[LUTE] Re: 6 course
Dear All:
A bass unplayable by a normal person? That's what that thing Phil plays
looks like already! What is its string length, 90 cm?
Seriously, I think the Vallet quartets work just fine without any bass
notes on the descant. In fact, single-line playing would probably work,
while the other instruments play more chordally.
My private theory is that Vallet's descant parts were realized with a bass
line so that they would be satisfying and musically complete when played
alone, primarily for practice purposes, but also perhaps as solos, on any
size of instrument. Bear in mind that virtually all of the Vallet parts,
regardless of the instrument or specific piece, include the bass line. I
think this helps players make musical sense of their parts while
practicing, in addition to providing a full, sumptuous texture when all
play together.
Also, Vallet's extraordinarily detailed contract for his quartet makes
specific provisions for absent members; giving the bass line to the tenor
means you can do a gig even if the bass player or alto doesn't show up.
Cheers,
Jim
Nancy Carlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
ciates.com> cc:
Subject: [LUTE] Re: 6
course
02/23/2006 03:56 PM
I tracked down Gail Gillispie from the Venere Lute Quartet for an answer
about the lutes they play.
>Delivered-To:
lila-nancycarlinassociates:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Virus-Check-By: mailwash13.pair.com
>X-Spam-Check-By: mailwash13.pair.com
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=4.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME
>autolearn=disabled version=3.00
>X-Spam-Flag: NO
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Spam-Filtered: 0a530e8e58cc107def36ac6139926d69
>Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:57:52 -0600 (CST)
>Subject: Re: Fwd: [LUTE] Re: 6 course
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: "Nancy Carlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
>
>
>Yes, I play a 6-course. Any bass notes that fall lower that that, I just
>leave out. Actually, I leave out any bass note that I find inconvenient,
>on the grounds that three other instruments have it too, and my job is to
>make sure of the high notes which they don't have.
>
>I don't know what Vallet was thinking. I can't imagine that a ten-course
>descant would sound like much of anything, unless the whole quartet was
>lower than we think - in which case the bass would be unplayable by a
>normal person. :-)
>
>Gail
>
> >>Jim wrote:
> >>
> >> >Dear All:
> >> > The discussion of six-course lutes reminds me of a conversation I
had
> >> a
> >> >while back with Grant Tomlinson. (Grant -- sorry in advance if I
> >> misquote
> >> >you!)
> >> > We were discussing descant lutes and he stated his strong
preference
> >> for
> >> >six-courses over seven courses. His reasoning is that the bridge
width
> >> on a
> >> >seven-course constricts the vibration of the top, making the
instrument
> >> >less responsive as it vibrates less freely.
> >> > If we work our way back to alto and tenor lutes, perhaps this same
> >> idea
> >> >applies, although not in such an extreme manner.
> >>
> >>This is interesting. I have recently been doing some transcribing
> >>from Vallet's lute book, especially the quartet music and have
> >>noticed that all four parts appear to be written for ten course
> >>lutes. I've been trying to imagine a ten course descant, and also to
> >>recall what Gail Gillepsie plays in the Venere Quartet. If I recall
> >>correctly it's a six course descant. So how do we approach this
> >>music? Play on larger instruments? Make a ten course descant? Just
> >>let the bass have all those low notes by itself? I'm curious as to
> >>what the current players do versus what the composer might have
> >>originally had in mind. I'd especially like to hear what the Venere
> >>Qua
[LUTE] Re: 6 course
I tracked down Gail Gillispie from the Venere Lute Quartet for an answer about the lutes they play. >Delivered-To: lila-nancycarlinassociates:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Virus-Check-By: mailwash13.pair.com >X-Spam-Check-By: mailwash13.pair.com >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=4.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME >autolearn=disabled version=3.00 >X-Spam-Flag: NO >X-Spam-Level: >X-Spam-Filtered: 0a530e8e58cc107def36ac6139926d69 >Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:57:52 -0600 (CST) >Subject: Re: Fwd: [LUTE] Re: 6 course >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "Nancy Carlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4 > > >Yes, I play a 6-course. Any bass notes that fall lower that that, I just >leave out. Actually, I leave out any bass note that I find inconvenient, >on the grounds that three other instruments have it too, and my job is to >make sure of the high notes which they don't have. > >I don't know what Vallet was thinking. I can't imagine that a ten-course >descant would sound like much of anything, unless the whole quartet was >lower than we think - in which case the bass would be unplayable by a >normal person. :-) > >Gail > > >>Jim wrote: > >> > >> >Dear All: > >> > The discussion of six-course lutes reminds me of a conversation I had > >> a > >> >while back with Grant Tomlinson. (Grant -- sorry in advance if I > >> misquote > >> >you!) > >> > We were discussing descant lutes and he stated his strong preference > >> for > >> >six-courses over seven courses. His reasoning is that the bridge width > >> on a > >> >seven-course constricts the vibration of the top, making the instrument > >> >less responsive as it vibrates less freely. > >> > If we work our way back to alto and tenor lutes, perhaps this same > >> idea > >> >applies, although not in such an extreme manner. > >> > >>This is interesting. I have recently been doing some transcribing > >>from Vallet's lute book, especially the quartet music and have > >>noticed that all four parts appear to be written for ten course > >>lutes. I've been trying to imagine a ten course descant, and also to > >>recall what Gail Gillepsie plays in the Venere Quartet. If I recall > >>correctly it's a six course descant. So how do we approach this > >>music? Play on larger instruments? Make a ten course descant? Just > >>let the bass have all those low notes by itself? I'm curious as to > >>what the current players do versus what the composer might have > >>originally had in mind. I'd especially like to hear what the Venere > >>Quartet (if any of them are online here) did and why they decided to > >>make the decisions they made. > >> > >>Regards, > >>Craig > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>To get on or off this list see list information at > >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > Nancy Carlin Associates P.O. Box 6499 Concord, CA 94524 USA phone 925/686-5800 fax 925/680-2582 web site - www.nancycarlinassociates.com Administrator THE LUTE SOCIETY OF AMERICA web site - http://LuteSocietyofAmerica.org --
[LUTE] Re: 6 course
Jim wrote: >Dear All: > The discussion of six-course lutes reminds me of a conversation I had a >while back with Grant Tomlinson. (Grant -- sorry in advance if I misquote >you!) > We were discussing descant lutes and he stated his strong preference for >six-courses over seven courses. His reasoning is that the bridge width on a >seven-course constricts the vibration of the top, making the instrument >less responsive as it vibrates less freely. > If we work our way back to alto and tenor lutes, perhaps this same idea >applies, although not in such an extreme manner. This is interesting. I have recently been doing some transcribing from Vallet's lute book, especially the quartet music and have noticed that all four parts appear to be written for ten course lutes. I've been trying to imagine a ten course descant, and also to recall what Gail Gillepsie plays in the Venere Quartet. If I recall correctly it's a six course descant. So how do we approach this music? Play on larger instruments? Make a ten course descant? Just let the bass have all those low notes by itself? I'm curious as to what the current players do versus what the composer might have originally had in mind. I'd especially like to hear what the Venere Quartet (if any of them are online here) did and why they decided to make the decisions they made. Regards, Craig To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 6 course
Also, some of us are playing 6-course *alto* lutes, which have a distinctly different sound (much brighter) than the darker sound you typically get most eight course instruments. I have a 6-course alto (by Andrei Perkhounkov) that I love for much of the the early-to-middle 16th century repertoire. The shorter string length doesn't hurt, either. I also have an 8-course 61cm tenor, but I mostly use that for Elizabethan music, not the earlier stuff. Guy - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 2:15 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: 6 course > > For me, it is so much in the quality of the way the six course lute > responds, with a simpler bar pattern in the soundboard, a less > "complicated" sound > with more emphasis on the fundamental, less in the higher frequencies, and > a > good volume balance between all the courses, that seem on equal terms in > volume and ability to articulate the bass, treble and all the range in > between. > Using octaves down to the 4th course also helps. I find it much more > straightforward to phrase the repertoire for six course ON a six course. > > In the same way, I find it much easier to articulate the repertoire for > the > 11 course lute on the 11 course, rather than a 13 course. > > Kenneth Be > > > > In a message dated 2/18/2006 4:40:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > On Feb 18, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Daniel Shoskes wrote: > > > So, I'm glad that people who have 6 course lutes are thrilled with > > their instruments. What I don't fully understand is why the 6 course > > literature is "so much easier" to play on a 6 course lute. I have an > > 8 course that I love: great sound, fits my hands well, guitarists > > look at it and are freaked out by how many strings there are (until I > > bring out my 13 course!). My only difficulty in playing early 6 > > course music is some of the left hand stretches. But wouldn't the > > solution to that problem be a shorter string length rather than fewer > > courses? What are the other advantages people find from their 6 > > course lutes that is missing from their 8 course lutes (of equal > > quality)? > > > > DS > > > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
[LUTE] Re: 6 course
Dear All: The discussion of six-course lutes reminds me of a conversation I had a while back with Grant Tomlinson. (Grant -- sorry in advance if I misquote you!) We were discussing descant lutes and he stated his strong preference for six-courses over seven courses. His reasoning is that the bridge width on a seven-course constricts the vibration of the top, making the instrument less responsive as it vibrates less freely. If we work our way back to alto and tenor lutes, perhaps this same idea applies, although not in such an extreme manner. Cheers, Jim To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 6 course
For me, it is so much in the quality of the way the six course lute responds, with a simpler bar pattern in the soundboard, a less "complicated" sound with more emphasis on the fundamental, less in the higher frequencies, and a good volume balance between all the courses, that seem on equal terms in volume and ability to articulate the bass, treble and all the range in between. Using octaves down to the 4th course also helps. I find it much more straightforward to phrase the repertoire for six course ON a six course. In the same way, I find it much easier to articulate the repertoire for the 11 course lute on the 11 course, rather than a 13 course. Kenneth Be In a message dated 2/18/2006 4:40:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Feb 18, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Daniel Shoskes wrote: > So, I'm glad that people who have 6 course lutes are thrilled with > their instruments. What I don't fully understand is why the 6 course > literature is "so much easier" to play on a 6 course lute. I have an > 8 course that I love: great sound, fits my hands well, guitarists > look at it and are freaked out by how many strings there are (until I > bring out my 13 course!). My only difficulty in playing early 6 > course music is some of the left hand stretches. But wouldn't the > solution to that problem be a shorter string length rather than fewer > courses? What are the other advantages people find from their 6 > course lutes that is missing from their 8 course lutes (of equal > quality)? > > DS -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 6 course
Daniel, One thing that may be helping and is often overlooked is the thicker, half-round neck shape. When I play a friend's 8-c nowadays that throws off my sense of where my left fingers are in relation to my thumb as much as anything else. Sean On Feb 18, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Daniel Shoskes wrote: > So, I'm glad that people who have 6 course lutes are thrilled with > their instruments. What I don't fully understand is why the 6 course > literature is "so much easier" to play on a 6 course lute. I have an > 8 course that I love: great sound, fits my hands well, guitarists > look at it and are freaked out by how many strings there are (until I > bring out my 13 course!). My only difficulty in playing early 6 > course music is some of the left hand stretches. But wouldn't the > solution to that problem be a shorter string length rather than fewer > courses? What are the other advantages people find from their 6 > course lutes that is missing from their 8 course lutes (of equal > quality)? > > DS > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
