[LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
Fingerboard surface to string. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Eugene Kurenko wrote: > As for me I meant bottom of the string and top of the fret > > 2012/2/5 William Samson <[1]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk> > > Just going to be picky for a sec - Are we talking about the > distance > between the bottom of the string and the surface of the > fingerboard, or > the top of the fret? Could make a significant difference. > Bill > From: brentlynk <[2]brentl...@bellsouth.net> > To: Roman Turovsky <[3]r.turov...@gmail.com>; > [4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > Sent: Sunday, 5 February 2012, 17:45 > Subject: [LUTE] P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > > P.S. It's much appreciated, Roman and Eugene...Indeed, 4 mm was the > "max" that > the expert/master luthier told me was "acceptable"...My 10-course was > in for > repairs recently (after 15 years of me playing it...) and the action > had risen > to about 5.5 mm at the 9th fret. The luthier corrected it and it > plays > a GREAT > deal better now. I am glad to know the same basic rule applies to > the > action on > baroque lutes...Heck, they are lutes, not long-bows to shoot arrows > with, LOL! > :-) > Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, > BJ > - Original Message > > From: Roman Turovsky <[1][5]r.turov...@gmail.com> > To: [2][6]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; brentlynk > <[3][7]brentl...@bellsouth.net> > Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:36:01 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > 3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. > RT > - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" > > <[4][8]brentl...@bellsouth.net> > To: <[5][9]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? >> Hello Everyone! >> >> Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for > me > to ask a >> quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) >> >> What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course > baroque lute >> with >> a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that > this > could be >> "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, > etc...But is >> there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider > ideal? >> >> IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the > question: >> >> I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, > and > was told >> by >> a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the > neck/body joint >> for >> a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He > also said >> that >> on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially > with those >> with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than > that at > the >> neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body > joint." I > am >> NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was > told > by a very >> reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so > perhaps >> he'll >> answer this question along with others? :-) >> >> Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed > with > a 13 >> course >> baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am > wondering > what the >> general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm > of string >> clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? > Or > too high? >> >> >> I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't > literally mean >> to >> splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 > course > baroque >> lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? > Personally, having >> only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have > always > preferred >> the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 > course >> baroque lute I am referring to is so much longer than what I am > currently used >> to with the 10 course, 63 cm lute I play, I want to make sure I > know > what to >> expect... (I am happy to make the transition and adjust > accordingly...no >> worries!) >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> BJ >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at > >> [6][10]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- > References > 1. mailto:[11]r.turov...@gmail.com > 2. mailto:[12]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > 3. mailto:[13]brentl...@bellsouth.net > 4. mailto:[14]brentl...@bellsouth.net > 5. mailto:[15]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > 6. [16]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > > References > > 1. mailto:willsam...@yahoo.co.uk > 2. mailto:brent
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Ron Andrico wrote:
> While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little incensed
> that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial recordings
> with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics?
Would you be incensed by a reviewer who panned Herbert von Karajan's recordings
of Bach because the critic's "one point of view" was that Bach should be played
with attention to historical performance practice? Or a reviewer who admitted
that in the 1970's he had deliberately conveyed the message to buy the
period-instrument recordings of Bach's cantatas by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt
and "leave the rest" (modern-instrument performances by Richter and Rilling and
whoever)?
Or, closer to home on this list, is it wrong for a critic to opine that lute
recordings on instruments built like modern guitars are not the ones to buy?
Critics are paid to convey information and make judgments. If a critic writing
for a publication about early music has reached a conclusion that voices-only
performance is "correct," and that any instruments make it as wrong as
Karajan's Brandenburgs, it isn't unethical for that viewpoint to inform his
writing--indeed, how could he possibly put it aside and pretend he didn't think
the performances with instruments are historically wrong (just as you might
conclude, if the instruments were saxophones)? You might find his viewpoint
wrong or overly limited, and maybe you're right. But it isn't unethical for a
critic to approach his work with his own ideas.
The potential ethical problems stem from the small-world nature of the early
music community, where the prominent performers and scholars all know each
other, and cronyism, or the reverse, is always a problem. When I was review
editor for the LSA quarterly, I told some folks (all of them on this list, I
think) that there were ethical problems because they were performers writing
about other performers or publishers writing about other publishers
("competition" in common parlance), making for inherent conflict of interest.
I don't think anyone had ever brought it up before, and while the (soon-to-be
former) reviewers themselves seemed to understand, or at least accepted, my
insistence on avoiding systemic conflict of interest, the responses I got from
the LSA officialdom was much the same response I would have gotten if I'd said
only Martians could write reviews for the Q. And maybe they were right:
perhaps if the community is small enough, you have to put up with conflic!
t of interest if you want a pool of reviewers.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: tuning software?
I have the same problem on vista but I'd always assumed that was just a problem with my computer. I tend to use it more for producing notes than picking up notes that I play into it. On 5 February 2012 19:16, Craig Robert Pierpont <[1]crpierp...@yahoo.com> wrote: Has anybody gotten this to work on Windows 7? It seems to run fine except that I can't get it to recognize any sound input. Craig Craig R. Pierpont Another Era Lutherie [2]www.anotherera.com --- On Sat, 2/4/12, Sam Chapman <[3]manchap...@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sam Chapman <[4]manchap...@gmail.com> Subject: [LUTE] Re: tuning software? To: "David van Ooijen" <[5]davidvanooi...@gmail.com> Cc: "lutelist Net" <[6]Lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Date: Saturday, February 4, 2012, 4:19 PM WinTemper is pretty good: [1][1][7]http://wintemper.com/ Best, Sam On 29 January 2012 17:41, David van Ooijen <[2][2][8]davidvanooi...@gmail.com> wrote: It has come up, and I even had something installed on my computer once, but I lost all. Does anybody use tuning software for Windows and/or Mac, and if so, any feedback on the software used? David -- *** David van Ooijen [3][3][9]davidvanooi...@gmail.com [4][10]www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at [5][4][11]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Sam Chapman Oetlingerstrasse 65 4057 Basel (0041) 79 530 39 91 -- References 1. [5][12]http://wintemper.com/ 2. mailto:[6][13]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 3. mailto:[7][14]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 4. [8][15]http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 5. [9][16]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [17]http://wintemper.com/ 2. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[18]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 3. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[19]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 4. [20]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. [21]http://wintemper.com/ 6. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[22]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 7. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[23]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 8. [24]http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 9. [25]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Sam Chapman Oetlingerstrasse 65 4057 Basel (0041) 79 530 39 91 -- References 1. mailto:crpierp...@yahoo.com 2. http://www.anotherera.com/ 3. mailto:manchap...@gmail.com 4. mailto:manchap...@gmail.com 5. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 6. mailto:Lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 7. http://wintemper.com/ 8. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 9. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 10. http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 11. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 12. http://wintemper.com/ 13. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 14. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 15. http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 16. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 17. http://wintemper.com/ 18. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 19. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 20. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 21. http://wintemper.com/ 22. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 23. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 24. http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 25. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Pitch names
Please ignore the grAmMer and spelling mistakes. My iPhone is illiterate. Regards David Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2012, at 11:34 AM, David Smith wrote: > Hi, > This question may have an obvious answer but what the heck. > > The highest string on my renaissance lute is a g. In terms oh Helmhotz > notation it is g' and In scientific it is G4. > > When I go to different string makers sights I see this sometimes noted as g > and other times as g'. At least I think that is what I am seeing. > > Is there a reason for the difference? > > I checked against the frequencies and they are referring to the same pitch. > > Regards > David > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Pitch names
Hi, This question may have an obvious answer but what the heck. The highest string on my renaissance lute is a g. In terms oh Helmhotz notation it is g' and In scientific it is G4. When I go to different string makers sights I see this sometimes noted as g and other times as g'. At least I think that is what I am seeing. Is there a reason for the difference? I checked against the frequencies and they are referring to the same pitch. Regards David Sent from my iPhone To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
My Baroque lute (Robert Lundberg, 1977) is a bare touch less than 4 mm at both 9th and 10th frets (1st string lines up exactly with the line on my ruler- to top of fret). Feels fine, would not want it lower & certainly no higher. The fistmele of an English Longbow (distance from the bottom of the string to the surface of the inside of the bow when braced) should be the distance from the edge of the hand to end of the extended thumb, approx. 6-1/4", depending of course on various factors- length of the bow, size of the archer, etc. A little more room to play around with than the lute action distance. Dan On Feb 5, 2012, at 9:45 AM, brentlynk wrote: > P.S. It's much appreciated, Roman and Eugene...Indeed, 4 mm was the "max" > that > the expert/master luthier told me was "acceptable"...My 10-course was in for > repairs recently (after 15 years of me playing it...) and the action had > risen > to about 5.5 mm at the 9th fret. The luthier corrected it and it plays a > GREAT > deal better now. I am glad to know the same basic rule applies to the action > on > baroque lutes...Heck, they are lutes, not long-bows to shoot arrows with, > LOL! > :-) > > Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, > BJ > > > > - Original Message > From: Roman Turovsky > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; brentlynk > Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:36:01 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > > 3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. > RT > > > - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? > > >> Hello Everyone! >> >> Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a >> quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) >> >> What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute >> with >> a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could >> be >> "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is >> there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? >> >> IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: >> >> I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was >> told >> by >> a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint >> for >> a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said >> that >> on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with >> those >> with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at > the >> neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." I > am >> NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a >> very >> reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps >> he'll >> answer this question along with others? :-) >> >> Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 >> course >> baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what >> the >> general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of string >> clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too >> high? >> >> >> I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally >> mean >> to >> splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course > baroque >> lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? Personally, >> having >> only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have always > preferred >> the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 course >> baroque lute I am referring to is so much longer than what I am currently >> used >> to with the 10 course, 63 cm lute I play, I want to make sure I know what to >> expect... (I am happy to make the transition and adjust accordingly...no >> worries!) >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> BJ >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
[LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
As for me I meant bottom of the string and top of the fret 2012/2/5 William Samson <[1]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk> Just going to be picky for a sec - Are we talking about the distance between the bottom of the string and the surface of the fingerboard, or the top of the fret? Could make a significant difference. Bill From: brentlynk <[2]brentl...@bellsouth.net> To: Roman Turovsky <[3]r.turov...@gmail.com>; [4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, 5 February 2012, 17:45 Subject: [LUTE] P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? P.S. It's much appreciated, Roman and Eugene...Indeed, 4 mm was the "max" that the expert/master luthier told me was "acceptable"...My 10-course was in for repairs recently (after 15 years of me playing it...) and the action had risen to about 5.5 mm at the 9th fret. The luthier corrected it and it plays a GREAT deal better now. I am glad to know the same basic rule applies to the action on baroque lutes...Heck, they are lutes, not long-bows to shoot arrows with, LOL! :-) Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, BJ - Original Message From: Roman Turovsky <[1][5]r.turov...@gmail.com> To: [2][6]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; brentlynk <[3][7]brentl...@bellsouth.net> Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:36:01 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute? 3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. RT - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" <[4][8]brentl...@bellsouth.net> To: <[5][9]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? > Hello Everyone! > > Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a > quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) > > What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute >with > a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could be > "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is > there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? > > IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: > > I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was told >by > a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint >for > a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said >that > on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with those > with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at the > neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." I am > NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a very > reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps >he'll > answer this question along with others? :-) > > Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 >course > baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what the > general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of string > clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too high? > > > I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally mean >to > splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course baroque > lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? Personally, having > only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have always preferred > the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 course > baroque lute I am referring to is so much longer than what I am currently used > to with the 10 course, 63 cm lute I play, I want to make sure I know what to > expect... (I am happy to make the transition and adjust accordingly...no > worries!) > > > Thanks in advance, > BJ > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > [6][10]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:[11]r.turov...@gmail.com 2. mailto:[12]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 3. mailto:[13]brentl...@bellsouth.net 4. mailto:[14]brentl...@bellsouth.net 5. mailto:[15]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 6. [16]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:willsam...@yahoo.co.uk 2. mailto:brentl...@bellsouth.net 3.
[LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
Just going to be picky for a sec - Are we talking about the distance between the bottom of the string and the surface of the fingerboard, or the top of the fret? Could make a significant difference. Bill From: brentlynk To: Roman Turovsky ; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, 5 February 2012, 17:45 Subject: [LUTE] P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? P.S. It's much appreciated, Roman and Eugene...Indeed, 4 mm was the "max" that the expert/master luthier told me was "acceptable"...My 10-course was in for repairs recently (after 15 years of me playing it...) and the action had risen to about 5.5 mm at the 9th fret. The luthier corrected it and it plays a GREAT deal better now. I am glad to know the same basic rule applies to the action on baroque lutes...Heck, they are lutes, not long-bows to shoot arrows with, LOL! :-) Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, BJ - Original Message From: Roman Turovsky <[1]r.turov...@gmail.com> To: [2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; brentlynk <[3]brentl...@bellsouth.net> Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:36:01 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute? 3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. RT - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" <[4]brentl...@bellsouth.net> To: <[5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? > Hello Everyone! > > Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a > quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) > > What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute >with > a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could be > "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is > there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? > > IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: > > I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was told >by > a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint >for > a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said >that > on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with those > with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at the > neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." I am > NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a very > reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps >he'll > answer this question along with others? :-) > > Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 >course > baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what the > general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of string > clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too high? > > > I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally mean >to > splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course baroque > lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? Personally, having > only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have always preferred > the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 course > baroque lute I am referring to is so much longer than what I am currently used > to with the 10 course, 63 cm lute I play, I want to make sure I know what to > expect... (I am happy to make the transition and adjust accordingly...no > worries!) > > > Thanks in advance, > BJ > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:r.turov...@gmail.com 2. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 3. mailto:brentl...@bellsouth.net 4. mailto:brentl...@bellsouth.net 5. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: tuning software?
Talking of tuning software. Has anybody come across anything that will work on a Blackberry? Bill From: Craig Robert Pierpont To: lutelist Net Sent: Sunday, 5 February 2012, 18:16 Subject: [LUTE] Re: tuning software? Has anybody gotten this to work on Windows 7? It seems to run fine except that I can't get it to recognize any sound input. Craig Craig R. Pierpont Another Era Lutherie www.anotherera.com --- On Sat, 2/4/12, Sam Chapman <[1]manchap...@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sam Chapman <[2]manchap...@gmail.com> Subject: [LUTE] Re: tuning software? To: "David van Ooijen" <[3]davidvanooi...@gmail.com> Cc: "lutelist Net" <[4]Lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Date: Saturday, February 4, 2012, 4:19 PM WinTemper is pretty good: [1][1][5]http://wintemper.com/ Best, Sam On 29 January 2012 17:41, David van Ooijen <[2][2][6]davidvanooi...@gmail.com> wrote: It has come up, and I even had something installed on my computer once, but I lost all. Does anybody use tuning software for Windows and/or Mac, and if so, any feedback on the software used? David -- *** David van Ooijen [3][3][7]davidvanooi...@gmail.com [4]www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at [5][4][8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Sam Chapman Oetlingerstrasse 65 4057 Basel (0041) 79 530 39 91 -- References 1. [5][9]http://wintemper.com/ 2. mailto:[6][10]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 3. mailto:[7][11]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 4. [8][12]http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 5. [9][13]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [14]http://wintemper.com/ 2. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[15]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 3. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[16]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 4. [17]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. [18]http://wintemper.com/ 6. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[19]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 7. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[20]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 8. [21]http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 9. [22]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:manchap...@gmail.com 2. mailto:manchap...@gmail.com 3. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 4. mailto:Lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 5. http://wintemper.com/ 6. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 7. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 9. http://wintemper.com/ 10. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 11. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 12. http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 13. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 14. http://wintemper.com/ 15. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 16. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 17. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 18. http://wintemper.com/ 19. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 20. mailto:davidvanooi...@gmail.com 21. http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 22. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: tuning software?
Has anybody gotten this to work on Windows 7? It seems to run fine except that I can't get it to recognize any sound input. Craig Craig R. Pierpont Another Era Lutherie www.anotherera.com --- On Sat, 2/4/12, Sam Chapman wrote: From: Sam Chapman Subject: [LUTE] Re: tuning software? To: "David van Ooijen" Cc: "lutelist Net" Date: Saturday, February 4, 2012, 4:19 PM WinTemper is pretty good: [1][1]http://wintemper.com/ Best, Sam On 29 January 2012 17:41, David van Ooijen <[2][2]davidvanooi...@gmail.com> wrote: It has come up, and I even had something installed on my computer once, but I lost all. Does anybody use tuning software for Windows and/or Mac, and if so, any feedback on the software used? David -- *** David van Ooijen [3][3]davidvanooi...@gmail.com [4]www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at [5][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Sam Chapman Oetlingerstrasse 65 4057 Basel (0041) 79 530 39 91 -- References 1. [5]http://wintemper.com/ 2. mailto:[6]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 3. mailto:[7]davidvanooi...@gmail.com 4. [8]http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 5. [9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://wintemper.com/ 2. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=davidvanooi...@gmail.com 3. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=davidvanooi...@gmail.com 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. http://wintemper.com/ 6. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=davidvanooi...@gmail.com 7. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=davidvanooi...@gmail.com 8. http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ 9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
P.S. It's much appreciated, Roman and Eugene...Indeed, 4 mm was the "max" that the expert/master luthier told me was "acceptable"...My 10-course was in for repairs recently (after 15 years of me playing it...) and the action had risen to about 5.5 mm at the 9th fret. The luthier corrected it and it plays a GREAT deal better now. I am glad to know the same basic rule applies to the action on baroque lutes...Heck, they are lutes, not long-bows to shoot arrows with, LOL! :-) Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, BJ - Original Message From: Roman Turovsky To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; brentlynk Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:36:01 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute? 3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. RT - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" To: Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? > Hello Everyone! > > Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a > quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) > > What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute >with > a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could be > "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is > there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? > > IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: > > I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was told >by > a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint >for > a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said >that > on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with those > with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at the > neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." I am > NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a very > reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps >he'll > answer this question along with others? :-) > > Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 >course > baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what the > general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of string > clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too high? > > > I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally mean >to > splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course baroque > lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? Personally, having > only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have always preferred > the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 course > baroque lute I am referring to is so much longer than what I am currently used > to with the 10 course, 63 cm lute I play, I want to make sure I know what to > expect... (I am happy to make the transition and adjust accordingly...no > worries!) > > > Thanks in advance, > BJ > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
Thanks, Eugene and Roman, I knew I could count on you! :-) Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, BJ __ From: Eugene Kurenko To: brentlynk Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:35:54 PM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? IMHO on any lute the lowest possible action on which you can play with dynamic range and without buzz is preferable. I have 3,5 mm under my 1st string at body joint (10th fret) on my 67 renaissance and it works well with nylon. 2012/2/5 brentlynk <[1]brentl...@bellsouth.net> Hello Everyone! Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could be "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was told by a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint for a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said that on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with those with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at the neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." I am NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a very reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps he'll answer this question along with others? :-) Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 course baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what the general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of string clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too high? I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally mean to splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course baroque lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? Personally, having only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have always preferred the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 course baroque lute I am referring to is so much longer than what I am currently used to with the 10 course, 63 cm lute I play, I want to make sure I know what to expect... (I am happy to make the transition and adjust accordingly...no worries!) Thanks in advance, BJ 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:brentl...@bellsouth.net 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
IMHO on any lute the lowest possible action on which you can play with dynamic range and without buzz is preferable. I have 3,5 mm under my 1st string at body joint (10th fret) on my 67 renaissance and it works well with nylon. 2012/2/5 brentlynk <[1]brentl...@bellsouth.net> Hello Everyone! Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could be "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was told by a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint for a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said that on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with those with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at the neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." I am NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a very reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps he'll answer this question along with others? :-) Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 course baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what the general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of string clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too high? I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally mean to splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course baroque lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? Personally, having only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have always preferred the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 course baroque lute I am referring to is so much longer than what I am currently used to with the 10 course, 63 cm lute I play, I want to make sure I know what to expect... (I am happy to make the transition and adjust accordingly...no worries!) Thanks in advance, BJ 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:brentl...@bellsouth.net 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. RT - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" To: Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? Hello Everyone! Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could be "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was told by a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint for a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said that on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with those with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at the neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." I am NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a very reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps he'll answer this question along with others? :-) Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 course baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what the general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of string clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too high? I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally mean to splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course baroque lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? Personally, having only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have always preferred the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 course baroque lute I am referring to is so much longer than what I am currently used to with the 10 course, 63 cm lute I play, I want to make sure I know what to expect... (I am happy to make the transition and adjust accordingly...no worries!) Thanks in advance, BJ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute?
Hello Everyone! Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could be "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was told by a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint for a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said that on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with those with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at the neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." I am NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a very reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps he'll answer this question along with others? :-) Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 course baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what the general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of string clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too high? I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally mean to splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course baroque lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? Personally, having only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have always preferred the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 course baroque lute I am referring to is so much longer than what I am currently used to with the 10 course, 63 cm lute I play, I want to make sure I know what to expect... (I am happy to make the transition and adjust accordingly...no worries!) Thanks in advance, BJ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
Original Message -
From: [1]Ron Andrico
To: [2]Monica Hall
Cc: [3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
Thanks, Monica. I have to say that the bulk of the book is something
like a big sloppy Valentine to Christopher Page and Gothic Voices.
While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little incensed
that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial recordings
with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics?
RA
Yes! that is indefensible. It seems to me that the "Early Music"
movement has always been about the instruments - the more unusual or
exotic the better. And I suppose Gothic Voices etc. are a kind of
re-action to the David Munrow approach.
But - instruments must surely have been involved in all sorts of music
making. Otherwise why do they feature so prominently in paintings,
church sculpture, stained galss windows and the like. It is all a
matter of degree. You dont need an orchestra but a harp or lute seems
appropriate in most circumstances.
Best
Monica
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:48:10 +
> To: [4]praelu...@hotmail.com
> CC: [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> From: mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
>
> Very interesting! I hadn't read this book. Thank you for drawing my
> attention to it. I enjoyed your comments.
>
> Monica
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ron Andrico"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 5:35 PM
> Subject: [LUTE] Saturday quotes
>
>
> > We have posted our Saturday quotes, finally.
> > [1]http://wp.me/p15OyV-jA
> > Ron & Donna
> >
> > --
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. http://wp.me/p15OyV-jA
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
--
References
1. mailto:praelu...@hotmail.com
2. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
3. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
4. mailto:praelu...@hotmail.com
5. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
Thanks, Monica. I have to say that the bulk of the book is something like a big sloppy Valentine to Christopher Page and Gothic Voices. While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little incensed that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial recordings with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics? RA > Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:48:10 + > To: praelu...@hotmail.com > CC: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > From: mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes > > Very interesting! I hadn't read this book. Thank you for drawing my > attention to it. I enjoyed your comments. > > Monica > - Original Message - > From: "Ron Andrico" > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 5:35 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Saturday quotes > > > > We have posted our Saturday quotes, finally. > > [1]http://wp.me/p15OyV-jA > > Ron & Donna > > > > -- > > > > References > > > > 1. http://wp.me/p15OyV-jA > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > --
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
Very interesting! I hadn't read this book. Thank you for drawing my attention to it. I enjoyed your comments. Monica - Original Message - From: "Ron Andrico" To: Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 5:35 PM Subject: [LUTE] Saturday quotes We have posted our Saturday quotes, finally. [1]http://wp.me/p15OyV-jA Ron & Donna -- References 1. http://wp.me/p15OyV-jA To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] more single line Lute trios (Unisono)
Hi, I have uploaded 5 Intavolations for 3 equal lutes (Single line-easy) --- Titelouze - Magnificat Quinti Toni - Suscepit israel --- --- Willaert - Ricercar 9 --- Willaert - Ricercar 1 --- --- Gastoldi, Giovanni Giacomo - Il ballerino --- --- Schultz, Johannes (1582-1653) - Fuga (Lustgarte) Enjoy Anton here is the link: http://www.mediafire.com/?hzp5tuy8wje3a -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
