as a composer, there was almost NO OTHER WAY than to write music like this. Forget about the fact that the only people in the audiences are a couple of other composition professors and students. Those philistines in the Outside World don't appreciate the Serious Importance of the Esoteric Issues we have agreed to address in our sonic constructs, anyway... and why... why, the poor unwashed fools probably wouldn't be able to tell the Massive Difference in tone between a 7-course and an 8-course lute even after having it repeatedly explained to them in painstaking detail! The future of early music isn't quite this bleak, but I have been disturbed to a couple of EM concerts in which the audience was made up almost entirely of musicology students... Chris Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Rachel Winheld 820 Colusa Avenue Berkeley, CA 94707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel 510.526.0242 Cell 510.915.4276
