[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Hi Danny and the List, The sound of that tubing is really very natural, and I cannot hear any extra reverb, either. And very nice and relaxed playing, too! All the best, Arto Daniel Shoskes wrote: I've posted several times the processing I use, based on the recommendation of my sound engineer uncle. I apply an inverted smile EQ and if I am recording in my small office, I add a small amount of reverb (if I am alone in the house and can record in the big living room the reverb is not necessary). The inverted smile corrects for inadequacies in the response of the mic. I was once recorded with a $15,000 mic and that led me to believe that cheaper mic+EQ is very close to the reality captured by the expensive mic and therefore that the EQ isn't cheating. In my most recent recording, using a superior mic (but not in the thousands of dollars) I thought the sound was much better and only the tiniest adjustment (taking down the highest and lowest bands in the EQ) was needed: [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2w15WCzoWY Danny (not a lute hero but a regular y-tuber) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Hi Stuart and the List, Stuart Walsh wrote: [...] I'm recording in a small house with lots of stuff around. You look like you are playing and recording in quite a spacious environment. Well, all my Q3 recordings are made in a tiny room filled with books, music, lutes, lute cases, computers, ... ;-) It could be interesting to try recording in some good acoustics, in some chapel for ex. But I agree that some professional recordings sound almost ridiculous. Very true! All the best, Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
I'm using the zoom H2, and add no reverb or anything, just the sound as it came out the box (but sometimes I think I should try a little bit of reverb... Or record in a church, even not HIP, but I'm not really HIP myself ;-)) Roman, one day you send me a file were you add reverb (3 different halls), what is the software you use for it, it was a great result ;-) Val To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
(Back to commercial recordings, not folks' 'tube submissions) In my view, if you notice the reverb, its too much. I'm also a big advocate of close miking. This is another thing that is especially appropriate for a soft instrument like the lute, but is rarely done. Its funny, I've done a fair amount of recording with LOUD rock bands where the philosophy is to get the cleanest example from each instrument by putting the mics right on the amps or drums. Name the last movie you've seen that featured a scene with characters whispering in which the sound engineer decided it would be a good idea to record in a warehouse with mics on the other side of the room. (Hhhhere's thh seecccret-t-t-t iiiorrrmatio yyyoouuu annnt-t-t-ed-ed-ed. Wwwwat-t-t-t?) How ridiculous would that sound? --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: From: Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings To: Daniel Shoskes kidneykut...@gmail.com Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 2:23 AM Hi Danny and the List, The sound of that tubing is really very natural, and I cannot hear any extra reverb, either. And very nice and relaxed playing, too! All the best, Arto Daniel Shoskes wrote: I've posted several times the processing I use, based on the recommendation of my sound engineer uncle. I apply an inverted smile EQ and if I am recording in my small office, I add a small amount of reverb (if I am alone in the house and can record in the big living room the reverb is not necessary). The inverted smile corrects for inadequacies in the response of the mic. I was once recorded with a $15,000 mic and that led me to believe that cheaper mic+EQ is very close to the reality captured by the expensive mic and therefore that the EQ isn't cheating. In my most recent recording, using a superior mic (but not in the thousands of dollars) I thought the sound was much better and only the tiniest adjustment (taking down the highest and lowest bands in the EQ) was needed: [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2w15WCzoWY Danny (not a lute hero but a regular y-tuber) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
About pro recording what I would like to hear is the same as in a concert when I'm at the first row (what I try to do when I go listen to lute music...) I don't want to have my ears too close to the lute (as if I was myself playing because in this case I'm not...) Too often we hear lute as if we are 10 cm close to the rose, then with much reverb... cathedral effect, not lute sound. Last CD of lute duets by Jean-Marie Poirier (LeftyJM) and Thierry Meunier is really nice because it is a very natural sound, with just the room reverb. V. - Original Message - From: chriswi...@yahoo.com To: Daniel Shoskes kidneykut...@gmail.com; Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:44 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings (Back to commercial recordings, not folks' 'tube submissions) In my view, if you notice the reverb, its too much. I'm also a big advocate of close miking. This is another thing that is especially appropriate for a soft instrument like the lute, but is rarely done. Its funny, I've done a fair amount of recording with LOUD rock bands where the philosophy is to get the cleanest example from each instrument by putting the mics right on the amps or drums. Name the last movie you've seen that featured a scene with characters whispering in which the sound engineer decided it would be a good idea to record in a warehouse with mics on the other side of the room. (Hhhhere's thh seecccret-t-t-t iiiorrrmatio yyyoouuu annnt-t-t-ed-ed-ed. Wwwwat-t-t-t?) How ridiculous would that sound? --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: From: Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings To: Daniel Shoskes kidneykut...@gmail.com Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 2:23 AM Hi Danny and the List, The sound of that tubing is really very natural, and I cannot hear any extra reverb, either. And very nice and relaxed playing, too! All the best, Arto Daniel Shoskes wrote: I've posted several times the processing I use, based on the recommendation of my sound engineer uncle. I apply an inverted smile EQ and if I am recording in my small office, I add a small amount of reverb (if I am alone in the house and can record in the big living room the reverb is not necessary). The inverted smile corrects for inadequacies in the response of the mic. I was once recorded with a $15,000 mic and that led me to believe that cheaper mic+EQ is very close to the reality captured by the expensive mic and therefore that the EQ isn't cheating. In my most recent recording, using a superior mic (but not in the thousands of dollars) I thought the sound was much better and only the tiniest adjustment (taking down the highest and lowest bands in the EQ) was needed: [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2w15WCzoWY Danny (not a lute hero but a regular y-tuber) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Hi Chris Your points are well-taken, however why should the mike hear what the live listener can not? Joseph Mayes From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of chriswi...@yahoo.com [chriswi...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:44 AM To: Daniel Shoskes; Arto Wikla Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings (Back to commercial recordings, not folks' 'tube submissions) In my view, if you notice the reverb, its too much. I'm also a big advocate of close miking. This is another thing that is especially appropriate for a soft instrument like the lute, but is rarely done. Its funny, I've done a fair amount of recording with LOUD rock bands where the philosophy is to get the cleanest example from each instrument by putting the mics right on the amps or drums. Name the last movie you've seen that featured a scene with characters whispering in which the sound engineer decided it would be a good idea to record in a warehouse with mics on the other side of the room. (Hhhhere's thh seecccret-t-t-t iiiorrrmatio yyyoouuu annnt-t-t-ed-ed-ed. Wwwwat-t-t-t?) How ridiculous would that sound? --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: From: Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings To: Daniel Shoskes kidneykut...@gmail.com Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 2:23 AM Hi Danny and the List, The sound of that tubing is really very natural, and I cannot hear any extra reverb, either. And very nice and relaxed playing, too! All the best, Arto Daniel Shoskes wrote: I've posted several times the processing I use, based on the recommendation of my sound engineer uncle. I apply an inverted smile EQ and if I am recording in my small office, I add a small amount of reverb (if I am alone in the house and can record in the big living room the reverb is not necessary). The inverted smile corrects for inadequacies in the response of the mic. I was once recorded with a $15,000 mic and that led me to believe that cheaper mic+EQ is very close to the reality captured by the expensive mic and therefore that the EQ isn't cheating. In my most recent recording, using a superior mic (but not in the thousands of dollars) I thought the sound was much better and only the tiniest adjustment (taking down the highest and lowest bands in the EQ) was needed: [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2w15WCzoWY Danny (not a lute hero but a regular y-tuber) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Not a professional recording artist, so weigh my opinion for what it's worth: so much fish. I'm torn on the issue of close mic'ing acoustic music. Electric instruments and ensembles depend entirely upon some kind of processing for sounding like they do, so close mic'ing and processing the sound however you'd like after the fact is wholly appropriate. However, I do think there is something to be said for chamber ambience (within reason) in recordings of soft-voiced acoustic instruments--or even full modern orchestras--where deliberately added processing is not necessarily a part of the performance tradition. I don't often listen to recorded music in a setting like that in which I hear live music; i.e., an acoustic instrument's cleanest pure sound isn't necessarily appropriate to a recording that is intended to capture the sound of performance because my car or carpeted living room can't add the chamber ambience I expect of the sound of performance. That ambience has to be included in the recorded sound, whether added via processing to a close-mic'ed recording or captured in recording process itself. In an acoustic performance setting, the audience's ears don't find themselves planted tightly against the performers' instruments. There is a certain logic to capturing the timbre of tone of any acoustic instrument at what could be a reasonable expectation for a hearer's position in relation to the instrument. Of course, much of that can be emulated electronically, and sometimes pretty convincingly, but it doesn't always have to be. I find close mic'ing, especially of relatively quiet instruments to also be very good at capturing the noise associated with acoustic music: finger squeaks, clothing rustling, the aspiration-like percussive attack of a plucked string, etc. A little extra care has to be taken too not generate noise in proximity to a closely positioned mic. Mics either positioned to capture some degree of chamber ambience or close to capture a pure tone for later processing: the technology to make either work convincingly to somebody's taste is pretty readily available nowadays. I don't think either is panacea. Best, Eugene -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of chriswi...@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:44 AM To: Daniel Shoskes; Arto Wikla Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings (Back to commercial recordings, not folks' 'tube submissions) In my view, if you notice the reverb, its too much. I'm also a big advocate of close miking. This is another thing that is especially appropriate for a soft instrument like the lute, but is rarely done. Its funny, I've done a fair amount of recording with LOUD rock bands where the philosophy is to get the cleanest example from each instrument by putting the mics right on the amps or drums. Name the last movie you've seen that featured a scene with characters whispering in which the sound engineer decided it would be a good idea to record in a warehouse with mics on the other side of the room. (Hhhhere's thh seecccret-t-t-t iiiorrrmatio yyyoouuu annnt-t-t-ed-ed-ed. Wwwwat-t-t-t?) How ridiculous would that sound? --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: From: Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings To: Daniel Shoskes kidneykut...@gmail.com Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 2:23 AM Hi Danny and the List, The sound of that tubing is really very natural, and I cannot hear any extra reverb, either. And very nice and relaxed playing, too! All the best, Arto Daniel Shoskes wrote: I've posted several times the processing I use, based on the recommendation of my sound engineer uncle. I apply an inverted smile EQ and if I am recording in my small office, I add a small amount of reverb (if I am alone in the house and can record in the big living room the reverb is not necessary). The inverted smile corrects for inadequacies in the response of the mic. I was once recorded with a $15,000 mic and that led me to believe that cheaper mic+EQ is very close to the reality captured by the expensive mic and therefore that the EQ isn't cheating. In my most recent recording, using a superior mic (but not in the thousands of dollars) I thought the sound was much better and only the tiniest adjustment (taking down the highest and lowest bands in the EQ) was needed: [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2w15WCzoWY Danny (not a lute hero but a regular y-tuber) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
I'm using the zoom H2, and add no reverb or anything, just the sound as it came out the box (but sometimes I think I should try a little bit of reverb... Or record in a church, even not HIP, but I'm not really HIP myself ;-)) Roman, one day you sent me a file where you added reverb (3 different halls), what is the software you use for it, it was a great result ;-) Val That is called impulse-response, and I've done it in either SoundForge or Samplitude. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Joe, A few reasons: A) Because you'll rarely listen to a recording with your ear stuck up against the speakers. The very nature of speakers adds an additional acoustical environment. (Headphones are the exception.) B) Because even the best microphone does not listen like a human ear. There really is no way for a mic to pick up all the subtle sound reflections with their multiple decay times, that we experience in a live concert. C) Even the best speakers are not playing back exactly what was recorded. Most of us have far from the best speakers. Remember the old recording mantra, Garbage in, garbage out. Mics far away with loads of reverb is like a soup that's been watered down to me. Once the water's there, you can't take it out. Chris --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Mayes, Joseph ma...@rowan.edu wrote: From: Mayes, Joseph ma...@rowan.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings To: chriswi...@yahoo.com chriswi...@yahoo.com, Daniel Shoskes kidneykut...@gmail.com, Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 11:07 AM Hi Chris Your points are well-taken, however why should the mike hear what the live listener can not? Joseph Mayes From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of chriswi...@yahoo.com [chriswi...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:44 AM To: Daniel Shoskes; Arto Wikla Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings (Back to commercial recordings, not folks' 'tube submissions) In my view, if you notice the reverb, its too much. I'm also a big advocate of close miking. This is another thing that is especially appropriate for a soft instrument like the lute, but is rarely done. Its funny, I've done a fair amount of recording with LOUD rock bands where the philosophy is to get the cleanest example from each instrument by putting the mics right on the amps or drums. Name the last movie you've seen that featured a scene with characters whispering in which the sound engineer decided it would be a good idea to record in a warehouse with mics on the other side of the room. (Hhhhere's thh seecccret-t-t-t iiiorrrmatio yyyoouuu annnt-t-t-ed-ed-ed. Wwwwat-t-t-t?) How ridiculous would that sound? --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: From: Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings To: Daniel Shoskes kidneykut...@gmail.com Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 2:23 AM Hi Danny and the List, The sound of that tubing is really very natural, and I cannot hear any extra reverb, either. And very nice and relaxed playing, too! All the best, Arto Daniel Shoskes wrote: I've posted several times the processing I use, based on the recommendation of my sound engineer uncle. I apply an inverted smile EQ and if I am recording in my small office, I add a small amount of reverb (if I am alone in the house and can record in the big living room the reverb is not necessary). The inverted smile corrects for inadequacies in the response of the mic. I was once recorded with a $15,000 mic and that led me to believe that cheaper mic+EQ is very close to the reality captured by the expensive mic and therefore that the EQ isn't cheating. In my most recent recording, using a superior mic (but not in the thousands of dollars) I thought the sound was much better and only the tiniest adjustment (taking down the highest and lowest bands in the EQ) was needed: [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2w15WCzoWY Danny (not a lute hero but a regular y-tuber) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Personally, aside from all talk of recordings, I'd much rather have a professional give me a private performance in my living room than the shared concert experience. If I could sit three feet away from Robert Barto, Nigel, Ronn, Hoppy, POD, etc, and listen to them play, I'd be in heaven because I'd be getting all sorts of details that can't be heard in a large room. Since I am not able to afford the private concert, a recording should be the next best thing. Unfortunately, I often feel like I've gotten the worst seat in the back row when I listen to most of my recordings. Chris --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Sauvage Valéry sauvag...@orange.fr wrote: From: Sauvage Valéry sauvag...@orange.fr Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings To: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 11:05 AM About pro recording what I would like to hear is the same as in a concert when I'm at the first row (what I try to do when I go listen to lute music...) I don't want to have my ears too close to the lute (as if I was myself playing because in this case I'm not...) Too often we hear lute as if we are 10 cm close to the rose, then with much reverb... cathedral effect, not lute sound. Last CD of lute duets by Jean-Marie Poirier (LeftyJM) and Thierry Meunier is really nice because it is a very natural sound, with just the room reverb. V. - Original Message - From: chriswi...@yahoo.com To: Daniel Shoskes kidneykut...@gmail.com; Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:44 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings (Back to commercial recordings, not folks' 'tube submissions) In my view, if you notice the reverb, its too much. I'm also a big advocate of close miking. This is another thing that is especially appropriate for a soft instrument like the lute, but is rarely done. Its funny, I've done a fair amount of recording with LOUD rock bands where the philosophy is to get the cleanest example from each instrument by putting the mics right on the amps or drums. Name the last movie you've seen that featured a scene with characters whispering in which the sound engineer decided it would be a good idea to record in a warehouse with mics on the other side of the room. (Hhhhere's thh seecccret-t-t-t iiiorrrmatio yyyoouuu annnt-t-t-ed-ed-ed. Wwwwat-t-t-t?) How ridiculous would that sound? --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: From: Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings To: Daniel Shoskes kidneykut...@gmail.com Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 2:23 AM Hi Danny and the List, The sound of that tubing is really very natural, and I cannot hear any extra reverb, either. And very nice and relaxed playing, too! All the best, Arto Daniel Shoskes wrote: I've posted several times the processing I use, based on the recommendation of my sound engineer uncle. I apply an inverted smile EQ and if I am recording in my small office, I add a small amount of reverb (if I am alone in the house and can record in the big living room the reverb is not necessary). The inverted smile corrects for inadequacies in the response of the mic. I was once recorded with a $15,000 mic and that led me to believe that cheaper mic+EQ is very close to the reality captured by the expensive mic and therefore that the EQ isn't cheating. In my most recent recording, using a superior mic (but not in the thousands of dollars) I thought the sound was much better and only the tiniest adjustment (taking down the highest and lowest bands in the EQ) was needed: [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2w15WCzoWY Danny (not a lute hero but a regular y-tuber) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Not to be argumentative, but... A) you will also rarely listen to any performer with your ear pressed up against the strings. The very nature of recording subtracts ambience, what they call room and gives you a rather unrealistic notion of what's going on
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
As far as recording rock guitar, simply putting a micro right on the amp is not the way used by many (perhaps most) rock guitarists in studio, it is usually a combination of various mikes in different positions, including mikes quite some way away from the amp. The latest trend (not exactly new Phil Spector may have used this technique on the last Beatles album) is to re-amp, recording the pure signal direct from the guitar (and also sending it to an amp) and then if the amp sound is not what is desired, in the mix process send the guitar track through a different amp or using different effects or even mikes. As far as the HIPness of recording and concert situation, our belief in the playing for 5 people and lute songs being only used in intimate performances, is questioned by Liz Kenny in a very interesting article in Early Music Vol. XXXVI entitled The uses of Lute Songs. Worth checking out. All the best Mark All On Mar 17, 2010, at 3:44 PM, chriswi...@yahoo.com chriswi...@yahoo.com wrote: (Back to commercial recordings, not folks' 'tube submissions) In my view, if you notice the reverb, its too much. I'm also a big advocate of close miking. This is another thing that is especially appropriate for a soft instrument like the lute, but is rarely done. Its funny, I've done a fair amount of recording with LOUD rock bands where the philosophy is to get the cleanest example from each instrument by putting the mics right on the amps or drums. Name the last movie you've seen that featured a scene with characters whispering in which the sound engineer decided it would be a good idea to record in a warehouse with mics on the other side of the room. (Hhhhere's thh seecccret-t-t-t iiiorrrmatio yyyoouuu annnt-t-t-ed-ed-ed. Wwwwat-t-t-t?) How ridiculous would that sound? --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: From: Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings To: Daniel Shoskes kidneykut...@gmail.com Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 2:23 AM Hi Danny and the List, The sound of that tubing is really very natural, and I cannot hear any extra reverb, either. And very nice and relaxed playing, too! All the best, Arto Daniel Shoskes wrote: I've posted several times the processing I use, based on the recommendation of my sound engineer uncle. I apply an inverted smile EQ and if I am recording in my small office, I add a small amount of reverb (if I am alone in the house and can record in the big living room the reverb is not necessary). The inverted smile corrects for inadequacies in the response of the mic. I was once recorded with a $15,000 mic and that led me to believe that cheaper mic+EQ is very close to the reality captured by the expensive mic and therefore that the EQ isn't cheating. In my most recent recording, using a superior mic (but not in the thousands of dollars) I thought the sound was much better and only the tiniest adjustment (taking down the highest and lowest bands in the EQ) was needed: [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2w15WCzoWY Danny (not a lute hero but a regular y-tuber) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Ned I can't be more in agreement, particularly about the Astree LP recordings of POD versus HM CDs. My thoughts are that the Astree were a CNRS research project, and the strings seemed to be part of that project. No doubt the sound engineers wanted us to be able to hear the different choices that POD had made, so they would have chosen a recording situation and mic position that didn't blur it: [1]http://tinyurl.com/ya22s6s Perhaps the gut strings themselves helped the clarity of the recording; but analogue recordings are naturally more focussed and yet with more presence. The digital sound engineers are clearly trying to make up for the poor digital sound of cheap systems; as it is so much easier to tweak the recordings than it used to be, this must be a very tempting solution indeed. Of course,YouTube recordists will be trying to make up for the even worse sound of computer MP3. Most small recording machines like the Zoom H2 have poor mics, and bad preamps, so it is necessary to move the mics ultra close. It then becomes almost obligatory to add reverb to hide the sounds due to the close miking. I don't think we shoud be too harsh on these computer recordings, so long as we treat them as working tools for sharing how players are doing, and on what they are working. We should be much stricter and more critical with professional CD recording that is left as a testament of how a great artist sounded. My worry is that MP3 will gradually become the standard by which all recordings are judged. Bring back the analogue LP! Anthony Looking on youtube for a video of the Earl of Essex Galliard the other night, I came across one by Elizabeth Brown. A fine player, but sounds I never heard from a lute live. I wondered what her recording engineer was thinking. But then I remembered that her sound was not completely unlike what I hear on many lute CDs, and it occurs to me that today's recording engineers generally have an odd concept of what a lute should sound like. Primarily, they seem to think it should sound BIG and with the oodles of reverb - as if heard from many feet away in a large and empty catherdral. Harmonia Mundi records Paul O'Dette this way, as do ECM and Naxos Nigel North, Naive Hopkinson Smith, and (not as exaggeratedly) Hyperion Elizabeth Kenny. Going into my vinyl collection I found that in the past, both Nonesuch and Astree did a much more natural job with Paul O'Dette, Edition Open Window is wonderful with Jurgen Hubscher (and Alfred Gross), and Decca always gave Joe Iadone and Chris Williams a natural sound. So, my appeal is to recording engineers: go into a medium size - or even fairly large - room with a lutenist sometime and listen to the sound he/she produces.Then forget recording in churches or cathedrals and by all means leave all electronic 'enhanements' out of the recording chain. Am I alone in this view? Ned -- To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://tinyurl.com/ya22s6s 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Anthony, The digital vs. analogue battle will never be resolved, I think. I still have a library full of records, in addition to a sizable collection of CDs. I think my best vinyl still sounds more natural than my best CDs, but the CDs are more consistent in quality. Certainly a portion of my vinyl is inferior to CDs of the same material. ( And were it not for Nakamichi's record-centering turntable, I would listen to less vinyl than I do! ). But for sure I wish all lute recordings were as good as the Astree POD ones! If I were more technology (primarily computer) oriented, I would get a good video camera and use my AKG mics and preamp for my home recording. But for simplicity, I use a Zoom Q3 - usually about 4 to 5 feet from me. Sure, these units don't have the best mics, and certainly not great pre-amps, but over all youtubes recorded with such technology still sound more natural - honest - to my ears than over-reverberant commmercial recordings. Ned -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
I am a great fan of the Skeptic Society. A recent article to touch (peripherally) on the digital vs. analog debate: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06 -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of nedma...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:32 PM To: agno3ph...@yahoo.com Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings Anthony, The digital vs. analogue battle will never be resolved, I think. I still have a library full of records, in addition to a sizable collection of CDs. I think my best vinyl still sounds more natural than my best CDs, but the CDs are more consistent in quality. Certainly a portion of my vinyl is inferior to CDs of the same material. ( And were it not for Nakamichi's record-centering turntable, I would listen to less vinyl than I do! ). But for sure I wish all lute recordings were as good as the Astree POD ones! If I were more technology (primarily computer) oriented, I would get a good video camera and use my AKG mics and preamp for my home recording. But for simplicity, I use a Zoom Q3 - usually about 4 to 5 feet from me. Sure, these units don't have the best mics, and certainly not great pre-amps, but over all youtubes recorded with such technology still sound more natural - honest - to my ears than over-reverberant commmercial recordings. Ned -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] should i learn thumb-under technique?
Dear Individual and Collective Wisdom, I am an amateur guitarist of about 25 years. I play fingerstyle acoustic, electric, and classical guitar. Because of my other hobbies, such as gardening, I gave up playing with nails some years ago and strictly play with my fingertips. Last year I commissioned a 7-course student lute from Stephen Harris and Sandi Barber, and it is nearing completion. I intend to play renaissance music on this instrument. I have wanted a lute for many years so I am quite excited. From following this list, reading lute tutors, searching the internet, and watching footage of lute players I realize that there aren't strictly thumb-under and thumb-out techniques, but all the shades in between. Currently my technique is very rooted in classical guitar technique, and my thumb never crosses under my other fingers. I have limited time to devote to music, and limited time to devote to learning lute technique. I am not in a rush to learn how to play, but I would like to make the best use of the time I have. Given my circumstances, would you recommend that I learn thumb-under technique? Does it make more sense to use this technique from the start, or should I focus on the other aspects of lute technique? If I don't learn thumb-under from the get go, will this just be more to unlearn later? Should I not even worry about using thumb-under? Thank you in advance, morgan -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: should i learn thumb-under technique?
Hi Morgan, I am in a similar situation than you, i.e., an amateur with guitar experience. Like you I asked myself if it would be worth and manageable to learn thumb under technique. It is. Take a good lute teacher, put some initial effort into it and you will be surprised how quickly and smoothly you will get into it! It's a really exciting experience! I consider it really enlightening to learn about all these diverse techniques, tablatures, instruments, music... at the beginning every new thing looks so difficult. But some practice helps, makes things easier as anticipated - and you have another insight at least, a widening of your horizon regarding knowledge as well as skill and musical diversity. Best Franz Dr. Franz Mechsner Hanse Institute for Advanced Study Lehmkuhlenbusch 4 D-27753 Delmenhorst/Bremen GERMANY E-mail: [1]franz.mechs...@unn.ac.uk Phone: +49 (0)4221 9160-215 Fax: +49 (0)4221 9160-179 __ Von: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu im Auftrag von morgan cornwall Gesendet: Mi 17.03.2010 19:51 An: lute Betreff: [LUTE] should i learn thumb-under technique? Dear Individual and Collective Wisdom, I am an amateur guitarist of about 25 years. I play fingerstyle acoustic, electric, and classical guitar. Because of my other hobbies, such as gardening, I gave up playing with nails some years ago and strictly play with my fingertips. Last year I commissioned a 7-course student lute from Stephen Harris and Sandi Barber, and it is nearing completion. I intend to play renaissance music on this instrument. I have wanted a lute for many years so I am quite excited. From following this list, reading lute tutors, searching the internet, and watching footage of lute players I realize that there aren't strictly thumb-under and thumb-out techniques, but all the shades in between. Currently my technique is very rooted in classical guitar technique, and my thumb never crosses under my other fingers. I have limited time to devote to music, and limited time to devote to learning lute technique. I am not in a rush to learn how to play, but I would like to make the best use of the time I have. Given my circumstances, would you recommend that I learn thumb-under technique? Does it make more sense to use this technique from the start, or should I focus on the other aspects of lute technique? If I don't learn thumb-under from the get go, will this just be more to unlearn later? Should I not even worry about using thumb-under? Thank you in advance, morgan -- To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:franz.mechs...@unn.ac.uk 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: should i learn thumb-under technique?
You could continue using Classical Guitar technique to begin with but you will have to concentrate on collapsing the first joint and striking both strings together. It is easier to do this with the thumb under but not impossible. - Original Message - From: morgan cornwall mcornw...@ns.sympatico.ca To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:51 PM Subject: [LUTE] should i learn thumb-under technique? Dear Individual and Collective Wisdom, I am an amateur guitarist of about 25 years. I play fingerstyle acoustic, electric, and classical guitar. Because of my other hobbies, such as gardening, I gave up playing with nails some years ago and strictly play with my fingertips. Last year I commissioned a 7-course student lute from Stephen Harris and Sandi Barber, and it is nearing completion. I intend to play renaissance music on this instrument. I have wanted a lute for many years so I am quite excited. From following this list, reading lute tutors, searching the internet, and watching footage of lute players I realize that there aren't strictly thumb-under and thumb-out techniques, but all the shades in between. Currently my technique is very rooted in classical guitar technique, and my thumb never crosses under my other fingers. I have limited time to devote to music, and limited time to devote to learning lute technique. I am not in a rush to learn how to play, but I would like to make the best use of the time I have. Given my circumstances, would you recommend that I learn thumb-under technique? Does it make more sense to use this technique from the start, or should I focus on the other aspects of lute technique? If I don't learn thumb-under from the get go, will this just be more to unlearn later? Should I not even worry about using thumb-under? Thank you in advance, morgan -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4952 (20100317) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4952 (20100317) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
I'm using SIR now for reverb, but I make my own impulse files. The free version is fine. dt At 04:33 AM 3/17/2010, you wrote: I'm using the zoom H2, and add no reverb or anything, just the sound as it came out the box (but sometimes I think I should try a little bit of reverb... Or record in a church, even not HIP, but I'm not really HIP myself ;-)) Roman, one day you send me a file were you add reverb (3 different halls), what is the software you use for it, it was a great result ;-) Val To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Mics are so cheap now there is no reason not to use four. Yes, the standard practice is to use several microphones for stereo recording. But there is something to be said for just using two. My favorite orchestral - and chamber music - recordings are done with just two, including Mahler 5th and 8th symphonies! Ned -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: should i learn thumb-under technique?
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:51 PM, morgan cornwall mcornw...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote: internet, and watching footage of lute players I realize that there aren't strictly thumb-under and thumb-out techniques, but all the shades in between. Very true. circumstances, would you recommend that I learn thumb-under technique? Absolutely. Does it make more sense to use this technique from the start Yes! It's fun to learn something new, it makes a better sound on a R-lute, it makes more sense with the music you'll be playing, and, why bother with a lute in the first place if you'd be playing guitar on it? Congratulations on the SS student lute, they're great! Should I not even worry about using thumb-under? Worry is the last thing you should be doing about it. Just play, enjoy, work at it. David - been there, done that -- *** David van Ooijen davidvanooi...@gmail.com www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: should i learn thumb-under technique?
On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:51 AM, morgan cornwall wrote: I would like to make the best use of the time I have. Given my circumstances, would you recommend that I learn thumb-under technique? Does it make more sense to use this technique from the start, or should I focus on the other aspects of lute technique? If I don't learn thumb-under from the get go, will this just be more to unlearn later? Should I not even worry about using thumb-under? I remember some years ago, a lurker on the list named John Dowland asked if he should change from thumb-under to thumb-out technique, since everyone seemed to have been switching, and he got a mixed bag of responses. I wish I could forward them on to you, but it was more than 400 years ago and my email archives don't go back that far; Stewart McCoy probably has them. I believe Dowland made that change, or so Stobaeus tells us. As for you, you should arrange your right hand so that it's getting a full tone and not banging two strings of a course together, which in turn involves striking the string from the top, as if you're pushing them down toward the soundboard. Your guitar technique will probably not accomplish this. Resting the pinkie on the soundboard is helpful in orienting the hand, so even if it feels odd at first, you should try it. Experiment with whatever works, and don't worry too much about where your thumb is, unless it's interfering with your fingers. My first lute teacher told me to try thumb-under for at least a week or so, mostly to get me doing something different from what I was used to, the theory being, I suppose, that doing something farthest removed from my established habits would minimize the transfer of lute-inappropriate technique to the lute. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:30 PM, David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net wrote: about mics reasons, normally you have some at different distances, then you mix them. You can get by with three, four is better, six is insurance, eight is My CD recordings, 30 so far and tomorrow will be the next one, have been done in a variety of set-ups, but these days more and more engineers opt for one set of mics, placed at ears' distance from each other, placed close enough to the musician(s) to get a direct sound, placed far enough away to catch some natural reverb. Natural acoustics, naturally. In a cosy small chapel the mics will be a little further away, in a huge church very close. It's the natural way to balance direct, dry sound with natural reverb. Just as the listener on the front row might wish he'd be a little further away in a small room, or a little closer in a big church. How far away is a matter of taste, of course. The recordings I've done with a separate set of mics for each player, and a recording engineer making a balance of the different signals, have been less natural. The same goes for the recordings with close mics for musicians and a set further away for the reverb. I know it's the way to do things according to many, but for me the results are not as if I'm in the hall, listening myself, placing myself exactly in the ambiance, however 'pretty', 'easy' or 'beautiful' the final result. Beauty is never the aim. Truth is. The studio recordings with artificial reverb added I've done should be forgotten for their results (though I use a tad of SIR myself for my YouTube home recordings in my dry, book-filled study). I have one surround sound CD, where more mics were used obviously, but I've never listened to the surround version, so I cannot comment on that setup. The ideal recording for me is where you can imagine yourself exactly in the space, and can visualise the player(s) in front of you, in three dimensions. David - should be packing his bags for three days of recording in Germany, starting tomorrow. Theorbo in mean tone with pieces from 3 flats to 5 sharps ... wish me strength -- *** David van Ooijen davidvanooi...@gmail.com www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stretching strings and diameter.
This sounds plausible. To disprove it with certainty I'd need to do methodical measurements. On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alexander Batov wrote: I think they only appear as 'equally' unstable because they would all need to be tuned up but ... to the rather unequal degree. Being more or less under equal tension, thinner strings would not only stretch more but with each decrement of falling tension (as they get thinner) there would be a wider drop in the frequency per cent rate as compared with thicker strings across the instrument's range (i.e. as an example: g' - g'# = 23.3 Hz, g - g# = 11.65 Hz, G - G# = 5.83 Hz etc). As a result thicker strings would need less of re-tuning (peg-turning) to get them back in pitch again. Does it make sense or did I get it wrong? Alexander Herbert Ward wrote: One might expect that, during the period when new strings are stretching, the thinner strings, having less material* than the thicker strings, but the same tension to support, would stretch faster. However, this expectation is not born out by my experience. In dealing with new strings, my perception has been that all the strings are about equal in terms of tuning instability. * ie, a smaller cross-sectional area To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: should i learn thumb-under technique?
Was he that really melancholy guy? I think I asked him to play at a party and regretted it for quite a while. Seemed to know how to tickle the gut though. Question to all. If thumb-under assists in playing the double courses simultaneously and without double striking, how did the baroque lutenists (or Dowland for that matter) avoid this problem when they switched to thumb-out? And thank you, Howard, for the comments. - Original Message - From: howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com To: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:20 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: should i learn thumb-under technique? On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:51 AM, morgan cornwall wrote: I would like to make the best use of the time I have. Given my circumstances, would you recommend that I learn thumb-under technique? Does it make more sense to use this technique from the start, or should I focus on the other aspects of lute technique? If I don't learn thumb-under from the get go, will this just be more to unlearn later? Should I not even worry about using thumb-under? I remember some years ago, a lurker on the list named John Dowland asked if he should change from thumb-under to thumb-out technique, since everyone seemed to have been switching, and he got a mixed bag of responses. I wish I could forward them on to you, but it was more than 400 years ago and my email archives don't go back that far; Stewart McCoy probably has them. I believe Dowland made that change, or so Stobaeus tells us. As for you, you should arrange your right hand so that it's getting a full tone and not banging two strings of a course together, which in turn involves striking the string from the top, as if you're pushing them down toward the soundboard. Your guitar technique will probably not accomplish this. Resting the pinkie on the soundboard is helpful in orienting the hand, so even if it feels odd at first, you should try it. Experiment with whatever works, and don't worry too much about where your thumb is, unless it's interfering with your fingers. My first lute teacher told me to try thumb-under for at least a week or so, mostly to get me doing something different from what I was used to, the theory being, I suppose, that doing something farthest removed from my established habits would minimize the transfer of lute-inappropriate technique to the lute. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: should i learn thumb-under technique?
Hi everyone, Just a few comments to add: In addition to Dowland, Gregory Howet also played thumb-out; my ancient article on Sebastian Ochsenkuhn (American Lute Society Journal, 1982) points out that Ochsenkuhn (1558) is seen playing thumb out (perhaps because his lute looks pretty large), and Bakfark is also shown playing thumb out. I have played both ways (with no guitar background), and I think that thumb out is just as good (sometimes better) for the repertory c. 1600 . . . John O. Robison On 3/17/10 7:20 PM, howard posner [1]howardpos...@ca.rr.com wrote: On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:51 AM, morgan cornwall wrote: I would like to make the best use of the time I have. Given my circumstances, would you recommend that I learn thumb-under technique? Does it make more sense to use this technique from the start, or should I focus on the other aspects of lute technique? If I don't learn thumb-under from the get go, will this just be more to unlearn later? Should I not even worry about using thumb-under? I remember some years ago, a lurker on the list named John Dowland asked if he should change from thumb-under to thumb-out technique, since everyone seemed to have been switching, and he got a mixed bag of responses. I wish I could forward them on to you, but it was more than 400 years ago and my email archives don't go back that far; Stewart McCoy probably has them. I believe Dowland made that change, or so Stobaeus tells us. As for you, you should arrange your right hand so that it's getting a full tone and not banging two strings of a course together, which in turn involves striking the string from the top, as if you're pushing them down toward the soundboard. Your guitar technique will probably not accomplish this. Resting the pinkie on the soundboard is helpful in orienting the hand, so even if it feels odd at first, you should try it. Experiment with whatever works, and don't worry too much about where your thumb is, unless it's interfering with your fingers. My first lute teacher told me to try thumb-under for at least a week or so, mostly to get me doing something different from what I was used to, the theory being, I suppose, that doing something farthest removed from my established habits would minimize the transfer of lute-inappropriate technique to the lute. To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/howardpos...@ca.rr.com 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings
Joe, --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Mayes, Joseph ma...@rowan.edu wrote: Not to be argumentative, but... And why not? Its a discussion after all. A) you will also rarely listen to any performer with your ear pressed up against the strings. The very nature of recording subtracts ambience, what they call room and gives you a rather unrealistic notion of what's going on ..but you're playing it back in a room, too. The lute is such a small voice, it really needs to be recorded up close. And I'm not totally against reverb, just the warehouse effect so often heard. Chris To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: should i learn thumb-under technique?
Morgan, --- On Wed, 3/17/10, morgan cornwall mcornw...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote: Question to all. If thumb-under assists in playing the double courses simultaneously and without double striking, how did the baroque lutenists (or Dowland for that matter) avoid this problem when they switched to thumb-out? Ah, a subject near and dear to my heart. Try thumb-under... if you want to make your lute sound dull and rotten (Stobaeus) ;-) In all seriousness, I would advise you to give it a serious try. The touch and feel is considerably different than classical guitar style and you'll probably like it. The majority of ren. players obviously used this technique and the music they left to us responds well with it. Thumb-out can also be made to work and two strings can be simultaneously struck just as effectively as with thumb-under, but it is generally more appropriate for music c.1600 and later. Also, thumb-out is NOT the same as classical guitar technique: you'll have to spend a lot of time practicing real lute thumb-out. As the quote from Stobaeus above suggests, it seems the practitioners of thumb-out had a different tonal ideal in mind. Chris And thank you, Howard, for the comments. - Original Message - From: howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com To: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:20 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: should i learn thumb-under technique? On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:51 AM, morgan cornwall wrote: I would like to make the best use of the time I have. Given my circumstances, would you recommend that I learn thumb-under technique? Does it make more sense to use this technique from the start, or should I focus on the other aspects of lute technique? If I don't learn thumb-under from the get go, will this just be more to unlearn later? Should I not even worry about using thumb-under? I remember some years ago, a lurker on the list named John Dowland asked if he should change from thumb-under to thumb-out technique, since everyone seemed to have been switching, and he got a mixed bag of responses. I wish I could forward them on to you, but it was more than 400 years ago and my email archives don't go back that far; Stewart McCoy probably has them. I believe Dowland made that change, or so Stobaeus tells us. As for you, you should arrange your right hand so that it's getting a full tone and not banging two strings of a course together, which in turn involves striking the string from the top, as if you're pushing them down toward the soundboard. Your guitar technique will probably not accomplish this. Resting the pinkie on the soundboard is helpful in orienting the hand, so even if it feels odd at first, you should try it. Experiment with whatever works, and don't worry too much about where your thumb is, unless it's interfering with your fingers. My first lute teacher told me to try thumb-under for at least a week or so, mostly to get me doing something different from what I was used to, the theory being, I suppose, that doing something farthest removed from my established habits would minimize the transfer of lute-inappropriate technique to the lute. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: should i learn thumb-under technique?
Absolutely! And let's not forget that perhaps most (if not, indeed, all) 'professional' lutenists from c. 1600 on also played chitarrone / theorbo and guitar where thumb-out is simply far more superior for the sheer flexibility of it, for a wider variety of sound dynamics and of tone colour that it allows to produce by shifting the hand towards and away from the bridge. How could all this be taken away from at least 150 years of lute and guitar playing (i.e. c. 1600 - 1750) is difficult to imagine, if only thumb-in had remained ... Alexander Robison, John wrote: Hi everyone, Just a few comments to add: In addition to Dowland, Gregory Howet also played thumb-out; my ancient article on Sebastian Ochsenkuhn (American Lute Society Journal, 1982) points out that Ochsenkuhn (1558) is seen playing thumb out (perhaps because his lute looks pretty large), and Bakfark is also shown playing thumb out. I have played both ways (with no guitar background), and I think that thumb out is just as good (sometimes better) for the repertory c. 1600 . . . John O. Robison To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
