date:20120407


   The lutenist of Giardino Armonico is Luca Pianca (from Italian
  Switzerland). He is an amazing lutenist and more interesting he is
   an
  declared non-historical (his archlute is constructed more like a
   guitar
  and he use huge tensions to strings).
  --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Arto Wikla <[1]wi...@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
From: Arto Wikla <[2]wi...@cs.helsinki.fi>
Subject: [LUTE] A couple of lutenists?
To: [3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 9:26 PM
 Dear lutenists,
 in one Finnish tv-channel (Teema) there were just two interesting
 programs - lute included:
 [1]Philippe Jaroussky was singing Caldara with Concerto Koeln and
 then[2] Cecilia Bartoli sang castrati arias with  Giardino
  Harmonico.
 In Concerto Koeln there was a bald theorbo player. Played well.
   With
 Giardiano there was an archlute player with quite small
   instrument.
 Does anyone happen to know, who these guys are? The archlutenist
   was
 perhaps Contini?
 Not important at all, but I must say Cecilia was much more
   masculine
  in
 her castrati arias than Philippe in Caldara... ;-)
 Arto
 --
  References
 1. [1][4]http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421774
 2. [2][5]http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421775
  To get on or off this list see list information at
  [3][6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
  --
   References
  1. [7]http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421774
  2. [8]http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421775
  3. [9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=wi...@cs.helsinki.fi
   2. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=wi...@cs.helsinki.fi
   3. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   4. http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421774
   5. http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421775
   6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   7. http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421774
   8. http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421775
   9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

2012-04-07 Thread Sauvage Valéry

 
I agree with this post...

-Message d'origine-
De : lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] De la part
de A.J. Padilla MD
Objet : [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

In medicine, we have a saying, "The most important part of the stethoscope
lies between the earpieces."

It's in the fingers (or rather, the corpus striatum in the brain).

Al




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: A couple of lutenists?

The lutenist of Giardino Armonico is Luca Pianca (from Italian
   Switzerland). He is an amazing lutenist and more interesting he is an
   declared non-historical (his archlute is constructed more like a guitar
   and he use huge tensions to strings).
   --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Arto Wikla  wrote:

 From: Arto Wikla 
 Subject: [LUTE] A couple of lutenists?
 To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 9:26 PM

  Dear lutenists,
  in one Finnish tv-channel (Teema) there were just two interesting
  programs - lute included:
  [1]Philippe Jaroussky was singing Caldara with Concerto Koeln and
  then[2] Cecilia Bartoli sang castrati arias with  Giardino
   Harmonico.
  In Concerto Koeln there was a bald theorbo player. Played well. With
  Giardiano there was an archlute player with quite small instrument.
  Does anyone happen to know, who these guys are? The archlutenist was
  perhaps Contini?
  Not important at all, but I must say Cecilia was much more masculine
   in
  her castrati arias than Philippe in Caldara... ;-)
  Arto
  --
   References
  1. [1]http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421774
  2. [2]http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421775
   To get on or off this list see list information at
   [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421774
   2. http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421775
   3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] D'amour me plains M. Newsidler

2012-04-07 Thread Sean Smith



Could anyone send me a scan of Melchior Newsidler's intabulation of  
Damour me plains? The German tab facs would be ok but a french tab  
would save me a bit of decoding.


Many thanks in advance,
Sean



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] A couple of lutenists?

2012-04-07 Thread Arto Wikla

   Dear lutenists,
   in one Finnish tv-channel (Teema) there were just two interesting
   programs - lute included:
   [1]Philippe Jaroussky was singing Caldara with Concerto Koeln and
   then[2] Cecilia Bartoli sang castrati arias with  Giardino Harmonico.
   In Concerto Koeln there was a bald theorbo player. Played well. With
   Giardiano there was an archlute player with quite small instrument.
   Does anyone happen to know, who these guys are? The archlutenist was
   perhaps Contini?
   Not important at all, but I must say Cecilia was much more masculine in
   her castrati arias than Philippe in Caldara... ;-)
   Arto
   --

References

   1. http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421774
   2. http://ohjelma.yle.fi/ohjelmat/1421775


To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Of Mice & Milk

2012-04-07 Thread Tobiah


Anyway with all those mice around  perhaps it is safer to use wireless 
technology as these rodents have been known to cause trouble when hungry.
Instead of using mice one could do with nice. The difference is small but 
significant.


Ok, back to the original topic, which I believe,
was nicing a lute.





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

2012-04-07 Thread William Samson

   I think that sums it up nicely, Eugene.  The best lute is the next one,
   whether self-built or bought.  Self building is great, but that's a
   whole other discussion . . .

   Thank you, everyone, for your views, and please keep 'em coming!

   Bill
   From: Eugene Kurenko 
   To: Roman Turovsky 
   Cc: Jean-Marie Poirier ; Luca Manassero
   ; Lute List 
   Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012, 17:58
   Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
 Someday I shall build one. I want to. I desire of one which looks
   like
 after 1000 years of battles and sings as fallen angel in catharsis.
   But
 for myself :)
 2012/4/7 Roman Turovsky <[1][1]r.turov...@verizon.net>
 That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a
 deliberately ugly
 lute, for several reasons:
 1. It could never be sold, because
 2. No one would want to be seen with one.
 3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand.
 I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic
   sense
 is similarly lacking.
 It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes.
 I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had
   no
 sound,
 but that is another story.
 RT
 - Original Message - From: "Eugene Kurenko"
 <[2][2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com>
 To: "Jean-Marie Poirier" <[3][3]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
 Cc: "Luca Manassero" <[4][4]l...@manassero.net>; "Lute List"
 <[5][5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
 Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
 Well I prefer to differ.
 Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand
   with
 pretty look.
 As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$
   guitars
 with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better.
 The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more
   expensive
 wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound.
   It's
 weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for
   3000 I
 want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$
 But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price.
   Not
 exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical
   instrument
 let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this
   sound.
 Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this
   great
 sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first
   of
 all. It's not a painting. So the  lute must have the greatest
   sound
 first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable
   to
 me. B :)
 2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier <[1][6][6]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
 Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an
   aesthetic
 one...???
 Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a
   little
 bit more complex than that, isn't it?
 Best,
 Jean-Marie
 =
 == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 ==
 >  I vote only for sound and playability!
 >
 >  Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like
   total
 >  horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to
   play
 >  it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented
 instruments
 >  with that flowers, hearts etc.
 >  IMHO theese nice "things" suits well on instruments for women
   but
 not
 >  for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks
   more
 >  like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another
   one
 which
 >  looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone
   :)))
 >  2012/4/7 Luca Manassero <[1][2][7][7]l...@manassero.net>
 >
 >  Hi,
 >  very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different
   order:
 >  1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know
   you
 >found it)
 >  2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present
 lutemakers
 >  dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by
 arguments
 >like
 >  "this respects the original instrument in the collection
   ABC".
 >Fine,
 >  what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old
 girl?)
 >  3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes
   it
 >happens
 >  to see really ugly instruments. With all the research
   involved
 in
 >XVI
 >  and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly
   instrument
   is
 >

[LUTE] Re: Ms 4022 AND Re: Pekiel

2012-04-07 Thread A. J. Ness

We have a coincidence here, so I'll expand on what Roman and Ned have
written, and combine the subjects of two recent postings here: "Re: Ms
4022" and "Bartolomiej Pekiel." The topics have much in common, since
Ms 4022 is the one Roman calls "The Danzig Manuscript," with pieces
sometimes erroneously attributed to Pekiel.

Ms 4022 now in Berlin was one of two lute manuscripts in the
Stadtbibliothek in Danzig (Gdansk) before WW_II (see the stamp at the
bottom of the first page). (The other is Ms 4021.) They were long
reported to have been destroyed during the war. Recently Ms 4022 (and
Ms 4021?) turned up in a small archive in Germany, perhaps brought
there when Germans were expelled from Danzig at the end of the war.
Recently they seem to have been given over to the Staatsbibliothek zu
Berlin, retaining their old call numbers.

Ms. 4022 probably dates from the first or second decade of the 17th
century, and has an east European repertory, as some of you have
noticed, including German, French, Italian and English works. Some
titles are familiar, e.g, La Monica, Pavan d'Espagna, Heydruken Tanz,
Baletto Rutteno (!), Allemande d'Amour, Rolandt, Spagnoletta, Parlament
of Englandt, Duda, (a bagpipes piece) and intabulations of German
secular and sacred Lieder (many by Hans Leo Hassler). The named
composers are familiar: Ballard, V.B. (Bakfark?), Perrichon, Piccinini,
Nani di Milano, Gaultier, Mercure, et al. (Some titles and
attributions were trimmed away during binding.)

The pieces on folios 20-32 (etc.) have obtained some notoriety, so to
speak. And the current New Grove online perpetuates the confusion.
Some 40 lute dances are identified solely with the initials "B.P." in
the margin. To some this suggested Bartolomeij Pekiel (d. ca. 1670), a
composer little known in the west. Polish musicians consider Pekiel
one of the truly "great" Polish composers of the early baroque, a well
deserved reputation, judging from the quality of his music. He
specialized almost entirely in sacred music, written in the polychoral
Venetian concertante style of composers like the Gabrielis: works for
large choral, solo and instrumental forces. A nice selection of his
sacred music is Polish Baroque: Pekiel and Contemporaries with the
Ensemble Euopeen Wm. Byrd, Graham O'Reilly, cond. (Ambronay CD #010).

Well, the "B.P." attribution stuck to Pekiel, and accordingly the
pieces made their way into a critical series of "monuments" of Polish
music,

Maria Szczepanska, ed., Bartolomiej Pekiel: 40 utworow na lutniea
[="Bart. Pekiel: 40 pieces for lute"], in Wydawnicto Dawnej Muzuki
Polskej, vol. 30. [Krakow]: Polskie wydawnictwo muzyczne, 1955.

I own Stanley Buetens's well worn personal copy of this publication.
Stanley undoubtedly drew from it for the anthology from which Ned made
his nice recording. [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v'X65jfhUcg

There are a number of problems with the attribution. Pekiel began
working as a professional in 1631, which suggests a birth date around
1610. In that case he would have been a child when the pieces were
copied into the Danzig Manuscript. Accordingly the Pekiel lute edition
was withdrawn by the publishers and vol. 30 was replaced with what is
surely the correct resolution of B.P., Polish Dance, "Baletto
Polacco":

Zofia Steszewska, ed., Tance polskie z Tabulatury gdanskiej (I po. XVII
w.): na lutnie. Ibid., 1965.

It is nice to have Ms 4022 available on line. The music is worthy of
your attention.

[2]http://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/dms/werkansicht/?PPN=PPN61
8787879&PHYSID=PHYS_0001

AJN

References

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%C2%B4X65jfhUcg
2.
http://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/dms/werkansicht/?PPN=PPN618787879&PHYSID=PHYS_0001

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

2012-04-07 Thread Sam Chapman

Personally I would not underestimate the importance of appearance (of
the lute) and reputation (of the maker) when buying an instrument. My
idea of a good lute has changed so many times within the last couple
of years: even when you think that you've found your dream instrument,
the assurance that you will be able to sell it on for a good price in
a couple of years when you don't like it anymore is comforting. This
is doubly important when ordering unusual instruments!

Sam

On 7 April 2012 18:58, Eugene Kurenko  wrote:
>   Someday I shall build one. I want to. I desire of one which looks like
>   after 1000 years of battles and sings as fallen angel in catharsis. But
>   for myself :)
>
>   2012/4/7 Roman Turovsky <[1]r.turov...@verizon.net>
>
>   That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a
>   deliberately ugly
>   lute, for several reasons:
>   1. It could never be sold, because
>   2. No one would want to be seen with one.
>   3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand.
>   I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense
>   is similarly lacking.
>   It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes.
>   I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no
>   sound,
>   but that is another story.
>   RT
>   - Original Message - From: "Eugene Kurenko"
>   <[2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com>
>   To: "Jean-Marie Poirier" <[3]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
>   Cc: "Luca Manassero" <[4]l...@manassero.net>; "Lute List"
>   <[5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
>   Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM
>   Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
>
>      Well I prefer to differ.
>       Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand
>     with
>      pretty look.
>      As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$
>     guitars
>      with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better.
>      The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more
>     expensive
>      wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's
>      weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for
>     3000 I
>      want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$
>      But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not
>      exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical
>     instrument
>      let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this
>     sound.
>      Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this
>     great
>      sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first
>     of
>      all. It's not a painting. So the  lute must have the greatest sound
>      first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable
>     to
>      me. B :)
>      2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier <[1][6]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
>      Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic
>      one...???
>      Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a
>     little
>      bit more complex than that, isn't it?
>      Best,
>      Jean-Marie
>      =
>      == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 ==
>      >   I vote only for sound and playability!
>      >
>      >   Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like
>     total
>      >   horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to
>     play
>      >   it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented
>      instruments
>      >   with that flowers, hearts etc.
>      >   IMHO theese nice "things" suits well on instruments for women
>     but
>      not
>      >   for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks
>     more
>      >   like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another
>     one
>      which
>      >   looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :)))
>      >   2012/4/7 Luca Manassero <[1][2][7]l...@manassero.net>
>      >
>      >       Hi,
>      >       very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different
>     order:
>      >       1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know
>     you
>      >     found it)
>      >       2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present
>      lutemakers
>      >       dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by
>      arguments
>      >     like
>      >       "this respects the original instrument in the collection
>     ABC".
>      >     Fine,
>      >       what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old
>      girl?)
>      >       3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes
>     it
>      >     happens
>      >       to see really ugly instruments. With all the research
>     involved
>      in
>      >     XVI
>      >       and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument
>     is
>      >       "unauthentic" ;-)
>      >       3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice
>     sound
>

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

   Someday I shall build one. I want to. I desire of one which looks like
   after 1000 years of battles and sings as fallen angel in catharsis. But
   for myself :)

   2012/4/7 Roman Turovsky <[1]r.turov...@verizon.net>

   That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a
   deliberately ugly
   lute, for several reasons:
   1. It could never be sold, because
   2. No one would want to be seen with one.
   3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand.
   I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense
   is similarly lacking.
   It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes.
   I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no
   sound,
   but that is another story.
   RT
   - Original Message - From: "Eugene Kurenko"
   <[2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com>
   To: "Jean-Marie Poirier" <[3]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
   Cc: "Luca Manassero" <[4]l...@manassero.net>; "Lute List"
   <[5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM
   Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

  Well I prefer to differ.
   Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand
 with
  pretty look.
  As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$
 guitars
  with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better.
  The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more
 expensive
  wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's
  weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for
 3000 I
  want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$
  But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not
  exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical
 instrument
  let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this
 sound.
  Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this
 great
  sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first
 of
  all. It's not a painting. So the  lute must have the greatest sound
  first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable
 to
  me. B :)
  2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier <[1][6]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
  Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic
  one...???
  Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a
 little
  bit more complex than that, isn't it?
  Best,
  Jean-Marie
  =
  == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 ==
  >   I vote only for sound and playability!
  >
  >   Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like
 total
  >   horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to
 play
  >   it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented
  instruments
  >   with that flowers, hearts etc.
  >   IMHO theese nice "things" suits well on instruments for women
 but
  not
  >   for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks
 more
  >   like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another
 one
  which
  >   looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :)))
  >   2012/4/7 Luca Manassero <[1][2][7]l...@manassero.net>
  >
  >   Hi,
  >   very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different
 order:
  >   1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know
 you
  > found it)
  >   2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present
  lutemakers
  >   dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by
  arguments
  > like
  >   "this respects the original instrument in the collection
 ABC".
  > Fine,
  >   what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old
  girl?)
  >   3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes
 it
  > happens
  >   to see really ugly instruments. With all the research
 involved
  in
  > XVI
  >   and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument
 is
  >   "unauthentic" ;-)
  >   3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice
 sound
  out
  > of a
  >   lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...)
  >   4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to
 be
  very
  >   careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells
 us
  not
  > much
  >   about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI
  century
  >   players)
  >   5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and
  have a
  > good
  >   sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been
  selected
  > the
  >   right way

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

2012-04-07 Thread Roman Turovsky

That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a 
deliberately ugly

lute, for several reasons:
1. It could never be sold, because
2. No one would want to be seen with one.
3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand.

I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense is 
similarly lacking.

It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes.

I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no 
sound,

but that is another story.
RT

- Original Message - 
From: "Eugene Kurenko" 

To: "Jean-Marie Poirier" 
Cc: "Luca Manassero" ; "Lute List" 

Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

  Well I prefer to differ.

   Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand with
  pretty look.
  As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ guitars
  with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better.
  The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more expensive
  wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's
  weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for 3000 I
  want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$
  But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not
  exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical instrument
  let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this sound.
  Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this great
  sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first of
  all. It's not a painting. So the  lute must have the greatest sound
  first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable to
  me. B :)
  2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier <[1]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>

  Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic
  one...???
  Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little
  bit more complex than that, isn't it?
  Best,
  Jean-Marie
  =
  == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 ==
  >   I vote only for sound and playability!
  >
  >   Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total
  >   horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play
  >   it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented
  instruments
  >   with that flowers, hearts etc.
  >   IMHO theese nice "things" suits well on instruments for women but
  not
  >   for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more
  >   like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one
  which
  >   looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :)))
  >   2012/4/7 Luca Manassero <[1][2]l...@manassero.net>
  >
  >   Hi,
  >   very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order:
  >   1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you
  > found it)
  >   2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present
  lutemakers
  >   dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by
  arguments
  > like
  >   "this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC".
  > Fine,
  >   what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old
  girl?)
  >   3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it
  > happens
  >   to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved
  in
  > XVI
  >   and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is
  >   "unauthentic" ;-)
  >   3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound
  out
  > of a
  >   lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...)
  >   4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be
  very
  >   careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us
  not
  > much
  >   about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI
  century
  >   players)
  >   5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and
  have a
  > good
  >   sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been
  selected
  > the
  >   right way...)
  >   I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an
  investment,
  > OK.
  >   If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first
  point
  > on my
  >   list either.
  >   Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other
  opinions
  > :-)
  >   Thanks!
  >   Luca
  >
  > William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote:
  > I haven't really got much to add to the subject line.  I've been
  > chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged  I'd
  be
  > interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the
  various
  > characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or
  otherwise.
  > The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular
  order):
  >   * playability (action, string spacin

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

No possible conclusion, I'm afraid...!
Each one makes what he deems best na d that's it : Now, the music coming out of 
the box, what it says and how it says it, is what really counts, isn't it?

All the best,

Jean-Marie

=
  
== En réponse au message du 07-04-2012, 18:15:47 ==

>
>   That sounds really exciting...please let me know what was the
>   conclusion... [24.gif]
>
>   Caius
>   --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier  wrote:
>
> From: Jean-Marie Poirier 
> Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
> To: "hera caius" 
> Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 7:08 PM
>
>   No problem Caius (I finally unserstood that Caiusmust be your fist
>   name, sorry about that !)
>   Anyway, we can discuss that with Luca (but not only) in Vicenza next
>   week :-) !
>   Best,
>   Jean-Marie
>   =
>
>   == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:49:47 ==
>   >
>   >
>   >   Sorry for the "p".
>   >
>   >   Maybe i forgot to say: "IN MY OPINION..."
>   >   --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier <[1]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
>   wrote:
>   >
>   > From: Jean-Marie Poirier <[2]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
>   > Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
>   > To: "Lute List" <[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
>   > Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:24 PM
>   >
>   >   Not a very easy question to answer and by the way not a very
>   relevant
>   >   question. The very notion of "good" applied to a lute or anything
>   is
>   >   obviously subjective. The few potentially objective criteria are
>   >   evident : craftsmanship, woods, string action and price. All the
>   rest
>   >   is open to debate.
>   >   I do not quite agree with Hera to say that Paul Thomson (no "p" by
>   the
>   >   way ;-) and Joel Van Lennep are the best makers to date, however
>   good
>   >   they may be, ans they are good !
>   >   There are, thank God, several other excellent makers, who produce
>   >   excellent lutes as well, not to name them : Martin Haycock, David
>   Van
>   >   Edwards, Alexander Batov in England, Andy Rutherford in the US,
>   Julien
>   >   Stryjak or Stephen Murphy in France, Hendryk Hasenfuess in Germany
>   and
>   >   the list could be made much, much longer...
>   >   All these people ARE excellent makers too.
>   >   Now the problem is aesthetics, what you are after in your mind,
>   your
>   >   "ideal" of sound; and the price may be another good reason to go to
>   >   this or that maker rather than the supposed top brass ! If you want
>   the
>   >   same lute as say Paul O'Dette, ok, go to the other Paul (Thomson)
>   but
>   >   if you have; if you hope to emulate Hoppy, then go to Joel in
>   Boston.
>   >   But  if you have a precise idea of the lute you would like, the
>   sound
>   >   you would like for such or such repertoire, I am sure it will be
>   easier
>   >   to discuss details, and to experiment with makers who are not
>   reputed
>   >   to be simply the best...
>   >   I know people who have sold their Thomson's lute because the sound
>   >   eventually did not correspond to what they were after.
>   >   My twopence anyway !
>   >   All the best,
>   >   Jean-Marie
>   >   =
>   >
>   >   == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 16:39:34 ==
>   >   >   Hi,
>   >   >   very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order:
>   >   >   1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you
>   found
>   >   it)
>   >   >   2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present
>   lutemakers
>   >   >   dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by
>   arguments
>   >   like
>   >   >   "this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC".
>   >   Fine,
>   >   >   what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old
>   girl?)
>   >   >   3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it
>   >   happens
>   >   >   to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved
>   in
>   >   XVI
>   >   >   and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is
>   >   >   "unauthentic" ;-)
>   >   >   3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound
>   out
>   >   of a
>   >   >   lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...)
>   >   >   4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be
>   very
>   >   >   careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us
>   not
>   >   much
>   >   >   about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI
>   century
>   >   >   players)
>   >   >   5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and
>   have a
>   >   good
>   >   >   sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been
>   selected
>   >   the
>   >   >   right way...)
>   >   >   I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an
>   investment,
>   >   OK.
>   >   >   If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first
>   point
>   >   o

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

   So the conclusion is: great electric guitar (for my taste) have to look
   like BCR "Zombie" and sounds like PRS "SE" :)

   2012/4/7 hera caius <[1]caiush2...@yahoo.com>

Na, ok, I will try to imagine Kerry King (Slayer) explaining in
 an
   interview: "...yes I saw the BC Rich guitars...but, you know...the
 PRS
   was sounding so much better in the store...really...and I thought
 it
   will sound even better in our ensemble..."

 --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Eugene Kurenko <[2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com>
   wrote:
   From: Eugene Kurenko <[3]eugene.kure...@gmail.com>

   Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

 To: [4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:56 PM
  2012/4/7 Eugene Kurenko <[1][1][5]eugene.kure...@gmail.com>

  Haha :) BC Rich guitars looks not badl but Carlos Santana's PRS
  sounds much better :) And the sound is primary.

  2012/4/7 hera caius <[2][2][6]caiush2...@yahoo.com>

Here is the instrument:
(I' m worning you that it's not so horror)

  [1][3][3][7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich

and here is the music:

  [2][4][4][8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal

You can't go wrong and especially you can't get sick... :)
Good luck!
--
 References

  1. mailto:[5][9]eugene.kure...@gmail.com
  2. mailto:[6][10]caiush2...@yahoo.com
  3. [7][11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
  4. [8][12]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal

 To get on or off this list see list information at

   [9][13]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   --
 References
   1. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[14]eugene.kure...@gmail.com
   2. file://localhost/mc/compose?[15]to%c3%8aiush2...@yahoo.com

 3. [16]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
 4. [17]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal

   5. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[18]eugene.kure...@gmail.com
   6. file://localhost/mc/compose?[19]to%c3%8aiush2...@yahoo.com
   7. [20]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
   8. [21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
   9. [22]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. mailto:caiush2...@yahoo.com
   2. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com
   3. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com
   4. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   5. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com
   6. mailto:caiush2...@yahoo.com
   7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
   8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
   9. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com
  10. mailto:caiush2...@yahoo.com
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
  13. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
  14. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com
  15. mailto:to%25c3%258aiush2...@yahoo.com
  16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
  18. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com
  19. mailto:to%25c3%258aiush2...@yahoo.com
  20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
  21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
  22. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?


   That sounds really exciting...please let me know what was the
   conclusion... [24.gif]

   Caius
   --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier  wrote:

 From: Jean-Marie Poirier 
 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
 To: "hera caius" 
 Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 7:08 PM

   No problem Caius (I finally unserstood that Caiusmust be your fist
   name, sorry about that !)
   Anyway, we can discuss that with Luca (but not only) in Vicenza next
   week :-) !
   Best,
   Jean-Marie
   =

   == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:49:47 ==
   >
   >
   >   Sorry for the "p".
   >
   >   Maybe i forgot to say: "IN MY OPINION..."
   >   --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier <[1]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
   wrote:
   >
   > From: Jean-Marie Poirier <[2]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
   > Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
   > To: "Lute List" <[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   > Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:24 PM
   >
   >   Not a very easy question to answer and by the way not a very
   relevant
   >   question. The very notion of "good" applied to a lute or anything
   is
   >   obviously subjective. The few potentially objective criteria are
   >   evident : craftsmanship, woods, string action and price. All the
   rest
   >   is open to debate.
   >   I do not quite agree with Hera to say that Paul Thomson (no "p" by
   the
   >   way ;-) and Joel Van Lennep are the best makers to date, however
   good
   >   they may be, ans they are good !
   >   There are, thank God, several other excellent makers, who produce
   >   excellent lutes as well, not to name them : Martin Haycock, David
   Van
   >   Edwards, Alexander Batov in England, Andy Rutherford in the US,
   Julien
   >   Stryjak or Stephen Murphy in France, Hendryk Hasenfuess in Germany
   and
   >   the list could be made much, much longer...
   >   All these people ARE excellent makers too.
   >   Now the problem is aesthetics, what you are after in your mind,
   your
   >   "ideal" of sound; and the price may be another good reason to go to
   >   this or that maker rather than the supposed top brass ! If you want
   the
   >   same lute as say Paul O'Dette, ok, go to the other Paul (Thomson)
   but
   >   if you have; if you hope to emulate Hoppy, then go to Joel in
   Boston.
   >   But  if you have a precise idea of the lute you would like, the
   sound
   >   you would like for such or such repertoire, I am sure it will be
   easier
   >   to discuss details, and to experiment with makers who are not
   reputed
   >   to be simply the best...
   >   I know people who have sold their Thomson's lute because the sound
   >   eventually did not correspond to what they were after.
   >   My twopence anyway !
   >   All the best,
   >   Jean-Marie
   >   =
   >
   >   == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 16:39:34 ==
   >   >   Hi,
   >   >   very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order:
   >   >   1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you
   found
   >   it)
   >   >   2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present
   lutemakers
   >   >   dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by
   arguments
   >   like
   >   >   "this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC".
   >   Fine,
   >   >   what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old
   girl?)
   >   >   3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it
   >   happens
   >   >   to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved
   in
   >   XVI
   >   >   and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is
   >   >   "unauthentic" ;-)
   >   >   3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound
   out
   >   of a
   >   >   lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...)
   >   >   4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be
   very
   >   >   careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us
   not
   >   much
   >   >   about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI
   century
   >   >   players)
   >   >   5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and
   have a
   >   good
   >   >   sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been
   selected
   >   the
   >   >   right way...)
   >   >   I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an
   investment,
   >   OK.
   >   >   If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first
   point
   >   on my
   >   >   list either.
   >   >   Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other
   opinions
   >   :-)
   >   >   Thanks!
   >   >   Luca
   >   >   William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote:
   >   >
   >   >   I haven't really got much to add to the subject line.  I've
   been
   >   >   chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged
   I'd
   >   be
   >   >   interested in hearing what priorities you mig

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

Na, ok, I will try to imagine Kerry King (Slayer) explaining in an
   interview: "...yes I saw the BC Rich guitars...but, you know...the PRS
   was sounding so much better in the store...really...and I thought it
   will sound even better in our ensemble..."
   --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Eugene Kurenko  wrote:

 From: Eugene Kurenko 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
 To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:56 PM

  2012/4/7 Eugene Kurenko <[1][1]eugene.kure...@gmail.com>
Haha :) BC Rich guitars looks not badl but Carlos Santana's PRS
sounds much better :) And the sound is primary.
  2012/4/7 hera caius <[2][2]caiush2...@yahoo.com>
  Here is the instrument:
  (I' m worning you that it's not so horror)
  [1][3][3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
  and here is the music:
  [2][4][4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
  You can't go wrong and especially you can't get sick... :)
  Good luck!
  --
   References
  1. mailto:[5]eugene.kure...@gmail.com
  2. mailto:[6]caiush2...@yahoo.com
  3. [7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
  4. [8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
   To get on or off this list see list information at
   [9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=eugene.kure...@gmail.com
   2. file://localhost/mc/compose?to%c3%8aiush2...@yahoo.com
   3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
   4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
   5. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=eugene.kure...@gmail.com
   6. file://localhost/mc/compose?to%c3%8aiush2...@yahoo.com
   7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
   8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
   9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

   2012/4/7 Eugene Kurenko <[1]eugene.kure...@gmail.com>

 Haha :) BC Rich guitars looks not badl but Carlos Santana's PRS
 sounds much better :) And the sound is primary.

   2012/4/7 hera caius <[2]caiush2...@yahoo.com>

   Here is the instrument:
   (I' m worning you that it's not so horror)
   [1][3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
   and here is the music:
   [2][4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
   You can't go wrong and especially you can't get sick... :)
   Good luck!

   --

References

   1. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com
   2. mailto:caiush2...@yahoo.com
   3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
   4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal


To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

   Well I prefer to differ.

Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand with
   pretty look.
   As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ guitars
   with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better.
   The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more expensive
   wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's
   weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for 3000 I
   want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$
   But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not
   exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical instrument
   let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this sound.
   Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this great
   sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first of
   all. It's not a painting. So the  lute must have the greatest sound
   first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable to
   me. B :)
   2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier <[1]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>

   Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic
   one...???
   Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little
   bit more complex than that, isn't it?
   Best,
   Jean-Marie
   =
   == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 ==
   >   I vote only for sound and playability!
   >
   >   Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total
   >   horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play
   >   it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented
   instruments
   >   with that flowers, hearts etc.
   >   IMHO theese nice "things" suits well on instruments for women but
   not
   >   for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more
   >   like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one
   which
   >   looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :)))
   >   2012/4/7 Luca Manassero <[1][2]l...@manassero.net>
   >
   >   Hi,
   >   very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order:
   >   1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you
   > found it)
   >   2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present
   lutemakers
   >   dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by
   arguments
   > like
   >   "this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC".
   > Fine,
   >   what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old
   girl?)
   >   3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it
   > happens
   >   to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved
   in
   > XVI
   >   and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is
   >   "unauthentic" ;-)
   >   3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound
   out
   > of a
   >   lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...)
   >   4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be
   very
   >   careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us
   not
   > much
   >   about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI
   century
   >   players)
   >   5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and
   have a
   > good
   >   sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been
   selected
   > the
   >   right way...)
   >   I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an
   investment,
   > OK.
   >   If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first
   point
   > on my
   >   list either.
   >   Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other
   opinions
   > :-)
   >   Thanks!
   >   Luca
   >
   > William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote:
   > I haven't really got much to add to the subject line.  I've been
   > chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged  I'd
   be
   > interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the
   various
   > characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or
   otherwise.
   > The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular
   order):
   >   * playability (action, string spacing etc)
   >   * sound (which I can't easily define)
   >   * authenticity of design/construction
   >   * materials used
   >   * quality of craftsmanship
   >   * reputation of maker
   > Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be
   >   refined,
   > clarified or broken down.
   > Thoughts, please?
   > Bill
   > --
   >   To get on or off this list see list information at
   >
   > [1][2][3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   > References
   >   1. [3][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   >

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

   Sorry for the "p".

   Maybe i forgot to say: "IN MY OPINION..."
   --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier  wrote:

 From: Jean-Marie Poirier 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
 To: "Lute List" 
 Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:24 PM

   Not a very easy question to answer and by the way not a very relevant
   question. The very notion of "good" applied to a lute or anything is
   obviously subjective. The few potentially objective criteria are
   evident : craftsmanship, woods, string action and price. All the rest
   is open to debate.
   I do not quite agree with Hera to say that Paul Thomson (no "p" by the
   way ;-) and Joel Van Lennep are the best makers to date, however good
   they may be, ans they are good !
   There are, thank God, several other excellent makers, who produce
   excellent lutes as well, not to name them : Martin Haycock, David Van
   Edwards, Alexander Batov in England, Andy Rutherford in the US, Julien
   Stryjak or Stephen Murphy in France, Hendryk Hasenfuess in Germany and
   the list could be made much, much longer...
   All these people ARE excellent makers too.
   Now the problem is aesthetics, what you are after in your mind, your
   "ideal" of sound; and the price may be another good reason to go to
   this or that maker rather than the supposed top brass ! If you want the
   same lute as say Paul O'Dette, ok, go to the other Paul (Thomson) but
   if you have; if you hope to emulate Hoppy, then go to Joel in Boston.
   But  if you have a precise idea of the lute you would like, the sound
   you would like for such or such repertoire, I am sure it will be easier
   to discuss details, and to experiment with makers who are not reputed
   to be simply the best...
   I know people who have sold their Thomson's lute because the sound
   eventually did not correspond to what they were after.
   My twopence anyway !
   All the best,
   Jean-Marie
   =

   == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 16:39:34 ==
   >   Hi,
   >   very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order:
   >   1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found
   it)
   >   2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers
   >   dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments
   like
   >   "this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC".
   Fine,
   >   what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?)
   >   3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it
   happens
   >   to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in
   XVI
   >   and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is
   >   "unauthentic" ;-)
   >   3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out
   of a
   >   lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...)
   >   4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very
   >   careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not
   much
   >   about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century
   >   players)
   >   5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a
   good
   >   sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected
   the
   >   right way...)
   >   I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment,
   OK.
   >   If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point
   on my
   >   list either.
   >   Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions
   :-)
   >   Thanks!
   >   Luca
   >   William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote:
   >
   >   I haven't really got much to add to the subject line.  I've been
   >   chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged  I'd
   be
   >   interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various
   >   characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise.
   >
   >   The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order):
   >
   > * playability (action, string spacing etc)
   > * sound (which I can't easily define)
   > * authenticity of design/construction
   > * materials used
   > * quality of craftsmanship
   > * reputation of maker
   >
   >
   >   Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be
   refined,
   >   clarified or broken down.
   >
   >   Thoughts, please?
   >
   >   Bill
   >
   >   --
   >
   >
   >To get on or off this list see list information at
   >[1][1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   >
   >References
   >
   >   1. [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   >

   --

References

   1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?



   Here is the instrument:

   (I' m worning you that it's not so horror)

   [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich

   and here is the music:
   [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal

   You can't go wrong and especially you can't get sick... :)

   Good luck!

   --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Eugene Kurenko  wrote:

 From: Eugene Kurenko 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
 To: "Luca Manassero" 
 Cc: "Lute List" 
 Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:07 PM

  I vote only for sound and playability!
  Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total
  horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play
  it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented
   instruments
  with that flowers, hearts etc.
  IMHO theese nice "things" suits well on instruments for women but
   not
  for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more
  like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one
   which
  looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :)))
  2012/4/7 Luca Manassero <[1][3]l...@manassero.net>
  Hi,
  very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order:
  1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you
found it)
  2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present
   lutemakers
  dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments
like
  "this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC".
Fine,
  what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?)
  3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it
happens
  to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved
   in
XVI
  and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is
  "unauthentic" ;-)
  3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound
   out
of a
  lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...)
  4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be
   very
  careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us
   not
much
  about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI
   century
  players)
  5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have
   a
good
  sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been
   selected
the
  right way...)
  I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an
   investment,
OK.
  If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first
   point
on my
  list either.
  Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other
   opinions
:-)
  Thanks!
  Luca
William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote:
I haven't really got much to add to the subject line.  I've been
chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged  I'd
   be
interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various
characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise.
The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular
   order):
  * playability (action, string spacing etc)
  * sound (which I can't easily define)
  * authenticity of design/construction
  * materials used
  * quality of craftsmanship
  * reputation of maker
Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be
  refined,
clarified or broken down.
Thoughts, please?
Bill
--
  To get on or off this list see list information at
[1][2][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
References
  1. [3][5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
  --
   References
  1. mailto:[6]l...@manassero.net
  2. [7]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
  3. [8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal
   3. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=l...@manassero.net
   4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   6. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=l...@manassero.net
   7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...???
Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit 
more complex than that, isn't it?

Best,

Jean-Marie

=
  
== En réponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 ==

>   I vote only for sound and playability!
>
>   Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total
>   horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play
>   it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments
>   with that flowers, hearts etc.
>   IMHO theese nice "things" suits well on instruments for women but not
>   for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more
>   like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which
>   looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :)))
>   2012/4/7 Luca Manassero <[1]l...@manassero.net>
>
>   Hi,
>   very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order:
>   1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you
> found it)
>   2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers
>   dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments
> like
>   "this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC".
> Fine,
>   what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?)
>   3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it
> happens
>   to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in
> XVI
>   and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is
>   "unauthentic" ;-)
>   3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out
> of a
>   lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...)
>   4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very
>   careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not
> much
>   about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century
>   players)
>   5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a
> good
>   sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected
> the
>   right way...)
>   I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment,
> OK.
>   If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point
> on my
>   list either.
>   Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions
> :-)
>   Thanks!
>   Luca
>
> William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote:
> I haven't really got much to add to the subject line.  I've been
> chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged  I'd be
> interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various
> characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise.
> The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order):
>   * playability (action, string spacing etc)
>   * sound (which I can't easily define)
>   * authenticity of design/construction
>   * materials used
>   * quality of craftsmanship
>   * reputation of maker
> Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be
>   refined,
> clarified or broken down.
> Thoughts, please?
> Bill
> --
>   To get on or off this list see list information at
>
> [1][2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> References
>   1. [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>   --
>
>References
>
>   1. mailto:l...@manassero.net
>   2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>   3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

Not a very easy question to answer and by the way not a very relevant question. 
The very notion of "good" applied to a lute or anything is obviously 
subjective. The few potentially objective criteria are evident : craftsmanship, 
woods, string action and price. All the rest is open to debate.
I do not quite agree with Hera to say that Paul Thomson (no "p" by the way ;-) 
and Joel Van Lennep are the best makers to date, however good they may be, ans 
they are good ! 
There are, thank God, several other excellent makers, who produce excellent 
lutes as well, not to name them : Martin Haycock, David Van Edwards, Alexander 
Batov in England, Andy Rutherford in the US, Julien Stryjak or Stephen Murphy 
in France, Hendryk Hasenfüss in Germany and the list could be made much, much 
longer... 
All these people ARE excellent makers too. 
Now the problem is aesthetics, what you are after in your mind, your "ideal" of 
sound; and the price may be another good reason to go to this or that maker 
rather than the supposed top brass ! If you want the same lute as say Paul 
O'Dette, ok, go to the other Paul (Thomson) but if you have; if you hope to 
emulate Hoppy, then go to Joel in Boston. But  if you have a precise idea of 
the lute you would like, the sound you would like for such or such repertoire, 
I am sure it will be easier to discuss details, and to experiment with makers 
who are not reputed to be simply the best...
I know people who have sold their Thomson's lute because the sound eventually 
did not correspond to what they were after.

My twopence anyway !

All the best,

Jean-Marie

=

== En réponse au message du 07-04-2012, 16:39:34 ==

>   Hi,
>   very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order:
>   1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it)
>   2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers
>   dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like
>   "this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC". Fine,
>   what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?)
>   3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens
>   to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI
>   and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is
>   "unauthentic" ;-)
>   3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a
>   lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...)
>   4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very
>   careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much
>   about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century
>   players)
>   5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good
>   sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the
>   right way...)
>   I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, OK.
>   If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point on my
>   list either.
>   Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions :-)
>   Thanks!
>   Luca
>   William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote:
>
>   I haven't really got much to add to the subject line.  I've been
>   chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged  I'd be
>   interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various
>   characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise.
>
>   The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order):
>
> * playability (action, string spacing etc)
> * sound (which I can't easily define)
> * authenticity of design/construction
> * materials used
> * quality of craftsmanship
> * reputation of maker
>
>
>   Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined,
>   clarified or broken down.
>
>   Thoughts, please?
>
>   Bill
>
>   --
>
>
>To get on or off this list see list information at
>[1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>References
>
>   1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?

   I vote only for sound and playability!

   Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total
   horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play
   it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments
   with that flowers, hearts etc.
   IMHO theese nice "things" suits well on instruments for women but not
   for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more
   like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which
   looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :)))
   2012/4/7 Luca Manassero <[1]l...@manassero.net>

   Hi,
   very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order:
   1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you
 found it)
   2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers
   dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments
 like
   "this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC".
 Fine,
   what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?)
   3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it
 happens
   to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in
 XVI
   and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is
   "unauthentic" ;-)
   3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out
 of a
   lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...)
   4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very
   careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not
 much
   about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century
   players)
   5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a
 good
   sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected
 the
   right way...)
   I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment,
 OK.
   If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point
 on my
   list either.
   Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions
 :-)
   Thanks!
   Luca

 William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote:
 I haven't really got much to add to the subject line.  I've been
 chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged  I'd be
 interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various
 characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise.
 The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order):
   * playability (action, string spacing etc)
   * sound (which I can't easily define)
   * authenticity of design/construction
   * materials used
   * quality of craftsmanship
   * reputation of maker
 Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be
   refined,
 clarified or broken down.
 Thoughts, please?
 Bill
 --
   To get on or off this list see list information at

 [1][2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
 References
   1. [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. mailto:l...@manassero.net
   2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Lute Facsimiles at the Royal Holloway University of LondonEarly Music Online site

A lot of the items (not all of them) presented on this site can be downloaded 
as pdf files.
Just scroll down to the bottom of the page and check if there is a button 
marked "pdf" !

Best,

Jean-Marie
=
  
== En réponse au message du 07-04-2012, 16:45:33 ==

>
>There is a tool you can add on to the Firefox browser called Down them  
>all:
>http://www.downthemall.net/
>
>If you set it for .jpg you can get all images with minimal clicking.  
>Just thought I'd put that out there.
>
>Sean
>
>
>On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:55 AM, Matteo Turri wrote:
>
>   The Royal Holloway University of London Early Music Online site
>   [1]http://digirep.rhul.ac.uk/access/home.do
>   has a number of facsimiles available to download.
>   34 of them are specific for the lute (search for "lute" ... )
>   Enjoy
>   Matteo
>   --
>
>References
>
>   1. http://digirep.rhul.ac.uk/access/home.do
>
>
>To get on or off this list see list information at
>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>

[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?