[BAROQUE-LUTE] Harp Strings
Hello Fonts of Wisdom, I'm wanting to do some experimenting with different bass strings for my bass rider 13-course. Does anyone have experience using harp strings? I've noticed that Bow Brand has gut strings for around $20 a piece. If this even works, its not terribly cheap, but acceptable for a trial run. I have no idea how you order them - they don't sell them by gauges, but rather by harp maker and octave. An tips? Chris To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Harp Strings
Hi Chris, I used to play with a harp player, Bill Taylor, who worked for [1]www.ardivalharps.com who supplied strings for period and modern small harps. They just ordered theirs from Aquila... Rob MacKillop 2008/12/21 [2]chriswi...@yahoo.com Hello Fonts of Wisdom, I'm wanting to do some experimenting with different bass strings for my bass rider 13-course. Does anyone have experience using harp strings? I've noticed that Bow Brand has gut strings for around $20 a piece. If this even works, its not terribly cheap, but acceptable for a trial run. I have no idea how you order them - they don't sell them by gauges, but rather by harp maker and octave. An tips? Chris To get on or off this list see list information at [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.ardivalharps.com/ 2. mailto:chriswi...@yahoo.com 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Peg count on Choc lute
Check out this one- http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/furniture/musical_instruments/objects/object.php?id=13id2=1action=nexthits=53page=1pages=5object_type=country=start_year=end_year=object=artist=maker= Ooops, Just a further clarification: I've never seen an 11 or 13c lute with a double first. Mace is the only late source for it, and perhaps it was just him being old-fashioned. It seems likely that a single 2nd was the result of converting a 10c lute into 11c. The easy way to do the conversion is to add a treble rider to get an extra peg and make the second course single, so you don't have to rebuild the pegbox. All you have to do then is extend the bridge and nut by one more course on the bass side; you end up with an overhanging 11th course but that's OK because you don't want to finger it anyway. When 11c lutes were made anew there would have been no reason to have a single second, though once it had become common in converted lutes it may have persisted thereafter. Best wishes, Martin -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Peg count on Choc lute
For a different take on Choc lute, see the sad story of Nicholas Smith on this page [1]http://users.stargate.net/~blink/imagepg.html Unfortunately the image link doesn't work any longer - who knows what it might have revealed. P -- Forwarded message -- From: Jelma van Amersfoort [2]jel...@gmail.com Date: Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM Subject: [LUTE] Peg count on Choc lute To: [3]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu Dear lutenists, Can anyone shed some light on this: Why doe the Choc liuto attiorbato in the Victoria and Albert Museum have 14 pegs on the first peghead? See: [4]http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/furniture/musical_instruments/objec ts/object.php?action=id=4id2=0hits=page=pages=object_type=countr y=start_year=end_year=object=artist= Or: [5]http://www.vam.ac.uk/apps/objects/1592_musical_instruments/images/fu llsize/7756-1862.jpg Were there still players that used a double first course around the supposed-date-of-origin of this instrument (1650)? Or is it a restoration mistake? Or is there an esthetical reason for it, like the pleasing effect of having equal rows of pegs on both sides of the first peghead? I'm asking partly because Martin de Witte is in the process of making a copy of this instrument for me (I'm very excited) (actually, he's building TWO, one in grenadil and one in yew), and he asked if I wanted 13 or 14 pegs on the first head. I'm going for 14, but I'm very interested in your opinions! Thanks, Jelma van Amersfoort, Amsterdam To get on or off this list see list information at [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Peter Martin Belle Serre La Caulie 81100 Castres France tel: 0033 5 63 35 68 46 e: [7]peter.l...@gmail.com web: [8]www.silvius.co.uk [9]http://absolute81.blogspot.com/ [10]www.myspace.com/sambuca999 [11]www.myspace.com/chuckerbutty -- References 1. http://users.stargate.net/~blink/imagepg.html 2. mailto:jel...@gmail.com 3. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 4. http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/furniture/musical_instruments/objects/object.php?action=id=4id2=0hits=page=pages=object_type=country=start_year=end_year=object=artist= 5. http://www.vam.ac.uk/apps/objects/1592_musical_instruments/images/fullsize/7756-1862.jpg 6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 7. mailto:peter.l...@gmail.com 8. http://www.silvius.co.uk/ 9. http://absolute81.blogspot.com/ 10. http://www.myspace.com/sambuca999 11. http://www.myspace.com/chuckerbutty
[LUTE] Re: Peg count on Choc lute
Dear Martin, Dan and all Thank you for such a detailed reply. Le 20 déc. 08 à 00:24, Martin Shepherd a écrit : Dear Anthony and All, The double top course is found on everything from 6c lutes to Mace's 12c lute, and everything inbetween. Three of our most popular 7c lutes from the Venere workshop, the 44cm C39, the 58.7cm lute in Bologna, and the 66.8cm C36, have their original bridges and pegboxes and a double top course. Most 9c lute owners, who have mentioned them, here, do seem to use double top courses; perhaps, this is more because of Dowland's remarks, rather than general evidence from extant 9c lutes (the Matheus Buchenberg / Roma 9c lute in Edinburgh, for example, does not seem to have a double top course, unless this could be the result of a reconstruction error?); while I have never seen mention of a modern 8c or 10c lute with a double top course. Perhaps this is because 9c lutes are still felt to be at the cutting edge of research; lutenists are therefore, more open to trying-out double top-strings, while allowing (even encouraging) lutemakers to experiment hypotheses around diapason and tension with this lute type, (as Martin's message here, seems to show): http://www.mail-archive.com/lute@cs.dartmouth.edu/msg18140.html ; whereas 8c and 10c lutes have, perhaps, become too standardized (ex guitarists favourites?), for such experimentation, even if historically, double-top might have been as rare (or common) on historical 8c or 10c lutes. Would the 9c string structure always have been associated with a multi-ribbed body, rather than a Bologna-mutational type? If so, would it also be safe to associate double first courses, whatever the number of courses (from 7 to 11c), also with the multi-ribbed shape, rather than with Bologna models? As Martin said in his above message, the double top does seem to imply a lower diapason (if not lower tension) than has tended to be used recently. This could be indicative of a late renaissance early baroque fashion that went beyond the double-top strung lute, as lutenists at the moment do seem to be ackowledging: 392 seems to be becoming almost standard for solo transitional and Baroque lute. At least, that is the advice I seem to be receiving. The double top course seems to have been relatively rare on 6c lutes, and by the late 17th C the author of the Burwell tutor explains the single 2nd on the 11c course by claiming that they could hardly ever find two strings to agree - a problem which would have been even more acute for a first course. I do find the single treble courses on my 11c lute easier to play clearly, than the 3c with unison double, even at 0,58. The lute is at 408Hz, reduced tension from 415Hz, so perhaps this is partly due to the lowered tension. The Meanes with greater diameter do not seem to present this problem. Although, I am newly adapting to TO for this lute, and I don't recall having had quite the same problem for the second course, when playing TI, on my 7C lute; but then that was at a high tension and at 440Hz. Nevertheless, I can just imagine how difficult a low tension double 1c at 0,40 could be, particularly if they are not almost identically paired. Working to obtain a better sound on the 3c does seem to be improving my TO playing, just as Dan tells for the double 1c on his nine course lute. I imagine that if you are a TI player, and you acquire a 9c-double- top-course lute, you would also feel obliged to swap to TO on that lute (as Dowland seems to have done), while perhaps still playing TI on your 7c lute (imitating, in that, what might have occurred historically for Dowland, unless this change ocurred from 6c to 7c?). Although, once Dowland himself changed to TO, I don't suppose he would have swapped back, just because he happened to have picked up his old 7c lute. I think Martin mentioned he was changing to TO with this 9c lute? Do you both, Martin or Dan, tend to make this TI to TO swap when moving from 7c to 9 or 10c? But I think it is fairly certain that the single 2nd originated as a conversion feature (from 10c to 11c), and iconographic evidence suggests that a double 2nd was also quite common on 11c lutes. If we interpret Burwell's keeping only the small eleventh as meaning keeping only the eleventh octave, then I suppose with just a change to the bridge and nut, you could string a 10c as an 11c with no extra pegs. That was the interpretation that Chris Pearcy put forward in a previous exchange on that topic: I think the idea of the single 11th course was possibly transitional - to make a 10c into an 11c set up with single second course, leaving another single for the 11th. My understanding was that this 11th course was an 8ve and not a bordon. Chris Pearcy Another interpretation might be that French musicians were searching for clarity, and everything was pared
[LUTE] Cantio Ruthenica LXXV
http://www.torban.org/ruthenicae/images/231.pdf http://www.torban.org/ruthenicae/audio/231.mp3 Amitiés. Enjoy, RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Harp Strings
Standard pedal harp gauges are listed on my web site (www.hbryan.com) under string sets Read the Gothic harp column, which lists standard Vanderbilt Classic Gut strings.by note name and diameter in inches. Order them from Vanderbilt Music in Bloomington, Indiana. The gauges you'll need for a lute are well less than $20 each. Order by octave and note name. The strings from the third octave up are about 55 in long. On pedal harps, the lowest notes are called 7th octave. Middle C is 4th octave C. I've used these strings on many harps, and on a theorbo. They are polished and varnished,a nd last longer than anything I've bought from specialty makers who cater to the lute crowd. They have proven to be better quality than strings I have purchased from any other vendor. I string about 35 harps/year, have had three defective strings in 8 years. Believe me, that is an awesome record! If you have questions, contact me. Vanderbilt has a web site with prices, etc. Howard Bryan chriswi...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello Fonts of Wisdom, I'm wanting to do some experimenting with different bass strings for my bass rider 13-course. Does anyone have experience using harp strings? I've noticed that Bow Brand has gut strings for around $20 a piece. If this even works, its not terribly cheap, but acceptable for a trial run. I have no idea how you order them - they don't sell them by gauges, but rather by harp maker and octave. An tips? Chris To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Peg count on Choc lute
No need to apologize Anthony, we are in disparate straits indeed as any single factor affects all other factors; and we are processing correlating many disparate bits of wreckage- tantalizing clues, contradictory artifacts, and the opinionated opinions of long dead musicians, string makers, luthiers who were as cantankerously human as we are. (And let's remember the sheep; whose 16th century guts were genetically the same as now, but is the breaking point really unaffected by diet processing?) I suspect at bottom they had the same love-hate relationship to the troublesome trebles as we do- are they worth the double expense, the double trouble with tuning need for absolute concordant trueness from open to 12 fret? For some music a singing, single treble string really is the best, while for polyphonic music and some accompanying tasks the even tone color, seamless transition, and perfect blending favor the doubled treble. My own attempts to get a handle on the doubled first go back to 1986, when I commissioned a multi-rib 8 course lute from Richard Fletcher; beautiful instrument that I now wish I had kept, but a number of personal difficulties forced me to part with it. Since then I learned historic thumb-out RH technique for playing 10 course, archlute, and 13 course lutes (Nicolas Vallet's vitriolic remarks about thumb-in-under frying my tender ears) and did not address the double-first problem successfully until I got my Chambure copy vihuela from Barber Harris- the instrument you can see hear me play on the Vimeo site. This instrument seems to want slightly higher tension than lutes, the Universale double chanterelle is .42 mm on a 64.5 SL, pitched as a nominal g, but A=392 (alright, f damn it) for an approximate tension of 35 N. With a single first it can sound good at 415, but is a little strained. I have decided on TO for this instrument, as much for arm-wrist ergonomic reasons as being in accord with Figueta Castellano. Getting good tone on any course, double or single, was initially much easier for me with thumb-under- but now that TO is comfortable the archlute d-minor lute sound clearer cleaner played TO. The 6-course lute- single first- (one Marco recercar on Vimeo) will always be a thumb-under instrument. I do not now own a nine-course lute, that is number one on my cosmic wish-list. I appologize for the disparate nature of my remarks. Best wishes Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Peg count on Choc lute
And one more thought- I would bet that a lot of the historic lute players- after the more universal use of the doubled first- reverted to a single by simply letting letting nature take its course. One of the strings pops- but the player just keeps on going. And going. Hopkinson Smith told me at a workshop that that was how he came to use only a single first on his vihuela. If I remember correctly, Dan Larson saw wear marks on the bridge consistent with a single first when he carefully examined the Chambure artifact in Paris. He also saw wear evidence indicating octaves beginning at the 4th course. I might also add that low tension makes clean playing of any double course significantly more difficult with synthetics than with gut. I currently have my d-minor Baroque lute lightly strung according to Toyohiko's recommended tensions- but with synthetics, and it is more difficult to play everything cleanly- I should gut the thing or crank up the tension a little. Dan -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey r...@dorseymail.com said: 1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. 2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Nobody played them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. Just as books were offered sans bindings, I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? 3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and embarrass ourselves mightily. Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, the whole viral modern publicist path. So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to play, to last and to please. So far so good. Rob Dorsey [1]http://LuteCraft.com -- References 1. http://LuteCraft.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Dana Emery
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey r...@dorseymail.com said: 1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. 2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Nobody played them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. Just as books were offered sans bindings, I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? 3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and embarrass ourselves mightily. Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, the whole viral modern publicist path. So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to play, to last and to please. So far so good. Rob Dorsey [1]http://LuteCraft.com -- References 1. http://LuteCraft.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Dana Emery
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey r...@dorseymail.com said: 1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. 2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Nobody played them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. Just as books were offered sans bindings, I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? 3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and embarrass ourselves mightily. Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, the whole viral modern publicist path. So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to play, to last and to please. So far so good. Rob Dorsey [1]http://LuteCraft.com -- References 1. http://LuteCraft.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Dana Emery
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey r...@dorseymail.com said: 1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. 2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Nobody played them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. Just as books were offered sans bindings, I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? 3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and embarrass ourselves mightily. Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, the whole viral modern publicist path. So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to play, to last and to please. So far so good. Rob Dorsey [1]http://LuteCraft.com -- References 1. http://LuteCraft.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Dana Emery
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey r...@dorseymail.com said: 1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. 2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Nobody played them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. Just as books were offered sans bindings, I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? 3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and embarrass ourselves mightily. Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, the whole viral modern publicist path. So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to play, to last and to please. So far so good. Rob Dorsey [1]http://LuteCraft.com -- References 1. http://LuteCraft.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Dana Emery
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey r...@dorseymail.com said: 1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. 2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Just as books were offered unbound (to be bound later), I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? 3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. we have no hard evidence of how fast not true, the human heart beat is a strong indication of tempo, and has not changed dramatically; at least not beyond the range of variation an individual experiences in performance today. We have practical confirmation of tempo in dances with leaping steps such as the galliard, humans go up as fast and far as they like, but the come down at the speed of gravity, which has not changed significantly, and which limits the range of tempos at which galliardes can be played for live dancers. If we had a time machine, we might go back and embarrass ourselves mightily. Dance music gives us a sort of time machine, English country dance remains popular today and is a sort of link to the past in that many of the tunes found in Playfords 1651 edition were known a century or more before, and remain in use today. The dances he describes from then are enjoyed today (Jenny pluck pears, Grimstock, Rufty Tufty ...) with gusto. Doesnt matter if the band is playing hoboys, violins, orpharions and viols da gamba; a good time will be had by the dancers so long as the refreshments hold out. -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
