Re: new pictures

[Euge]

At 02:59 PM 1/3/04 +, Martin Shepherd wrote:
>This was English yew - so far I have not used Oregon yew but I am 
>interested to find a source of supply - can anyone help?


For wood from the US's Pacific northwest, you should write to Bruce Harvie 
via .  I'm curious to know what you 
find and how it works out for you.

Best,
Eugene

PS: This lute is gorgeous.  I'd say the visual aesthetic of the shaded yew 
is handily worth 10%.

Re: Vivaldi Lute Concerto

[Euge]

At 06:30 PM 12/20/03 -0700, Eric Liefeld wrote:
>The liner notes are a litle non-specific but I *believe* Mr. O'Dette
>actually
>plays a D-minor baroque lute on the recording for RV540 (listed as baroque
>lute, Martin Bowers, 1980).  This is certainly a reasonable answer as well
>given the Dresden connection for RV540 and for what its worth, I like this
>rendition of RV540 quite alot.
>
>Eric


Ah, I think I had assumed archlute based upon his recently professed 
preferences.

Eugene

Re: Vivaldi Lute Concerto

[Euge]

At 03:24 PM 12/20/03 -0800, Howard Posner wrote:
>Edward Martin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Paul O'Dette performs it on
> > the small instrument.
>
>He recorded it that way years ago, but I don't know that he'd do it that way
>now.  In the 80's years ago it was pretty much accepted wisdom that Vivaldi
>was writing for a soprano lute (I think because the available editions
>didn't show the lute on the basso continuo part); I don't think anyone
>seriously thinks so now.  I believe there's a discussion of the issue in the
>notes to Jakob Lindberg's Vivaldi recording.
>
>HP


Paul O'Dette most certainly _not_ record Vivaldi's lute works that way 
now.  Yes, his recording of the Vivaldi did use 6-course mandolino.  Works 
to specify "mandolino" were recorded on mandolino played with a plectrum; 
works to specify "leuto," on a mandolino played fingerstyle. Exceptions are 
RV 540 where Paul used an archlute and RV 558, which is omitted from this 
recording.  I was fortunate to see Paul O'Dette perform Vivaldi with 
Apollo's Fire Baroque Orchestra and give a lecture early this year. I 
discussed his use of mandolino on this recording with him. Mr. O'Dette has 
recanted his position on Vivaldi's leuto; he still plays the works to 
specify "mandolino" on 6-course mandolino (of course), but now plays the 
works to specify "leuto" on archlute.

Eugene

Re: Vivaldi Lute Concerto

[Euge]

At 11:24 AM 12/20/03 -0500, Roman Turovsky wrote:
> > I have just had a phone call from someone who has been asked to play
> > the Vivaldi lute concerto, but they don't know what instrument it is
> > for. It goes up to c''', i.e. two octaves above middle c'.
> >
> > In his book _The Early Mandolin_, Early Music Series 9 (Oxford:
> > Clarendon Press, 1989) James Tyler argues that the music should be
> > played an octave lower than written, presumably on a bog standard
> > lute in g', and not, as some musicians do, on a mandolino. This is
> > what he writes on page 31:
> >
> > "Many modern performers have been confused as to the lute intended
> > by Vivaldi for his music, and because the music is mostly written in
> > the treble clef, have assumed it is to be played in the same
> > register as the violin. They have ignored the fact that Vivaldi has
> > the lute play from the bass clef as a continuo instrument (see RV540
> > and RV556) when it is not playing its solo passages from the treble
> > clef. This confusion has led some eminent performers to play
> > Vivaldi's lute pieces on a mandolino which, for their purposes, they
> > call a soprano lute."
> >
> > Please could anyone tell me more about this piece, and the sort of
> > instrument required to play it.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Stewart McCoy.
>The issue is simple, you are a comedian and want to sound cheesy: play in on
>mandolino.
>If you are a man of gravitas: arciliuto.
>RT


I'm not entirely certain why the higher octave would imply comedy and 
cheese.  I actually like the 5- or 6-course mandolino and think it achieved 
a fairly high degree of "gravitas" in the first half of the 18th c...and 
not only am I a humorless curmudgeon (not really), but I really only favor 
cheese when it appears in burritos or alfredo.  While I like mandolino, I 
agree that it's not appropriate to Vivaldi except where Vivaldi himself 
specified its use.

Which of Vivaldi's concerti are you to play, Stewart?  Eric Liefeld wrote a 
fine article on this very topic (Liefeld, E. 2002/2003. Pondering Vivaldi's 
Leuto. LSA Quarterly, 28(1): 4-8).  I'll defer to him for a proper reply.

Best,
Eugene

Re: Minestra di corde

[Euge]

At 07:24 AM 12/7/03 -0500, Leonard Williams wrote:
>Hypothetical, just for fun:
>
> It's January and you've played your last holiday gig that pays less
>than your transportation costs.  By now you need to do a little lute
>maintenance but you find that in order to afford new strings and frets, you
>may have to eat the old ones.
> Is there any nutritional value at all in gut strings or frets?  I
>know pets are interested in them.  Any harmful chemicals introducued in the
>manufacture of the strings?
>
>  Send your favorite recipes to the list!




Mmmm, Mmmm!

Re: Facsimeles etc.

[Euge]

Hello Jon,


At 01:17 AM 12/6/03 -0500, Jon Murphy wrote:
>There is legality and there is equity. The US copyright law is different
>from most of the European, admittedly. But both consider "fair use". My harp
>ensemble (a group of from 6 to 10, depending on the season and the
>committments) routinely violates the copyright law. We shamelessly copy
>arrangements from current books written by fellow harpists who need the
>money from their publications. My folio of arrangements is mainly xerox
>copies. But at the same time we also routinely hire those same harpist as
>workshop teachers when they come to our area. The ensemble is amateur, we
>donate our music to nursing homes and such. The arranger/publishers have no
>objection as the promulgation of their music means more sales in the long
>run. But that may be possible as the harp community in the US is quite
>united and has nothing to argue about. There are more differences between
>harps than there are between Thorbos and Lutes, but we consider ourselves a
>community.


I'm not certain of the legality here, but I believe if someone amongst your 
players has bought the arrangement, making some copies to assist his/her 
performance qualifies as "fair use" and is legal.  Is there somebody out 
there who knows?


>But even a lutenist should want to see the understanding of his music 
>expanded,
>if only for his own ego at being at the center of it.


I don't have enough skill with any instrument to justify any ego, but I 
would like understanding of the music for any of my instruments expanded, 
of course.  Fortunately, the bulk of the lute repertoire, almost all of it, 
is in public domain.  This is where one's personal sense of ethics dictates 
xerographic practices.


>It is a delicate balance between the "fair use" and promulgation, and the
>rights of the arranger/publisher. But I have little sympathy with one who
>might say "It's mine, cause I found it" and then demand an exhorbitant
>price. No skin off my ass, it will be years before I'm interested in the
>more esoteric facsimiles, if ever. I have to learn to play this beatie
>first.


Even when you do decide to pursue esoteric facsimiles, be aware that nobody 
can claim "It's mine, 'cause I found it" with material in the public 
domain, only the physical manifestations of that material can be 
owned.  The facsimiles cannot be copyrighted in the US, only new material 
surrounding publication of a PD facsimile can be copyrighted.  For example, 
if I find the lost Santiago de Murcia manuscript of Greater Hooplah at a 
garage sale and purchase it for US$4.37, that physical book is mine, I can 
restrict access to it as I see fit, but I cannot own the music it 
contains.  de Murcia wrote it a great long time ago and the world at large 
owns it.  If such a thing ever happened to me, I would probably make a copy 
for my personal use, allow a publishing co. that generates product I like 
(e.g., Editions Orphee) to copy it because such a firm has a greater 
ability than I to disseminate this material to the world at large, and then 
donate the manuscript to a public collection.  Any publisher to print my 
find could copyright any supportive text to come of his/her modern 
research, new cover art, etc. associated with a publication, but not the 
facsimiles themselves.  If you must have that material, you could either 
decide to buy the handsomely-bound modern printing of the facsimile with 
its historic text and new cover art or pursue it through the public 
collection where it was donated (or write to me before I part company with 
it and I'd be happy to swap for other copies of PD stuff not originating in 
a modern publication).  Here is where the personal ethic thing comes in: I 
would not condone xeroxing the facsimile pages from the modern edition, 
even if legal, because that diminishes the publisher's ability to recoup 
expenses associated with publishing such a work.  I don't believe that's 
right.  You can decide for yourself.

Sincerest wishes of luck to you and your harpers,
Eugene

Re: Facsimeles etc.

[Euge]

At 09:20 AM 12/5/03 -0500, Roman Turovsky wrote:
> >> If you feel they do not, strive to
> >> change them through proper channels in favor of breaking them.  I don't
> >> believe allowing the production and sale of lute tablatures is quite
> >> enough to justify a label of tyranny.
>Production is not questioned here, but rather an attempt to monopolize PD
>material by repackaging it.


There are many publishers.  Some charge more than less.  None hold a 
monopoly on PD lute tablatures.  As I understand it, if a publisher does 
risk reproduction of a facsimile, repackage it, and sell it, I can xerox a 
friend's bought copy it and use it in the US if I don't reproduce 
introductory text, cover art...anything that may be 
copyrighted.  Personally, I don't do this because I believe I should 
not.  Again, I am happy to receive correction from those who really know 
something about copyright law.


>IT IS VERY SIMPLE: In order to publish a classic novel one has no obligation
>or necessity to pay a single penny to the library or an individual that
>holds the manuscript. PERIOD.
>Lute tabulatures are no different.


I don't think this is in doubt.  By definition, public domain material is 
not protected by copyright.  If anybody lays hands to the material, he/she 
can disseminate it at will assuming he/she hasn't willingly agreed to 
legally binding restrictions in obtaining the material.  If I own a rare 
and beautiful thing, I have the right to restrict access to it, to share it 
with friends and hide it from local street toughs, etc.  In general, I'm 
pretty liberal about sharing my scant stash of music and ephemera with the 
world at large.  Unlike many of the world's libraries, I am fortunate that 
my sustained existence doesn't depend upon such things.  I have been pretty 
successful in accessing public collections without exorbitant fees...but I 
have done so to satiate my own curiosity, not with the intent to 
publish...and, I must say, I am a rather charming character.  I understand 
your argument; I am just a little more sympathetic to the institutions that 
protect the physical manifestations of this material to the benefit of 
future users and, when faced with ever-diminishing public funds, must 
survive to the benefit of all.

Re: Facsimeles etc.

[Euge]

At 11:20 PM 12/4/03 -0600, Michael Thames wrote:
>As we have witnessed, a moral case could be made either way.  I for one,
>am in favor of all facsimiles in the public domain to be copyright free.  As
>far as everything else is concerned I really don't care.


As I understand it, at least in the US, all facsimiles in the public domain 
_are_ copyright free.  They may be protected by contractual agreement with 
the holder of the original, but the holder of the original cannot hold a 
US-registered copyright on them.  If somebody has a richer understanding of 
copyright law, I'm happy to receive correction.  Even if legal, I believe 
copying such stuff from a modern publication is wrong, so I don't do it, 
and I don't like that it's sometimes done.  That's my decision to make.

Eugene

Re: Facsimeles etc.

[Euge]

I contributed what little I know of this topic very early on and in very 
short order grew mighty tired of all the scatological nonsense and 
inappropriate misidentification of hominids to follow (as a professional 
biologist, this latter offense was particularly troubling).

I said this the last too-recent time this same debate raged through the 
list: if an activity is legal, feel free to do it; if its morality is 
suspect, you're old enough to decide for yourself whether or not you should 
feel guilty afterwards.  Barring obvious cases of tyranny, law should 
reflect the social norms of a society.  If you feel they do not, strive to 
change them through proper channels in favor of breaking them.  I don't 
believe allowing the production and sale of lute tablatures is quite enough 
to justify a label of tyranny.  Too black and white, passionless, oblivious 
to the beauty of the art: maybe, but that's who I am in such 
debates.  Distributing xerographic copies of published facsimiles may often 
be perfectly legal in the US in many cases, but I personally feel doing so 
is unethical in increasing the risk inherent in publishing facsimiles...so 
I don't...and I do engage in plenty of swapping for PD material, both old 
publications that are no longer in print and, occasionally, manuscript 
facsimiles that did not originate in a modern publication.


At 08:26 PM 12/4/03 -0600, Michael Thames wrote:
>  If He doesn't do it, believe me there are a hindered others who will.
>And maybe they'll do it with a spirit of generosity, and quit complaining if
>they can't make a profit.


I believe this spirit is amply demonstrated by almost every publisher who 
has endeavored to bring a facsimile to print.  If you don't like a 
particular publisher, voice your dissent with your dollars and buy 
something else.  Cold and passionless again, but my money simply goes to 
products I like.


>   Before this storm it, I was ambivalent about the whole thing.  But now
>thanks to you know who... I can say with absolute resolve, that anyone who
>is stupid enough to publish a facsimile of an original manuscript and expect
>to make a profit, should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.


I don't believe this describes anybody who has ever published a facsimile 
edition.


>That being said, If they were to put  the copies into a well thought out
>informative beautiful edition, and make it appealing for consumers of music,
>people would buy it, that's how it works.  An example is Frank Koonces's
>editions of Bach, and anything that is added onto and edited.


Even so, as I have--as we all have--read here very frequently over the past 
week, beautifully bound facsimile editions of lute music--even those 
well-endowed with well-researched, supportive, informative text and 
informed corrections--_still_ can't be expected to turn profit.  Perhaps 
these especially cannot be expected to generate profit given the amount of 
work and scholarship they require to produce.


>  You publishing types, seem to represent the most extreme swing of
>capitalism, thinking the only time anyone does anything is for money, shame
>on you, and the stupid sheep that follow them.
>These publishers are very smart, it's the ones that follow them that are
>stupid!


Again, I have yet to hear of any modern publication of lute tablature 
generating massive profit and universal fame for its publisher.  The 
highest aspiration such a publication can realistically have is to 
generously disseminate valuable information to a buying public and, in so 
doing, hope to reclaim a portion of the expense of production.  Excessive 
copying of such stuff, even if legal, increases the risk inherent in their 
publication making it less likely to occur in the future to the detriment 
of all.  I happily either buy or properly borrow from libraries those such 
publications that contain material I would like to access.  Maybe I am 
naive, idealistic (these are my ideals, not necessarily anybody else's and 
do not dictate anybody else's behavior), Mr. Rogers-like, I'd like to 
imagine that I'm not quite to a level of stupid even though I am buying 
into the schemes of smart publishers...I am almost certainly not saintly (I 
often keep my library books longer than I should).  I feel obliged to say 
this again: if an activity is legal, feel free to do it; if its morality is 
suspect, you're old enough to decide for yourself whether or not you should 
feel guilty afterwards...but don't expect everybody else around you to like 
what you've done.  I might not be a fan of what you've done, but I won't 
take offense unless it is illegal.  As I wrote some time ago, what little I 
know relevant to the topic at hand was offered at that time and gleaned 
from a casual conversation I had with a friend in the US Library of 
Congress's Copyright Office.  I really have no more to say on this topic 
unless I am specifically addressed, but please don't confuse me with 
excreme

Re: Folia

[Euge]

At 10:25 PM 12/3/03 +0900, Ed Durbrow wrote:
>Are there any good folias for the Baroque lute?


Check out .  It's a pretty good catalog of 
a great many Folias, for d-minor lute and otherwise.  I know Gallot wrote a 
set of variations for lute, but the baroque Folia seems to have flowered 
its fullest on 5-course guitar.

Eugene 

Re: usage rights, facsimiles etc...

[Euge]

At 03:00 PM 11/29/03 -0800, Christopher Schaub wrote:
>Good point, and I wasn't trying to suggest that you could go and just make
>copies and re-distribute them! I believe most publishers enhance their
>facsimiles and manuscripts with some "clean up" to protect them under the
>various copyright laws. In the past, I spoke with a publisher about this who
>did say he didn't put the copyright notice on some of his facsimiles since he
>didn't do much that would be copyrightable. But, I'll bet he'd get pretty
>active with lawyers if folks started re-distributing his stuff. I'm sure he's
>done some cleanup that could be considered an enhancement. Thanks for the
>clarification.


I'm not certain, but I don't think general "cleanup" in most instances 
would be enough modification to be protected under copyright law.  For 
example, even if I were to create an entirely new typesetting of de Visee's 
guitar tablature using modern software--an exact reproduction of the 
original, only legible--it is not copyrightable as I understand it.  I 
discussed this very issue with my friend at the Library of Congress; he 
equated such activity to typing out "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" 
verbatim and claiming it as my own.  However, if one were to create a 
transcription for modern guitar in modern notation working from a public 
domain facsimile of the tablature, that is something that could be protected.

Printing facsimile can represent a major risk to a publisher.  Wanton 
copying of modern facsimile editions increases the risk associated with 
their publication, decreases a publisher's profit, and decreases the 
likelihood of such endeavors being undertaken in the future to the 
detriment of all.  My opinion is that copying facsimiles, even if entirely 
legal, flirts dangerously with unethical.

Eugene

Re: usage rights, facsimiles etc...

[Euge]

At 02:28 PM 11/29/03 -0800, Christopher Schaub wrote:
>You would have to check with Tree Editions to be sure. It's very possible that
>there are edits and formatting that you are unaware of -- many publishers
>"clean up" the facsimiles and manuscripts before they publish them. Removing
>player's notes etc. Also, any cover pages and additional text would be under
>copyright by the publisher. This would also be a pretty bad thing to do to
>someone who's trying to make an edition available for fee. If you want to do
>this sort of thing, why not contact the source (like he did) and get your own
>copy? I can tell you that he probably paid something (ie: not cheap) for his
>copy and the rights/license to re-distribute. So, it's really not ethical to
>re-distribute copies of his work, regardless of the legality (IMHO).


I agree wholeheartedly!

Eugene

Re: usage rights, facsimiles etc...

[Euge]

At 08:48 AM 11/29/03 -0600, Michael Thames wrote:
>What about a Facsimile from say a publisher, who simply photgraghed the
>original facsimile with no edits, just the photograph and sold it.  Do they
>have any copyright protection, once it's sold and out of their hands?
>Michael Thames


Nope.  As I understand it, at least in the US, a publisher would have 
rights to any new cover art, forward, introductory text, etc. that is 
drafted and copyrighted for a facsimile edition as well as rights to 
corrections and editorial efforts (if substantial as determined by the 
copyright office), but not to facsimiles themselves.

Eugene

Re: usage rights, facsimiles etc...

[Euge]

Hello Chris et al.,

I recently discussed some of these same topics with a friend of mine who 
happens to be a copyright researcher in the Copyright Office of the US 
Library of Congress.

At 05:58 AM 11/29/03 -0800, Christopher Schaub wrote:
>We both agreed that there probably aren't any
>copyright issues with old facsimiles and manuscripts, but what about derived
>works? For example, I get a Dowland facsimile from say the British library and
>then key it into tab format, print a book and begin selling it. Do I need
>permission from the library to do so?


No, no library--nobody--can hold rights to public domain material.  Once 
you've done whatever the holder requires to lay hands to the facsimile 
(fees, proper use of your library card, whatever), it's yours to do with as 
you please.


>Not exactly a derivative work, but it's
>also not an exact reproduction. Also, can I just get a copy of a
>facsimile/manuscript from a local library and key it in and begin selling it?


You could, but if I can get it from the library too, I wouldn't necessarily 
want to buy yours...maybe even if yours is cheaper than a library access 
fee.  In the interest of the common good, I have an odd naive love of 
supporting such institutions as libraries and publishers that make much 
more of such material available than any individual could.  I do do a good 
deal of swapping for public domain material, and I highly recommend it 
amongst friends, but the stuff I pursue via this route is stuff that I 
can't obtain in any other way.

Best,
Eugene

Re: 19th cent string question+ nylgut

[Euge]

Len Verrett has a nice summary of stringing 19th-c. guitars here: 
.   In it, he gives 
a little blurb to the evils of Nylgut.  In correspondence, he elaborated on 
his feelings for Nylgut, and none of it was good.  That said, this should 
only be considered as one player's opinion.  Paul O'Dette gave a lecture I 
attended early this year.  While he favors gut for recording, he only had 
praise for the stability of Nylgut while touring and believes it to be the 
best synthetic substitute for gut.  I have used Nylgut on early 
mandolin.  I do favor the sound of gut, but gut is rather short-lived under 
a quill.  I do prefer the sound of Nylgut over nylon (at least for plectrum 
play).  I have a couple 19th-c. guitars and intend to experiment with 
Nylgut next time I need to buy strings.

Best,
Eugene


At 07:39 AM 11/16/03 -0800, Sal Salvaggio wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>I have an original 19th century parlour guitar -
>I'm guessing that it is from the 1860's -70's +
>presently string it with modern medium gauge nylon
>classical guitar strings. It sounds great when I play
>with nails, but I often play concerts w/o nails with
>lutes and baroque guitars and was wondering if anyone
>has tried nylgut on 19th cent. guitars. I would do
>regular gut but I've come to enjoy the
>durability/predictable nature of nylgut on my baroque
>guitar, they have a brighter quality. - and also, any
>suggestions on wound/unwound basses?
>
>Sal Salvaggio

Re: Harpsichord?!

[Euge]

At 05:13 AM 11/8/03 -0500, Jon Murphy wrote:
>But supposing you were on a
>desert island (with adquate food from the ocean, and a flowing spring for
>fresh water). If all you had were a set of lute strings and a hand saw and a
>massive collection of Lego blocks wouldn't you try to make a lute out of
>them?


What, no coconut palms or rabbits (the latter for adhesive)?!

Eugene

Re: looking for a "lutar" - forwarded

[Euge]

At 08:39 AM 10/11/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Nope they're not doing a one off play, they're an historical re-enactment
>group that's looking to add instrumental music to what they do. Here's
>their web site;
>
>www.guildofstgeorge.com


 From the Guild's site:

"The Guild of St. George, the premier Elizabethan re-enactment group in the 
country, specializes in presenting the people and events of the court of 
Queen Elizabeth I of England. This romantic and important era witnessed the 
first English colonies in America, the establishment of English sea power, 
and the flowering of English poetry, drama, and _music_."

and

"All Guild members are volunteers and each participant provides his or her 
own costume and props, which must meet the exacting standards of the Guild."

Sounds to me like some guitarist in their membership might want to at least 
consider an affordable lute.

Re: "lutar," mandolin, and lute peripheria

[Euge]

At 08:03 PM 10/7/03 -0400, David Rastall wrote:
>>...There _were_ reams of
>>shoddily constructed guitar lutes built to target a fickle crowd of
>>amateurs; such is the case with any popular instrument (e.g., consider the
>>modern guitar or the mandolin in the early 1900s).
>
>It's interesting to me that practically every serious bluegrass banjo 
>and/or mandolin player I've ever met has preferred to play on an 
>instrument made in the early 1900's.  There seems to be a mystique about 
>that in the old-time music and bluegrass world.  They say that the older 
>instruments are better than the ones made today.  I don't know much about 
>banjoes, but I do think it's true about Gibson mandolins.


Technically, serious bluegrass mandolinists favor f-holed mandolins with 
violin-like arches carved into the top and back plates, the configuration 
first applied to the mandolin concept by Lloyd Loar, the Gibson Co.'s 
acoustic engineer.  This set of features first appeared in late 1922 on 
Gibson's F-5 model, a professional-grade instrument.  Traditional 
bluegrassers adhere to their instruments and ensembles with a religious 
fervor.  Last I'd heard, Gibson F-5s in good, playable condition and 
carrying Loar's signature were selling in the neighborhood of 
US$100,000!  Most players can't afford a Loar-signed F-5 and happily sing 
the praises of modern reproductions.  Ironically, Loar designed the F-5 for 
classical performance by groups like his own mandolin quartet; f-holed 
mandolins are rarely used by contemporary classical players.

The low-end stuff to which I had referred was the stuff surrounding the 
mandolin orchestra craze which ended in the US around 1915 or a little 
later.  Bowl- and flat-backed mandolins were ubiquitous from ca. 
1890-1920.  Many were built with an eye to detail; most were built to 
cheaply serve a fickle crowd of amateurs.

Best,
Eugene

Re: looking for a "lutar" - forwarded

[Euge]

At 06:35 AM 10/7/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yes, that's what she's looking for. I'm chatting with her in email about it
>and trying to talk her out of it and go for a real lute instead. She's part
>of an Elizabethan re-enactment group and they want to add music.
>Unfortunately the lutar is not the appropriate instrument for it.


Frankly, guitar lutes under any name are not the appropriate instrument for 
anything.  They don't sound like lutes, they don't sound like guitars, they 
just don't sound any good at all...and most are rather shoddily 
constructed.  The very conception of the instrument was in a superficial, 
visual aesthetic to serve a fickle crowd of amateurs celebrating some 
imagined, idealized, pastoral past.

Re: Request

[Euge]

At 01:36 PM 10/1/03 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I picked up the following request from another list. He hasn't had a
>reply so I thought that someone out there may be able to help.
>
> >>I´m looking for an image that appears in the 3rd volume of the New Grove
> >>dictionary of Musical Instruments, depicting Orfeo playing a vihuela de
> >>mano.
>
> >>This is an engraving that appears in Luis de Milan´s work:
> >>"Libro de Música de Vihuela de mano...intitulado El Maestro" (1536).
>
> >>I´ve been to a library where they have the said book but they don´t have
> >>a scanner, only a copier, which is too low resolution for my purpose.
> >>Furthermore the book is to be consulted only there.


If one does a google search for images of "vihuela," this image will 
surface on occasion.  I don't know if any will have the resolution António 
seeks.

Best,

Eugene

Re: lute player in blocks

[Euge]

At 08:30 AM 9/26/03 +0100, Rob MacKillop wrote:
>Let's revive the practice, at least virtually. Which present-day lute player
>would you put in the blocks...and why?


Rather than player, how about the luthiers building the modern German 
barockmandoline and implying it was similar to any instruments that existed 
before the 1980s?

..On second thought, you could slap me in stocks just for being such a 
lousy player.

Eugene

Re: Mandolo info

[Euge]

At 11:13 AM 9/19/03 -0300, Marcus Merrin wrote:
>Euge wrote:
>
> >
> >Even more horrific for the classification of chordophones, when Sobell
> >decided to build instruments in roughly the size and configuration of
> >octave mandolas in the latter half of the 20th c., he saw a picture in an
> >old book and decided to call his instruments "cittern" and "bouzouki,"
> >which they clearly are not!  Unfortunately, his terms have persisted and
> >become popular amongst those who use such instruments in Irish and Scottish
> >music.  Granted, they usually use odd open tunings.
> >
> >
> >
>Round here (Nova Scotia)  I have heard the folkies refer to this species
>as "mandocello".  The term was probably introduced to avoid confusion
>(Ha! ha!)
>Marcus


Mando-cello (N. America) and mandoloncello (Europe) are a bit bigger than 
octave mandola: C, G, d, a.  Liuto cantabile (or liuto moderno) was a 
mandokin designed for solo literature; it was a mandoloncello with a high 
e', a kind of hybrid between octave mandola and mandoloncello. Raffaele 
Calace claimed to have invented it, but he probably only standardized it.

Eugene

Re: Mandolo info

[Euge]

At 08:39 AM 9/17/03 +0200, Doc Rossi wrote:

>Why is it called a "tenor" mandola?  I always thought it was simply known 
>as a mandola, fulfilling a role similar to the viola (alto?).
>Are there other sizes?


When the c, g, d', a' instrument first appeared, there was already 
something using the mandola name.  It was tuned G, d, a, e', one octave 
down from mandolin; thus, Embergher used mandoliola when he introduced his 
instrument.  American firms were largely oblivious or ambivalent to the 
efforts and nomenclature of European builders at the time, so when Waldo, 
Howe-Orme, F.O. Gutman, and Gibson began building mandolin relatives to be 
tuned c, g, d', a', they referred to them in catalogs and literature as 
either "mandola" (if completely unaware of European instruments) or "tenor 
mandola" to differentiate it from the older European octave mandola (the 
instrument tuned an octave lower from mandolin).  Raffaele Calace was a 
luthier and composer of that era and his shop persists in Naples, now 
operated by his grandson.  One can still order scores from the Calace 
shop.  Many of them are provided as xerographic copies of original 
manuscripts.  The "mandola" for which Calace wrote was the one to be tuned 
from G.

Even more horrific for the classification of chordophones, when Sobell 
decided to build instruments in roughly the size and configuration of 
octave mandolas in the latter half of the 20th c., he saw a picture in an 
old book and decided to call his instruments "cittern" and "bouzouki," 
which they clearly are not!  Unfortunately, his terms have persisted and 
become popular amongst those who use such instruments in Irish and Scottish 
music.  Granted, they usually use odd open tunings.



>About Paul's book.  I think it's wonderful, but he does get into a bit of 
>trouble with Italian, as could be expected with all the dialects and 
>non-standard spellings (reflecting local pronunciation).  What he decides 
>to define as mandolin, mandolino, etc. may not actually reflect  local 
>situations.


I can't argue.  The nomenclature of mandolin relatives, especially early 
ones, is a haphazard mess.  The one quarrel I have with the first of that 
series, _The_Early_Mandolin_, is that Tyler & Sparks present a system of 
terminology as though it were standard in simply referring to the older, 
gut-strung, 4- to 6-course instruments tuned mostly in fourths in Italian 
(mandolino), and the more recently developed (mid 1700s), wire-strung, 
4-course instrument tuned in fifths in French (mandoline).  As those terms 
are still used by non-English speakers to refer to modern instruments, 
their proposed nomenclature isn't universally useful.

Eugene

Re: Mandolo info

[Euge]

Hello Craig,

The instrument sounds to be very lovely.  Given that this is a modern tenor 
mandola, you also may want to look into the sequel to the text I had 
recommended:

Sparks, P. 1995. The Classical Mandolin. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

My best again,

Eugene


At 06:51 AM 9/16/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yes, mandola, I misspelled it. It is tuned c, g, d', a'. I will take some
>photos of it next time he comes over and post them. He bought it
>refurbished, that is a new spruce top was put on it. Originally it's a
>German made instrument. Unfortunately there's no label inside, though the
>paper used to strengthen the ribs has a nice floral pattern on it. There is
>no other maker's mark anywhere on the instrument. The craftsmanship is
>quite nice and I told him he probably got quite a nice deal on it at $400
>US. It's lute backe and the ribs are curly maple spaced with what looks
>like ebony. It's hard to tell as the spacers are so thin. It's possibly
>some other dark wood. The top is not completely flat, having an angle in it
>just below the bridge.
>
> >Tyler & Sparks. 1989. The Early Mandolin. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
> >
> >It has marvelous appendices with vast lists of extant
> >manuscripts.  However, I suspect this is moot regarding the instrument in
> >question.
>
>Thank you, I'll look into finding a copy of this.

Re: Mandolo info

[Euge]

Hello Craig,

I'm not certain to what you are referring as "mandolo," but I suspect it's 
what I would refer to as mandola, tenor mandola, or mandoliola.  Can I 
assume this has four courses tuned in unison: c, g, d', a'?  If I may pry, 
who made your friend's?  If possible, I'd love to see an image.

1. If the instrument is as I have described, it first appeared in the 
mid-late 1890s.  Gibson fans in the US like to imagine that Gibson invented 
the instrument with a violin-like carved back plate around 1900.  There are 
several to have predated Gibson.  Luigi Embergher of Rome  introduced the 
instrument under the name "mandoliola" in 1898 and exhibited it in Turin in 
1898.  Embergher's were bowl-backed.  The Waldo line of instruments also 
made bowl-backed tenor mandolas in the 1890s with paired "f" 
holes!  Howe-Orme of Boston built tenor mandolas with flat backs in the 
shape of guitars.

2. From the end of the renaissance and into the early baroque age, mandola 
and mandolino were roughly interchangeable and referred to the 4- to 
6-course instrument tuned mostly in fourths: (g), (b), e', a', d", g".  By 
Stradivari's time, mandola came to refer to a slightly larger instrument, 
but still tuned in fourths.  There is a good deal of repertoire for these 
instruments by the likes of Vivaldi, Scarlatti (allegedly), Arrigoni, 
etc.  An excellent text on such stuff is:

Tyler & Sparks. 1989. The Early Mandolin. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

It has marvelous appendices with vast lists of extant 
manuscripts.  However, I suspect this is moot regarding the instrument in 
question.

3. I'm sure a case could be made.  I suggest you post an inquiry under the 
"Classical" section here: .  People who still 
play such instruments in mandolin quartets and orchestras frequent this 
discussion board and are a wealth of practical knowledge.

Best,

Eugene



At 09:18 PM 9/15/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Dear Combined Knowledge,
>
>A friend of mine came over tonight asking me for some instruction on how to
>play a mandolo he acquired some years ago and never learned to play. The
>instrument itself is beautiful, having 23 ribs of very nice curly maple and
>an inlaid maple neck. It's also a very nice sounding instrument. But there
>my knowledge of this instrument stops. It's tuned in C rather than G like
>its smaller cousin the mandolin, and I was able to help him figure out some
>scales and a few rudimentary chords. I also found some info on tablature
>online. But we still have a few questions.
>
>1. When did this instrument first show up in history? Is it Medieval,
>Renaissance or Baroque? Or is it strictly modern (post 18th c.)?
>
>2. If it's a period (Ren. at least) instrument, are there manuscripts of
>music written for it? And by whom? And are facsimiles available (I haven't
>seen anything in OMI's catalog but that may only be because there are no
>facsimiles of extant manuscripts).
>
>3. Would Kingham or some other case maker be able to make a case for this
>instrument (it currently has none and came with none)?
>
>Thank you for your time.
>
>Regards,
>Craig

Fwd: The complete work by S.L. Weiss"The Manuscript of London, Vol. 11

[Euge]

Hello all,

I thought the following may interest some of you.  Personally, I'm very=20
fond of the previous ten volumes and eager to add this latest installment=20
to my shelves.

Best,

Eugene


>Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:13:47 -0400
>From: Gilles Poirier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: The complete work by S.L. Weiss "The Manuscript of London, Vol. 11
>
>"Dear Friends and customers/ chers amis et clients,
>
>An other big news: The volume 11 of the complete work  of  the Manuscript=
=20
>of London,  by S.L. Weiss, played by Michel Cardin on Baroque lute, is=20
>arrived. It contains many separate pieces and (for the first time) the=20
>"Premier Concert d'un luth et d'une fl=FBte traversi=E8re" (flute=20
>reconstitution) with Christiane Laflamme, Baroque Flute.
> For those who has ordered and paid for the volume 11, they will=20
> receive it during the next days
>
>For those outside Canada and USA who want to order it,  send us an=20
>International Money Order of 18.24$ Canadian and the CD will be ship by=20
>airmail
>For those from USA, send us a personnal check or Money order of 11.55$US
>For those from N-Brunswick, Canada, send us a personnal check of 17.46$=20
>Canadian
>For those customers other than from N-Brunswick, send us a check of 16.25$=
=20
>Canadian
>For customers from the Province of Qu=E9bec, send us a check of 17,07$=
 Canadian
>
>Our ADDRESS is/ notre adresse est:  TECHNI-SONORE Inc. 10175, rue=20
>Meunier, Montreal (Quebec) H3L 2Z2
>
>Voici une autre bonne nouvelle: le Volume 11 de l'oeuvre compl=E8te du=20
>"Manuscrit de Londres" de S.L. Weiss, jou=E9e par Michel Cardin au luth=20
>baroque, vient de para=EEtre et est disponible pour la vente (VOIR=20
>conditions et adresse plus haut). Ce nouveu CD contient plusieurs petites=
=20
>pi=E8ces s=E9par=E9es et en premi=E8re audition le "Premier Concert d'un=
 luth et=20
>d'une fl=FBte traversi=E8re"  avec  Christiane Laflamme,  fl=FBte=
 baroque.(la=20
>partie de la fl=FBte a =E9t=E9 reconstitu=E9e)
>Chaque commande va recevoir une attention particuli=E8re et empress=E9e.
>
>J-Gilles Poirier, directeur

--