[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I'm a little perplexed by this discussion. Is the assertion being made that lutenists who played 10c lutes at the inception of these instruments only played music specifically written for 10c and ceased playing music that appeared before unless they also had a 6c, 7c or 8c instrument? In the 10c repertoire a given piece of music will sometimes go several measures without anything happening in the bourdons. Would not these passages be subject to the same problems supposedly accompanying (accompaning?) the playing of 6c, 7c or 8c music on the 10c? Gary - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:41 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? --- David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 The Galliard is a later composition, and probably designed for the amateur market--it is a fine piece, just not that difficult. Amateur, really? Lightening-quick divisions over a moving bass easy amateur material? The combination of the faster notes with less chords was irrestible, presumably because they are easier to play yet sound more difficult. Hmmm... interesting perspective. Personally, I've never found fast runs to be all that easy. And if one were to play Mozart's Opus 2 followed by B's Hammerklavier, then you would need two pianos, or play the earlier piece on the later instrument. Of course, of course... we know that no musician would attempt to play works written before the invention of the specific instrument he or she is currently playing. Just look at classical guitarists - I can't name a single modern guitarist - professional or amateur - who would ever even THINK of playing music by Giuliani or Sor on something like a modern nylon-strung CG. That's why the most popular composers on classical guitar programs continue to be Carter, Henze, Takemitsu and Krenek. Well, um, wait... Er... nevermind... ;-) Chris dt .At 06:51 AM 11/28/2007, you wrote: Dear David, Your reasoning is historically correct, but this puts us in something of a quandry from a practical performance view. Just take Dowland, for example. His Lachrimae lute solo exists in a version for six-course lute, (its 7-course in Board and Folger) Flow my teares is for 7-courses, the lute used in Seven Sad Pavans is 9-courses and the Galliard to Lachrimae is also for 9. Now, if you want to pair the Lachrimae Pavan with its Galliard on the same concert program, what should you do? You're quite right that none of the above mentioned pieces requires the 8-course lute, but, according to your line of reasoning, would it be any more acceptable to play the 6-or-7-course Pavan on a 9-course instrument? (What about playing a 9-course piece on a 10-course? Out, too?) Certainly, the tonal distinction between the 6 and 9 coursers would be much greater than between the 7 and 8 courses that you suggest is significant. Or would you suggest our performer should play the pavan on a six-course lute, put it down, fine-tune the 9-course and go? Would Dowland? Clearly, the answer is that Dowland adapted the music to the instrument at hand. There's no shame in us doing the same. Chris --- David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's important to play 6 7 course for the renaissance repertory. I understand the issues of resale value, etc, but I really think for most of the 16th century the three instruments, 6 course, 7 course _F and 7 course D give the most insights into the music. Also, if you are going to sell the lute it is best not to buy it :) As important as course, ideally one should have an instrument set up for intabs and one for ricercars, and the optimum setup really requires the right number of courses. It's possible that without the best setup, it might be harder to learn certain techniques, and that an eight course could become a bit of a tugboat. There's a big difference in the sound when the eighth course goes on, which is immediately attractive, but for me, ultimately, later sounding, rich rather than clear. Many instruments share these issues of practicality and range. When buying an Italian harpsichorp, people have to decide whether to buy an instrument with a very wide range, so they can play everything, or an historical instrument. But there is a fundamental difference in the sound; sound vs practicality: no easy answers. dt To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
This slow you down aspect is one that I am finally able to address personally after over 35 years of lute playing. I finally got my first 7 course lute last year; an Andreas Holst, 62 cm. SL. All my previous R lutes- 57 to 72 cm- had all been 8 course. (I'm not counting the 10 course and Baroque lutes for this discussion). The slowing down thing is a tactile/mental manifestation rather than a technical feasibility thing. I could always (and frequently did) play anything and everything much too fast on any of my 8 courses- what I feel on the 7 course is an incredible ease and freedom- things flow very naturally; whatever the tempo. Everything in the repertoire that I can fit on this lute just falls under the fingers almost without conscious thought or effort- some pieces now go slower because there's less to fight against. I wish I had gotten this instrument 30 years ago. And it's not that it's a fabulous instrument, it's just very good; but everything about the neck width, thickness, and general proportions works in an ergonomic way that I have never experienced on an 8 course lute- only on my 6 course- which with the 8ve basses is restricted to the earlier stuff. Just my subjective experience here. We do know that Dowland at least had a one-night stand with an 8 course; Sir John Langton's Pavan and the King of Denmark's galliard in the Varietie are genuine 8 course pieces. Another issue is the 10 tied frets on a 9 course lute. (Anyone ever see/build one of those?) Again, read Dowland's comments in the Varietie. -Dan I'm not sure just how an eight course instrument is going to slow you down? Is it not a matter of not playing the strings you do not use or need at the time? In theory, if not fact, it is possible to play many Lute pieces on a six course instrument and never play the sixth or even the fifth course for that matter and this does not seem to be an issue. So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically is another question. The only thing I would add, purely subjective, is that as a performer, a question: Will the 8 course slow you down in the long run? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Luca Manassero écrit: I made the same question to the French-speaking lute list about 18 months ago. Where is this French lute-list? Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Le_luth/ Luca dc on 29-11-2007 10:29 wrote: Luca Manassero écrit: I made the same question to the French-speaking lute list about 18 months ago. Where is this French lute-list? Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
So really it is more a head issue than a tactile one? Interesting but understandable. I have always had problems playing something on someone else's instruments right out of the gate. One has to get acquainted with the Lute to play it, it seems to me. vw - Original Message - From: Daniel Winheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:05 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? This slow you down aspect is one that I am finally able to address personally after over 35 years of lute playing. I finally got my first 7 course lute last year; an Andreas Holst, 62 cm. SL. All my previous R lutes- 57 to 72 cm- had all been 8 course. (I'm not counting the 10 course and Baroque lutes for this discussion). The slowing down thing is a tactile/mental manifestation rather than a technical feasibility thing. I could always (and frequently did) play anything and everything much too fast on any of my 8 courses- what I feel on the 7 course is an incredible ease and freedom- things flow very naturally; whatever the tempo. Everything in the repertoire that I can fit on this lute just falls under the fingers almost without conscious thought or effort- some pieces now go slower because there's less to fight against. I wish I had gotten this instrument 30 years ago. And it's not that it's a fabulous instrument, it's just very good; but everything about the neck width, thickness, and general proportions works in an ergonomic way that I have never experienced on an 8 course lute- only on my 6 course- which with the 8ve basses is restricted to the earlier stuff. Just my subjective experience here. We do know that Dowland at least had a one-night stand with an 8 course; Sir John Langton's Pavan and the King of Denmark's galliard in the Varietie are genuine 8 course pieces. Another issue is the 10 tied frets on a 9 course lute. (Anyone ever see/build one of those?) Again, read Dowland's comments in the Varietie. -Dan I'm not sure just how an eight course instrument is going to slow you down? Is it not a matter of not playing the strings you do not use or need at the time? In theory, if not fact, it is possible to play many Lute pieces on a six course instrument and never play the sixth or even the fifth course for that matter and this does not seem to be an issue. So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically is another question. The only thing I would add, purely subjective, is that as a performer, a question: Will the 8 course slow you down in the long run? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 12:29 PM
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Dear Martin and All I go regularly to an amateur music salon, once a month, where I have the good fortune of hearing a lutist who can choose between 33 lutes (including 3 Baroque Malers, and 4 Baroque Freis) according to the repertoire he is playing. He usually does make judicious choices, and briefly explains why he has chosen that particular instrument (for a repertoire between 6c Renaissance through transitional to French Baroque. He has no 13c lute). Obviously, we can't all be in that position, and this is an extreme case, but it does bring home to me that I am bound to be loosing so much by owning just one 7c lute. Nevertheless, he regularly juggles between five different lute types in one evening. This gives interest to his performance through the different shades and colours of the lutes he chooses, and he does often seem to make right choices. The only small advantage I have is that my 7c lute is entirely gut strung, it would be impossible to string 33 lutes in gut, and if I had played as long as he has on his 33 instruments, I might have ended up knowing my lute far better than he can ever hope to know each one of his. Perhaps as he is French he gives more importance than many to the transitional repertoire, and he does have a number of different 10c lutes. I am not sure whether he has any 9c ones. As I would also like to explore the transitional repertoire, I felt that 6c, 7c, and 10c were good solutions, and perhaps mistakenly, I imagined that once you reached 9c, the additional course of the 10c would be barely noticeable. I certainly feel that is not the case when you move from 7c to 8c, so I am probably wrong here too. I notice that POD, in his Bacheler recording states that Bacheler switched from the standard 8-course Elizabethan lute to the French 10 course instrument during this period and his works often explore the rich sonorities of the low basses of the new lute. Now when POD says Bacheler, switched lutes. It surely doesn't mean he took up juggling (in the above sense). Would he not have stayed with his new lute type, just possibly juggling between different string lengths; and would that not be true of all historic players. They may have dropped one lute type and picked up another, perhaps occasionally going back to their previous choice. Their hands-on knowledge of their chosen lute type surely would have been much greater than ours: they would have developed subtle left-hand and right hand techniques corresponding to that lute-type which a modern day lute juggler can not possibly hope to acquire. Thus we do need the right lute for the type of music, but perhaps, regrettably, we should juggle less. I say regrettably, as I admit to longing to play French Baroque, while not wanting to give up my Renaissance lute. This 10c transition should now lead me to ask what the standard Baroque lute should be; but a recent recording by LIz Kenny of Cuthbert Hely on her Lawes' songs CD, shows me that there is not even one ideal transitional to French baroque lute. The dark slightly indirect sound of her large multi-ribbed 10c lute goes so well with that sombre music. There is no way that a 10c/11c 8 or 9 ribbed Frei, or Maler could convey that, at least I don't think it could. On the other hand, I just can't see Liz Kenny's multi-ribbed lute, in a 10/11c form, playing Charles Mouton. I think both the multi- ribbed sound and the appearance (due to constant reminder of the Fr. de Troy painting) would not make this easily acceptable. However, this not being the Baroque list, I may come back to this question later. I would just like to say that when I asked several lutemakers what their favourite lute types were, they seemed to have no hesitation in replying, the 6c lute for Renaissance music and the 11c lute for Baroque. They all told me that those were the ones that had the best balance and poise, as well as clarity of sound, in each music type. Best regards Anthony Le 28 nov. 07 à 10:13, Martin Shepherd a écrit : Dear All, It seems I am not alone amongst lutemakers in questioning the motives of my customers when they say they want an 8c lute. There still seems to be an assumption that a 60cm 8c lute is what everyone should have first, before they branch out into other types. As has already been said, 6c lutes cover virtually the whole of the renaissance lute repertoire, so a 6c lute is an obvious first choice. If you really want to play all those difficult 7c pieces (Forlone Hope, etc.) you need 7 courses, not 8. A 7c lute can be OK for earlier music too, especially since there is evidence of 7c lutes going right back to the late 15th C. The style of the instrument and the barring/thicknessing might become issues, though. As has been said, there is not much music specifically for 8c - two big collections which come to mind are Reymann and Molinaro,
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Yep, I've followed this baby too. And thought it finally almost settled down till these paragraphs, Vance. So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically is another question. What would slow me down would be to buy another instrument type and choosing yet another rep to play. I had an 8c (ok, still do) and I've made my choice of limits. Limits are good things. Some play lutes also; some play lutes only; some play only baroque or ren lutes The Lute is what it is, and as such it is an instrument possessing many strings. If anyone is going to progress beyond the first part of the Sixteenth Century they are going to have to deal with many strings. There seems to be an assumption here of progress meaning moving temporally forward in time. Ie, Johnson is good but to progress one should go to whoever followed him. I don't buy it. I don't want to move on from my chosen repertory. I've got more than my remaining lifetime's worth of music within the 6-c rep. Yes, I miss playing some Terzis, Molinaros, Cuttings and Dowlands but I don't need to spread myself thinner. Instead I apply myself more focused on my daCremas, Gintzlers and Spinacinos. Even if I were a beginner now it would be perfectly authentic to play a 6-c for an entire lifetime. Plenty did and were no less the lutenist for it. Slow me down. Fa. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I can't argue with the experience and ears of others, but I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by many of the statements being made about the huge differences between 6, 7 and 8 course instruments in terms of playability and inherent sound. My first real lute was an old 10 course that Pat O'B lent me and then I bought a beautiful Nurse 8 course. It was much easier for me to play and had better sound, but then it was a much better instrument. I have played some Ren music on my new Archlute just to get accustomed to the spacing, and it is obviously more difficult due to the tight spacing. I guess I'm a little concerned for the beginners lurking on this list who will read this thread with fear, dread and an empty pocketbook. We are fortunate in the lute world that the finest instruments around are cheep compared with other top notch classical instruments ($10,000 for the best lute around, $20,000 for a decent student cello without the bow). Unfortunately for the beginner, our entry level lutes are more expensive than beginner violins, cellos and guitars. I can't argue that most Ren music is well playable on 6 course, but I think that many guitarists, like me, come to the lute with dreams of Dowland in which at least a 7th course is mighty handy. FWIW, I have never enjoyed playing a 6 course and paradoxically have found them harder to play than my 8 course, but I have never owned one so it may be simply the learning curve. Like Chris, I would challenge anyone here to a blind listening test to distinguish a competent player playing the same 6 course music on a 7 or 8 course instrument of comparable quality and stringing. McFarlane's Milano sounds just fine to me, even on his 14 course. I've got a good day job and an understanding wife, so I can afford an instrument for every half century, but I suspect most lutenists are not so fortunate. My personal belief is that skill at tone production and musical interpretation is far more important than number of courses in the final result. I'm willing to believe that when everything else is equal, some may hear a benefit for 6 course music played on a 6 course, but whatever instrument you begin with, tone production is king. DS On Nov 29, 2007, at 4:25 AM, Luca Manassero wrote: Dear all, I have been following this thread with the greatest interest, reminding that I made the same question to the French-speaking lute list about 18 months ago. It's funny to read similar answers popping up: I tend to believe that a certain recent period really left a strong imprinting on many of us. I have restarted learning the lute 4 years ago after too many years of guitar and a short-lasting tentative 20 years ago. I went shopping for a nice lute and bought an 8 course instrument from Barber Harris. A great instrument, but after a short time I started questioning my choice. With most of my time spent bending (I am a little short-sighted) on Italian fac-similes I realized quickly that an 8 course lute was not the ideal one for that repertoire. On Holborne and Dowland goes now a lot better: I have to admit that I restarted enjoining it when I first started reading Dowland. I strongly believe that the difference between a 6 course and an 8 course is HUGE. The point is not in a dry academic discussion, while an academic study on this point is still missing, as far as I know. Music written for a 6 course sounds a lot DIFFERENT on an 8 course, even if you rework your stringing, I am afraid you'll never really have the right feeling for Canova, Borrono, Capirola, etc After one year just mumbling my feelings, I asked my teacher to try his lute (a 6 course, of course!) on a Capirola Spagna and saw the light. I understand the economical reasons, I fully support them. But you'll miss such an enormously important point when you go for an 8 course first lute, that as a teacher or a lutemaker (or both) one should always question that choice. And by the way, isn't the economical value (or the perception) of an 8 course so good, only because there are so many used 8 course? Ever asked you why there are so many 8 course lutes for sale? Isn't possibly because many people just made the same experience? All in all, I suggest the 8 course shoudl be a later instrument, NOT the first one. For what concerns ME, I'm not going to sell my 8 course for two good reasons: 1. It is a BEAUTIFUL, sweet sounding instrument 2. Molinaro and Terzi (and others) ..but I am going to have a 6 or 7 course lute soon, setted up for the Italian repertoire and possibly with a different sound colour. It'll take some time to find it, but I laready have an idea. Not sure I want to live in a lute museum (nor my family...), but I guess this is what happens when you get this particular sickness. Thank you to absolutely ALL of you for your contributions to this list: it's an amazing
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Sean: I understand, a six course instrument is the appropriate instrument for the music you choose to play. But let us assume you also wished to play Molinaro---not good fair for the six course instrument. I know one size fits all is an awful choice given all of the subtleties of period music and its appropriate instrument, but some desire to play all of this stuff but don't have the financial resources to purchase another Lute or two. So for a good portion of us having one instrument for everything is the only reasonable choice. VW - Original Message - From: Sean Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Yep, I've followed this baby too. And thought it finally almost settled down till these paragraphs, Vance. So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically is another question. What would slow me down would be to buy another instrument type and choosing yet another rep to play. I had an 8c (ok, still do) and I've made my choice of limits. Limits are good things. Some play lutes also; some play lutes only; some play only baroque or ren lutes The Lute is what it is, and as such it is an instrument possessing many strings. If anyone is going to progress beyond the first part of the Sixteenth Century they are going to have to deal with many strings. There seems to be an assumption here of progress meaning moving temporally forward in time. Ie, Johnson is good but to progress one should go to whoever followed him. I don't buy it. I don't want to move on from my chosen repertory. I've got more than my remaining lifetime's worth of music within the 6-c rep. Yes, I miss playing some Terzis, Molinaros, Cuttings and Dowlands but I don't need to spread myself thinner. Instead I apply myself more focused on my daCremas, Gintzlers and Spinacinos. Even if I were a beginner now it would be perfectly authentic to play a 6-c for an entire lifetime. Plenty did and were no less the lutenist for it. Slow me down. Fa. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1159 - Release Date: 11/29/2007 11:10 AM
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? (fwd)
The Cambridge Manuscript seems to indicate that the latest Dowland of the time was grouped together with F. DaMilano in the same book. VW - Original Message - From: Wayne Cripps [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 10:00 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? (fwd) I would think that in the old times, a lutenist would mostly play music from his or her time. They obviously would not play anything from their future, but I am sure they were mostly not too interested in music of the past, except perhaps for a few master works. I doubt that lutenists were into early music the way we are. Which means that if we are really trying to recreate the sprit of those times we to should probably select one time period and stick with it. Wayne From: gary digman [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm a little perplexed by this discussion. Is the assertion being made that lutenists who played 10c lutes at the inception of these instruments only played music specifically written for 10c and ceased playing music that appeared before unless they also had a 6c, 7c or 8c instrument? In the 10c repertoire a given piece of music will sometimes go several measures without anything happening in the bourdons. Would not these passages be subject to the same problems supposedly accompanying (accompaning?) the playing of 6c, 7c or 8c music on the 10c? Gary To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1159 - Release Date: 11/29/2007 11:10 AM
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? (fwd)
On Nov 29, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Wayne Cripps wrote: I would think that in the old times, a lutenist would mostly play music from his or her time. They obviously would not play anything from their future, but I am sure they were mostly not too interested in music of the past, except perhaps for a few master works. I doubt that lutenists were into early music the way we are. Not the way we are, but the past has a way of intruding on the present. The tendency to cling to the music of your youth was probably just as strong for them as it is for us, and by the time you account for generational overlap -- for example, an older teacher using music of his youth to teach a young pupil -- you find music, and musical styles, hanging on for a few generations. The Marsh Lute Book (c. 1600) has modern pieces by Dowland and Holborne cheek by jowl with pieces by Francesco da Milano (1497-1543) and Albert de Rippe (c. 1480-1551), and intabulations of music by Verdelot (c. 1480-1530), Taverner (d. 1545) and Claudin de Sermisy (1490-1562). So a lutenist in the 17th century would play music written by composers born in the 15th century. Put less dramatically, some music was played for 70 or 80 years. Marsh doesn't seem to be an aberration. Piccinini's 1623 and 1639 books have both Mannerist baroque toccatas (the cutting edge at the time) and renaissance polyphonic fantasies of the sort he played, and might have written, when he was growing up in the 1570's. Monteverdi's 1641 Selva Morale has mass sections in the latest baroque style alongside mass sections in the style of Palestrina, who died in 1594 when Monteverdi was 27. Zarlino, who was four years old when Josquin died in 1521, was still using Josquin's music as examples in the 1580's. Heinrich Schutz, who died in 1672, studied with Giovanni Gabrieli, who was born around 1555. Wayne's basic point is more or less valid. Elizabethan lutenists may have played Francesco da Milano's music, but probably didn't know or care how Francesco himself had played it, and wouldn't have thought for a moment about changing techniques or instruments to do it. HP -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Martin as usual has it exactly right historically. 6,9,10 BTW, years ago I wrote about a Dowland piece in Francisque (Pipers Galliard), does anyone know if it has been recorded? I'm sure it has, I just don't have a big CD collection (cheap). dt At 01:13 AM 11/28/2007, you wrote: Dear All, It seems I am not alone amongst lutemakers in questioning the motives of my customers when they say they want an 8c lute. There still seems to be an assumption that a 60cm 8c lute is what everyone should have first, before they branch out into other types. As has already been said, 6c lutes cover virtually the whole of the renaissance lute repertoire, so a 6c lute is an obvious first choice. If you really want to play all those difficult 7c pieces (Forlone Hope, etc.) you need 7 courses, not 8. A 7c lute can be OK for earlier music too, especially since there is evidence of 7c lutes going right back to the late 15th C. The style of the instrument and the barring/thicknessing might become issues, though. As has been said, there is not much music specifically for 8c - two big collections which come to mind are Reymann and Molinaro, and Terzi's second book. The main reason for having the extra course is surely to have both the F and D available all the time, but you pay a price in extra string tension, longer bridge, and greater stiffness in sound, especially on a small lute. 9c lutes have been almost overlooked in modern times, but were clearly very common around 1600. Francisque (1600), Besard (1603), Dowland (1604), Dd.9.33, Fuhrmann (1615), Margaret Board - it's a long list. 10c lutes have probably less repertoire than 9c, but maybe not if you include all the transitional tunings stuff which is mostly hidden away in manuscripts. Incidentally I wonder if Kapsberger actually wrote for a liuto attiorbato, as he uses an 11th course once and although the classic liuti attiorbati have 14 courses I'm sure they existed with less. If I remember correctly, Piccinini's only had 13 courses, with the 13th tuned to a high note to fill in missing chromatics. As for size of lute, the idea that lutes have to be in G still seems to have a real stranglehold (remember all this stuff about putting a capo on a guitar so it's at lute pitch?). We know lutes existed in a variety of sizes, and now that we have started to explore the bigger sizes we're beginning to learn that often bigger is better. Anything which is difficult on a 60cm lute is still difficult on a 67cm lute, but still possible. When I made a 76cm lute a while ago I discovered that I could play almost any solo music on it, and it sounded wonderful. My conclusion is that we should be much more flexible about what we consider normal. And don't get me on to the sizes of theorboes, ebony veneers, or unison vihuela stringing. Best wishes, Martin To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Dear David, Your reasoning is historically correct, but this puts us in something of a quandry from a practical performance view. Just take Dowland, for example. His Lachrimae lute solo exists in a version for six-course lute, (its 7-course in Board and Folger) Flow my teares is for 7-courses, the lute used in Seven Sad Pavans is 9-courses and the Galliard to Lachrimae is also for 9. Now, if you want to pair the Lachrimae Pavan with its Galliard on the same concert program, what should you do? You're quite right that none of the above mentioned pieces requires the 8-course lute, but, according to your line of reasoning, would it be any more acceptable to play the 6-or-7-course Pavan on a 9-course instrument? (What about playing a 9-course piece on a 10-course? Out, too?) Certainly, the tonal distinction between the 6 and 9 coursers would be much greater than between the 7 and 8 courses that you suggest is significant. Or would you suggest our performer should play the pavan on a six-course lute, put it down, fine-tune the 9-course and go? Would Dowland? Clearly, the answer is that Dowland adapted the music to the instrument at hand. There's no shame in us doing the same. Chris --- David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's important to play 6 7 course for the renaissance repertory. I understand the issues of resale value, etc, but I really think for most of the 16th century the three instruments, 6 course, 7 course _F and 7 course D give the most insights into the music. Also, if you are going to sell the lute it is best not to buy it :) As important as course, ideally one should have an instrument set up for intabs and one for ricercars, and the optimum setup really requires the right number of courses. It's possible that without the best setup, it might be harder to learn certain techniques, and that an eight course could become a bit of a tugboat. There's a big difference in the sound when the eighth course goes on, which is immediately attractive, but for me, ultimately, later sounding, rich rather than clear. Many instruments share these issues of practicality and range. When buying an Italian harpsichorp, people have to decide whether to buy an instrument with a very wide range, so they can play everything, or an historical instrument. But there is a fundamental difference in the sound; sound vs practicality: no easy answers. dt To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
One of the first lute books I got when I was a wee grasshopper at this lute business (young classical guitarist, late 60's) was a printout of a microfilm of the English version of Adrien LeRoy's book. All the old pass'e mezzi and other dances, for 6 courses. Clearly visible in old handwriting were extra bass notes for a 9 course lute at key spots; cadences and places where an 8ve jump could be smoothed out. While of course we should continue to research and discover all we can, so our instruments and performances are more informed, it wouldn't hurt to relax a bit. Some of us came to the lute from the guitar with a very well developed LH technique and were just dying to finally have an instrument on which we could, indeed, get going right away on the Forlorn Hope fantasy among many others after years of mutilating important bass lines. And for equal string tensions and less re-tuning, nothing beat the old Double Seven course lute.Dan Clearly, the answer is that Dowland adapted the music to the instrument at hand. There's no shame in us doing the same. Chris -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
On Nov 26, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Stewart McCoy wrote: Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? I would say yes, we do. The evidence being that we ourselves do it today. I realize that's not anything that a historian/musicologist would be willing to accept as evidence, but nevertheless if we are going to evaluate our experience in the light of what people did centuries ago, then we have to allow that evaluation to work both ways. Our ideas are evolving, just as theirs did. We operate according to our own 20th-century lute mythology: the renaissance meaning the 16th century; until quite recently the 58-60 cm 8-course lute in G tuning as the standard all-purpose default renaissance lute; thumb- under as the compulsory right-hand renaissance lute technique; FAP (Fast-As-Possible) as the standard speed for all diminutions etc. etc. And the evolutionary process continues: more recently, right- hand fingers extended, and thumb sort of out?? but not quite?? as the currently standard right-hand Baroque lute technique; plus we're evolving single-strung archlutes and amplified lutes...all grist to the mill of our modern-day myth-making. So with regard to playing on 6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-whatever courses, I believe it's completely valid historically to go with whatever our personal preferences are. DR [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
The Galliard is a later composition, and probably designed for the amateur market--it is a fine piece, just not that difficult. If I were to make these a pair, there would be a stylstic dissonance between the versions that outweighs any choice of lutes, I could make my own 7 course version of the galliard, trying to match the style, as reworking the pavan would be more difficult. Although it occurs to me as a theoretical problem that one could play the published galliard in a minor and try to find a suitable pair in LOST. Or use one of the LOST versions in G. Technically that would be more challenging. Personally, I think that the Early Dowland is Seven, sources for six do not address the core of the repertory, so the answer for is, 7 (with due respect to 7 of 9) for the Early repertory; 9 for LOST, the galliard and later works, including the later songs. I don't think Dowland really adadpted his music--that is, I don't see a whole set of pieces that he revised for later instruments. I see the player composer crowd adapting all composers for whatever lute they were playing, and that is completely typical for this period. The standard practice was to take a piece of Dowland or anyone else and remove the harmonic framework and replace it with ornamentation formulas, a practice which Dowland specifically condemned, but of course, was unable to stop. The combination of the faster notes with less chords was irrestible, presumably because they are easier to play yet sound more difficult. Clearly at some point Dowland changed from 7 to 9, and then composed for the new instrument. And this is the standard situation for all composers. Mozart, Beethoven, you name it. The later works have a bigger range as the instruments expand. And if one were to play Mozart's Opus 2 followed by B's Hammerklavier, then you would need two pianos, or play the earlier piece on the later instrument. dt .At 06:51 AM 11/28/2007, you wrote: Dear David, Your reasoning is historically correct, but this puts us in something of a quandry from a practical performance view. Just take Dowland, for example. His Lachrimae lute solo exists in a version for six-course lute, (its 7-course in Board and Folger) Flow my teares is for 7-courses, the lute used in Seven Sad Pavans is 9-courses and the Galliard to Lachrimae is also for 9. Now, if you want to pair the Lachrimae Pavan with its Galliard on the same concert program, what should you do? You're quite right that none of the above mentioned pieces requires the 8-course lute, but, according to your line of reasoning, would it be any more acceptable to play the 6-or-7-course Pavan on a 9-course instrument? (What about playing a 9-course piece on a 10-course? Out, too?) Certainly, the tonal distinction between the 6 and 9 coursers would be much greater than between the 7 and 8 courses that you suggest is significant. Or would you suggest our performer should play the pavan on a six-course lute, put it down, fine-tune the 9-course and go? Would Dowland? Clearly, the answer is that Dowland adapted the music to the instrument at hand. There's no shame in us doing the same. Chris --- David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's important to play 6 7 course for the renaissance repertory. I understand the issues of resale value, etc, but I really think for most of the 16th century the three instruments, 6 course, 7 course _F and 7 course D give the most insights into the music. Also, if you are going to sell the lute it is best not to buy it :) As important as course, ideally one should have an instrument set up for intabs and one for ricercars, and the optimum setup really requires the right number of courses. It's possible that without the best setup, it might be harder to learn certain techniques, and that an eight course could become a bit of a tugboat. There's a big difference in the sound when the eighth course goes on, which is immediately attractive, but for me, ultimately, later sounding, rich rather than clear. Many instruments share these issues of practicality and range. When buying an Italian harpsichorp, people have to decide whether to buy an instrument with a very wide range, so they can play everything, or an historical instrument. But there is a fundamental difference in the sound; sound vs practicality: no easy answers. dt To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
--- David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Galliard is a later composition, and probably designed for the amateur market--it is a fine piece, just not that difficult. Amateur, really? Lightening-quick divisions over a moving bass easy amateur material? The combination of the faster notes with less chords was irrestible, presumably because they are easier to play yet sound more difficult. Hmmm... interesting perspective. Personally, I've never found fast runs to be all that easy. And if one were to play Mozart's Opus 2 followed by B's Hammerklavier, then you would need two pianos, or play the earlier piece on the later instrument. Of course, of course... we know that no musician would attempt to play works written before the invention of the specific instrument he or she is currently playing. Just look at classical guitarists - I can't name a single modern guitarist - professional or amateur - who would ever even THINK of playing music by Giuliani or Sor on something like a modern nylon-strung CG. That's why the most popular composers on classical guitar programs continue to be Carter, Henze, Takemitsu and Krenek. Well, um, wait... Er... nevermind... ;-) Chris dt .At 06:51 AM 11/28/2007, you wrote: Dear David, Your reasoning is historically correct, but this puts us in something of a quandry from a practical performance view. Just take Dowland, for example. His Lachrimae lute solo exists in a version for six-course lute, (its 7-course in Board and Folger) Flow my teares is for 7-courses, the lute used in Seven Sad Pavans is 9-courses and the Galliard to Lachrimae is also for 9. Now, if you want to pair the Lachrimae Pavan with its Galliard on the same concert program, what should you do? You're quite right that none of the above mentioned pieces requires the 8-course lute, but, according to your line of reasoning, would it be any more acceptable to play the 6-or-7-course Pavan on a 9-course instrument? (What about playing a 9-course piece on a 10-course? Out, too?) Certainly, the tonal distinction between the 6 and 9 coursers would be much greater than between the 7 and 8 courses that you suggest is significant. Or would you suggest our performer should play the pavan on a six-course lute, put it down, fine-tune the 9-course and go? Would Dowland? Clearly, the answer is that Dowland adapted the music to the instrument at hand. There's no shame in us doing the same. Chris --- David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's important to play 6 7 course for the renaissance repertory. I understand the issues of resale value, etc, but I really think for most of the 16th century the three instruments, 6 course, 7 course _F and 7 course D give the most insights into the music. Also, if you are going to sell the lute it is best not to buy it :) As important as course, ideally one should have an instrument set up for intabs and one for ricercars, and the optimum setup really requires the right number of courses. It's possible that without the best setup, it might be harder to learn certain techniques, and that an eight course could become a bit of a tugboat. There's a big difference in the sound when the eighth course goes on, which is immediately attractive, but for me, ultimately, later sounding, rich rather than clear. Many instruments share these issues of practicality and range. When buying an Italian harpsichorp, people have to decide whether to buy an instrument with a very wide range, so they can play everything, or an historical instrument. But there is a fundamental difference in the sound; sound vs practicality: no easy answers. dt To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I don't think you can make that argument even though we do it. The We we are discussing happen to be a group of Historically Correct Mavens that look at the issues of historical correctness more closely than we look at the practicality of the things at hand; like the number of strings on our respective Lutes. If I could get a decent sound out of a wooden cigar box strung with rubber bands I might be tempted to play the thing, lacking anything more musical to accomplish the task of playing a tune thought not suitable for the instrument at hand. - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:37 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? On Nov 26, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Stewart McCoy wrote: Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? I would say yes, we do. The evidence being that we ourselves do it today. I realize that's not anything that a historian/musicologist would be willing to accept as evidence, but nevertheless if we are going to evaluate our experience in the light of what people did centuries ago, then we have to allow that evaluation to work both ways. Our ideas are evolving, just as theirs did. We operate according to our own 20th-century lute mythology: the renaissance meaning the 16th century; until quite recently the 58-60 cm 8-course lute in G tuning as the standard all-purpose default renaissance lute; thumb- under as the compulsory right-hand renaissance lute technique; FAP (Fast-As-Possible) as the standard speed for all diminutions etc. etc. And the evolutionary process continues: more recently, right- hand fingers extended, and thumb sort of out?? but not quite?? as the currently standard right-hand Baroque lute technique; plus we're evolving single-strung archlutes and amplified lutes...all grist to the mill of our modern-day myth-making. So with regard to playing on 6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-whatever courses, I believe it's completely valid historically to go with whatever our personal preferences are. DR [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 12:29 PM
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Setting aside the level of difficulty, the piece is in a very different, and later style. I supposes if you played it very fast, it would be more difficult. For some reason I always thought of it as more gallant than speedy, but I haven't looked at it in a while. Dowland's authoritative works, of which there are few, I believe present a real musical message, or statement. In this case, the statement seems to be, well, I don't like mindless divisions, I prefer real counterpoint, but if you insist on divisions, here is an interesting and musical way to do it Not to say that I know what he is thinking, I don't, but that is the way I read it in the context of his letters and other writings. He is caving a bit toward the new styles, for a book designed for popular appeal. So the question of which lute to use is easy to solve--the later one. Then the pairing becomes an interesting question, I'll see if there is a way to do it, it would be fun to see if any of the Pavans in LOST might be a good match. I'll start with Coactae (V). dt Amateur, really? Lightening-quick divisions over a moving bass easy amateur material? The combination of the faster notes with less chords was irrestible, presumably because they are easier to play yet sound more difficult. Hmmm... interesting perspective. Personally, I've never found fast runs to be all that easy. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:37 PM, vance wood wrote: The We we are discussing happen to be a group of Historically Correct Mavens that look at the issues of historical correctness more closely than we look at the practicality of the things at hand Hi Vance, Certainly we've all been known to do that at times. But it seems to me (the Great Disclaimer) that generally speaking (another Great Disclaimer) most HIP afficionados will take historical purism as far as it takes to satisfy their intellectual curiosity, and beyond that will do exactly what musicians have always done: whatever's necessary to make good music. In other words, every musician starts with the specifics of his or her chosen instrument, and will sooner or later move on to the general considerations of good music in whatever guise they choose to play it in. That's my belief anyway. This whole discussion about 8-c lutes seems to be two-pronged: our sense of historical correctness vs. our personal musical preferences. I guess my point is that I don't see those two things as incompatible. David Rastall ; like the number of strings on our respective Lutes. If I could get a decent sound out of a wooden cigar box strung with rubber bands I might be tempted to play the thing, lacking anything more musical to accomplish the task of playing a tune thought not suitable for the instrument at hand. - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:37 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? On Nov 26, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Stewart McCoy wrote: Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? I would say yes, we do. The evidence being that we ourselves do it today. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I agree to a point David, I think a six course instrument strung in the Continental style will probably be a better choice for F. DaMilano's music. But; try playing Molinaro's music on that instrument and you miss a lot of the music played in the base registers. My point is that in an ideal world we would all have every Lute configuration possible so that we could do justice to every piece of music we encounter. Knowing that most of us do not have the financial resource with which to explore such an approach we have to find what is within our means and go with that until fate or fortune provides us with better options. For me that option is in making my own instruments---but not everyone can do that either. By the way I did not say they were any good they simply suit my needs for now. VW - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vance wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:46 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:37 PM, vance wood wrote: The We we are discussing happen to be a group of Historically Correct Mavens that look at the issues of historical correctness more closely than we look at the practicality of the things at hand Hi Vance, Certainly we've all been known to do that at times. But it seems to me (the Great Disclaimer) that generally speaking (another Great Disclaimer) most HIP afficionados will take historical purism as far as it takes to satisfy their intellectual curiosity, and beyond that will do exactly what musicians have always done: whatever's necessary to make good music. In other words, every musician starts with the specifics of his or her chosen instrument, and will sooner or later move on to the general considerations of good music in whatever guise they choose to play it in. That's my belief anyway. This whole discussion about 8-c lutes seems to be two-pronged: our sense of historical correctness vs. our personal musical preferences. I guess my point is that I don't see those two things as incompatible. David Rastall ; like the number of strings on our respective Lutes. If I could get a decent sound out of a wooden cigar box strung with rubber bands I might be tempted to play the thing, lacking anything more musical to accomplish the task of playing a tune thought not suitable for the instrument at hand. - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:37 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? On Nov 26, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Stewart McCoy wrote: Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? I would say yes, we do. The evidence being that we ourselves do it today. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 12:29 PM
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
As a musicologist, I think Martin has such a lucid description that I'm totally persuaded.. And rereading all the insights I can tell that ppl have really thought this through. The only thing I would add, purely subjective, is that as a performer, a question: Will the 8 course slow you down in the long run? And my experience is that it does, if that is your main lute. Again, everyone is different. But I think it changes the idea of practicality versus authenticity to practicality versus deveolping skill. I'm not saying that you can't be a great artist on an 8c, I think it just isn't the best tool for the job. Having said that, if you have a really nice 8c, don't trade it in for an Aria. And there are some pieces that it is great on. dt At 03:04 PM 11/28/2007, you wrote: I agree to a point David, I think a six course instrument strung in the Continental style will probably be a better choice for F. DaMilano's music. But; try playing Molinaro's music on that instrument and you miss a lot of the music played in the base registers. My point is that in an ideal world we would all have every Lute configuration possible so that we could do justice to every piece of music we encounter. Knowing that most of us do not have the financial resource with which to explore such an approach we have to find what is within our means and go with that until fate or fortune provides us with better options. For me that option is in making my own instruments---but not everyone can do that either. By the way I did not say they were any good they simply suit my needs for now. VW - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vance wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:46 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:37 PM, vance wood wrote: The We we are discussing happen to be a group of Historically Correct Mavens that look at the issues of historical correctness more closely than we look at the practicality of the things at hand Hi Vance, Certainly we've all been known to do that at times. But it seems to me (the Great Disclaimer) that generally speaking (another Great Disclaimer) most HIP afficionados will take historical purism as far as it takes to satisfy their intellectual curiosity, and beyond that will do exactly what musicians have always done: whatever's necessary to make good music. In other words, every musician starts with the specifics of his or her chosen instrument, and will sooner or later move on to the general considerations of good music in whatever guise they choose to play it in. That's my belief anyway. This whole discussion about 8-c lutes seems to be two-pronged: our sense of historical correctness vs. our personal musical preferences. I guess my point is that I don't see those two things as incompatible. David Rastall ; like the number of strings on our respective Lutes. If I could get a decent sound out of a wooden cigar box strung with rubber bands I might be tempted to play the thing, lacking anything more musical to accomplish the task of playing a tune thought not suitable for the instrument at hand. - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:37 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? On Nov 26, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Stewart McCoy wrote: Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? I would say yes, we do. The evidence being that we ourselves do it today. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 12:29 PM
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I'm not sure just how an eight course instrument is going to slow you down? Is it not a matter of not playing the strings you do not use or need at the time? In theory, if not fact, it is possible to play many Lute pieces on a six course instrument and never play the sixth or even the fifth course for that matter and this does not seem to be an issue. So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically is another question. The Lute is what it is, and as such it is an instrument possessing many strings. If anyone is going to progress beyond the first part of the Sixteenth Century they are going to have to deal with many strings. I want to add something here: I am not challenging anyone to a flame war. I know it is hard to tell tone of voice from an email and depending on the passion one has for a certain subject words are often taken as challenges when they are not meant to be such. So all due respects to all who have contributed to this discussion, I respect both you and your opinions. VW - Original Message - From: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:06 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? As a musicologist, I think Martin has such a lucid description that I'm totally persuaded.. And rereading all the insights I can tell that ppl have really thought this through. The only thing I would add, purely subjective, is that as a performer, a question: Will the 8 course slow you down in the long run? And my experience is that it does, if that is your main lute. Again, everyone is different. But I think it changes the idea of practicality versus authenticity to practicality versus deveolping skill. I'm not saying that you can't be a great artist on an 8c, I think it just isn't the best tool for the job. Having said that, if you have a really nice 8c, don't trade it in for an Aria. And there are some pieces that it is great on. dt At 03:04 PM 11/28/2007, you wrote: I agree to a point David, I think a six course instrument strung in the Continental style will probably be a better choice for F. DaMilano's music. But; try playing Molinaro's music on that instrument and you miss a lot of the music played in the base registers. My point is that in an ideal world we would all have every Lute configuration possible so that we could do justice to every piece of music we encounter. Knowing that most of us do not have the financial resource with which to explore such an approach we have to find what is within our means and go with that until fate or fortune provides us with better options. For me that option is in making my own instruments---but not everyone can do that either. By the way I did not say they were any good they simply suit my needs for now. VW - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vance wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:46 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:37 PM, vance wood wrote: The We we are discussing happen to be a group of Historically Correct Mavens that look at the issues of historical correctness more closely than we look at the practicality of the things at hand Hi Vance, Certainly we've all been known to do that at times. But it seems to me (the Great Disclaimer) that generally speaking (another Great Disclaimer) most HIP afficionados will take historical purism as far as it takes to satisfy their intellectual curiosity, and beyond that will do exactly what musicians have always done: whatever's necessary to make good music. In other words, every musician starts with the specifics of his or her chosen instrument, and will sooner or later move on to the general considerations of good music in whatever guise they choose to play it in. That's my belief anyway. This whole discussion about 8-c lutes seems to be two-pronged: our sense of historical correctness vs. our personal musical preferences. I guess my point is that I don't see those two things as incompatible. David Rastall ; like the number of strings on our respective Lutes. If I could get a decent sound out of a wooden cigar box strung with rubber bands I might be tempted to play the thing, lacking anything more musical to accomplish the task of playing a tune thought not suitable for the instrument at hand. - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:37 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? On Nov 26, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Stewart McCoy
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I think it is different for different people, but in the keyboard world I have been part of a decades long debate about Italian harpsichords--the one size fits all debate. And a very wise player said, it doesn't matter that you just are not playing those extra notes for the earlier repertory, you react differently when you play the instrument. At first I thought that was something that one could block out, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought that it was true. Another experience, seeing as how I come from the era of the great panzer lutes from factories in Germany, the first time I picked up a real six course, I was amazed that it was a totally different instrument. Everthing about it was different, the spacing, the technique, the feel, the sound, the fingerboard--and the sooner I started in on that instrument, the more I felt like I was learning a good technique. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that I needed the right instrument to go to the next level (in this case, back a few levels at first). Still at square one, dt At 07:07 PM 11/28/2007, you wrote: I'm not sure just how an eight course instrument is going to slow you down? Is it not a matter of not playing the strings you do not use or need at the time? In theory, if not fact, it is possible to play many Lute pieces on a six course instrument and never play the sixth or even the fifth course for that matter and this does not seem to be an issue. So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its limiting access to a large and significant portion of the literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically is another question. The Lute is what it is, and as such it is an instrument possessing many strings. If anyone is going to progress beyond the first part of the Sixteenth Century they are going to have to deal with many strings. I want to add something here: I am not challenging anyone to a flame war. I know it is hard to tell tone of voice from an email and depending on the passion one has for a certain subject words are often taken as challenges when they are not meant to be such. So all due respects to all who have contributed to this discussion, I respect both you and your opinions. VW - Original Message - From: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:06 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? As a musicologist, I think Martin has such a lucid description that I'm totally persuaded.. And rereading all the insights I can tell that ppl have really thought this through. The only thing I would add, purely subjective, is that as a performer, a question: Will the 8 course slow you down in the long run? And my experience is that it does, if that is your main lute. Again, everyone is different. But I think it changes the idea of practicality versus authenticity to practicality versus deveolping skill. I'm not saying that you can't be a great artist on an 8c, I think it just isn't the best tool for the job. Having said that, if you have a really nice 8c, don't trade it in for an Aria. And there are some pieces that it is great on. dt At 03:04 PM 11/28/2007, you wrote: I agree to a point David, I think a six course instrument strung in the Continental style will probably be a better choice for F. DaMilano's music. But; try playing Molinaro's music on that instrument and you miss a lot of the music played in the base registers. My point is that in an ideal world we would all have every Lute configuration possible so that we could do justice to every piece of music we encounter. Knowing that most of us do not have the financial resource with which to explore such an approach we have to find what is within our means and go with that until fate or fortune provides us with better options. For me that option is in making my own instruments---but not everyone can do that either. By the way I did not say they were any good they simply suit my needs for now. VW - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vance wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:46 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:37 PM, vance wood wrote: The We we are discussing happen to be a group of Historically Correct Mavens that look at the issues of historical correctness more closely than we look at the practicality of the things at hand Hi Vance, Certainly we've all been known to do that at times. But it seems to me (the Great Disclaimer) that generally speaking (another Great Disclaimer) most HIP afficionados will take historical purism as far as it takes to satisfy their intellectual curiosity, and beyond that will do exactly what musicians have
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:33 PM, David Tayler wrote: I think it is different for different people, but in the keyboard world I have been part of a decades long debate about Italian harpsichords--the one size fits all debate. And a very wise player said, it doesn't matter that you just are not playing those extra notes for the earlier repertory, you react differently when you play the instrument. Hi David, I know very little about harpsichords, but are you referring to a difference as great as, say, playing virginal music on a double- manual 18th C. instrument? If the difference in instruments is great enough, I can see that the experience of playing them would be different, like playing Capirola on a 10-course lute: physically and aesthetically, it's just not the same because the sound itself is different. Just as playing Bach on a grand piano: one reacts pianistically, and creates a pianistic ambience. Perhaps the one-size-fits-all concept is a 19th-century thing. The 19th seemed to be an era of standardization in music. David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Ed I keep my 7c at D, and then stop it down for F. Of course this means the7c is no longer open, which no doubt does effect the way the string resonates. So there is a compromise, involved. I would agree that in gut, the additional 8c is not so much of a problem, for 6c or 7c music. However, how many beginners keep their lutes in gut? Probably more important than choosing between 8c and 7c, is finding a good lute, and then succeeding in stringing it well. It took me about two years to find the best stringing for my lute. Even now, I am still ready to experiment. Initially, I found my Gerle a little bass heavy, as Jacob Heringman told me I would, saying approximately that as the Gerle had a deeper body, it would have a plummy bass, an explosive sound but with not so much sustain. That is in contrast to the Venere that might be brighter with a more sustained sound and possibly less rich bass. Using Venice twine has helped balance that out a little better. Presumably, in the case of the Venere, it might be too much of a good thing, but I haven't tried. Regards Anthony Le 27 nov. 07 =E0 01:26, Edward Martin a ecrit : I agree fully with Stewart. Although there is more music for 7 course and 9 course lutes as compared to 8 course lutes, an 8 course is a good compromise. I have that very instrument, an 8 course. A great majority of the music for which I use that instrument is for 7 course, but it is so very convenient to have both a low F _and_ D, so I do not have to re-tune the 7th course. I also sometimes put octaves on both the 4th and 5th course, so I can play Continental 6 course music. In gut, it sound absolutely no different from other 6 course lutes in gut. ed At 11:54 PM 11/26/2007 +, Stewart McCoy wrote: Dear All, Unlike many of the contributors to this thread, I don't have a problem with 8-course lutes. They suit Terzi and Molinaro, of course, but you can use them to play earlier music like Capirola, and to some extent later music where nine or ten courses are required. If you want to buy many instruments, by all means buy a 6-course for Milano, a 7-course for (some) Dowland, an 8-course for Terzi, a 9-course for Francisque, a 10-course for Vallet, and then splash out on an 11-course for Mouton, a 12-course for Wilson, and a 13-course for Weiss. Why stop there? Why not spend a few more thousand quid on various sorts of theorbo and archlute, and throw in a mandora or two? If, instead, you want to compromise, and not fill your house with lutes, simply buy one 8-course lute, at least to start with. Having low F and D as open strings is useful for Dowland, you don't have the complexities of a lute with lots of strings, and you can happily play anything from the 16th century. If a note is too low for one's instrument, either play it an octave higher, or re-tune the lowest course down a tone (e.g. 8th-course D to C), as Capirola did (from 6th-course G to F). More significant than the number of strings, is the tuning of the strings, i.e. whether or not to tune the 4th and 5th courses in octaves. That makes far more difference to the sound than the number of courses. If I might add to what Ron has written, the heart-shaped Pesaro manuscript copied in the 15th century, contains music for a 7- course instrument; the music in Osborn fb7 is for a 7-course lute, and dates from about 1630. Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose. Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Crona [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:42 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Dear Michael, G=F6ran all: While G=F6ran gives an eloquent summary of our received notion of the development multiple courses on lutes throughout the 16th century, there is evidence that the matter was not quite so clearly defined. No surprise. H. Colin Slim, in his excellent article, 'Musicians on Parnassus,' (Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 12 (1965), pp. 134-163) describes the poem Monte Parnasso by Philippo Oriolo da Bassano. Bassano appears to outdo Rabelais' Pantagruel in the art of name-dropping within the poem, which Slim dates to circa 1519-1522. Cantos XIX, XX and XXI name several theorists, composers and instrumentalists, including Spinacino and Francesco da Milano, Canto XX describes a contest between two lutenists playing lutes with 13 and 17 strings. Presumably, the poet was counting individual strings of the courses. Slim notes that Sebastian Virdung also mentions lutes with fourteen strings as early as 1511. We seem
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I know there is a lot of controversy surrounding the eight course Lute et al, but from a modern stand-point, and a musician's probable limited income, it is still the best choice for the student, and armature player, who wants one instrument capable of playing a wide range of music with a minimum of re-tuning. All of the arguments for other configurations and contrary to the eight course instrument are all valid, but the logistics remain and the choice is clear, with an eight course instrument your access to the most music for the least spent resource is still eight courses. - Original Message - From: Anthony Hind [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:26 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Ed I keep my 7c at D, and then stop it down for F. Of course this means the7c is no longer open, which no doubt does effect the way the string resonates. So there is a compromise, involved. I would agree that in gut, the additional 8c is not so much of a problem, for 6c or 7c music. However, how many beginners keep their lutes in gut? Probably more important than choosing between 8c and 7c, is finding a good lute, and then succeeding in stringing it well. It took me about two years to find the best stringing for my lute. Even now, I am still ready to experiment. Initially, I found my Gerle a little bass heavy, as Jacob Heringman told me I would, saying approximately that as the Gerle had a deeper body, it would have a plummy bass, an explosive sound but with not so much sustain. That is in contrast to the Venere that might be brighter with a more sustained sound and possibly less rich bass. Using Venice twine has helped balance that out a little better. Presumably, in the case of the Venere, it might be too much of a good thing, but I haven't tried. Regards Anthony Le 27 nov. 07 =E0 01:26, Edward Martin a ecrit : I agree fully with Stewart. Although there is more music for 7 course and 9 course lutes as compared to 8 course lutes, an 8 course is a good compromise. I have that very instrument, an 8 course. A great majority of the music for which I use that instrument is for 7 course, but it is so very convenient to have both a low F _and_ D, so I do not have to re-tune the 7th course. I also sometimes put octaves on both the 4th and 5th course, so I can play Continental 6 course music. In gut, it sound absolutely no different from other 6 course lutes in gut. ed At 11:54 PM 11/26/2007 +, Stewart McCoy wrote: Dear All, Unlike many of the contributors to this thread, I don't have a problem with 8-course lutes. They suit Terzi and Molinaro, of course, but you can use them to play earlier music like Capirola, and to some extent later music where nine or ten courses are required. If you want to buy many instruments, by all means buy a 6-course for Milano, a 7-course for (some) Dowland, an 8-course for Terzi, a 9-course for Francisque, a 10-course for Vallet, and then splash out on an 11-course for Mouton, a 12-course for Wilson, and a 13-course for Weiss. Why stop there? Why not spend a few more thousand quid on various sorts of theorbo and archlute, and throw in a mandora or two? If, instead, you want to compromise, and not fill your house with lutes, simply buy one 8-course lute, at least to start with. Having low F and D as open strings is useful for Dowland, you don't have the complexities of a lute with lots of strings, and you can happily play anything from the 16th century. If a note is too low for one's instrument, either play it an octave higher, or re-tune the lowest course down a tone (e.g. 8th-course D to C), as Capirola did (from 6th-course G to F). More significant than the number of strings, is the tuning of the strings, i.e. whether or not to tune the 4th and 5th courses in octaves. That makes far more difference to the sound than the number of courses. If I might add to what Ron has written, the heart-shaped Pesaro manuscript copied in the 15th century, contains music for a 7- course instrument; the music in Osborn fb7 is for a 7-course lute, and dates from about 1630. Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose. Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Crona [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:42 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Dear Michael, G=F6ran all: While G=F6ran gives an eloquent summary of our received notion of the development multiple courses on lutes throughout the 16th century, there is evidence that the matter was not quite so clearly defined. No surprise. H. Colin Slim, in his excellent article, 'Musicians on Parnassus,' (Studies
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Plus the other key factor, especially for a beginner, they are the easiest lutes to re-sell. On Nov 27, 2007, at 5:50 AM, vance wood wrote: I know there is a lot of controversy surrounding the eight course Lute et al, but from a modern stand-point, and a musician's probable limited income, it is still the best choice for the student, and armature player, who wants one instrument capable of playing a wide range of music with a minimum of re-tuning. All of the arguments for other configurations and contrary to the eight course instrument are all valid, but the logistics remain and the choice is clear, with an eight course instrument your access to the most music for the least spent resource is still eight courses. - Original Message - From: Anthony Hind [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:26 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Ed I keep my 7c at D, and then stop it down for F. Of course this means the7c is no longer open, which no doubt does effect the way the string resonates. So there is a compromise, involved. I would agree that in gut, the additional 8c is not so much of a problem, for 6c or 7c music. However, how many beginners keep their lutes in gut? Probably more important than choosing between 8c and 7c, is finding a good lute, and then succeeding in stringing it well. It took me about two years to find the best stringing for my lute. Even now, I am still ready to experiment. Initially, I found my Gerle a little bass heavy, as Jacob Heringman told me I would, saying approximately that as the Gerle had a deeper body, it would have a plummy bass, an explosive sound but with not so much sustain. That is in contrast to the Venere that might be brighter with a more sustained sound and possibly less rich bass. Using Venice twine has helped balance that out a little better. Presumably, in the case of the Venere, it might be too much of a good thing, but I haven't tried. Regards Anthony Le 27 nov. 07 =E0 01:26, Edward Martin a ecrit : I agree fully with Stewart. Although there is more music for 7 course and 9 course lutes as compared to 8 course lutes, an 8 course is a good compromise. I have that very instrument, an 8 course. A great majority of the music for which I use that instrument is for 7 course, but it is so very convenient to have both a low F _and_ D, so I do not have to re-tune the 7th course. I also sometimes put octaves on both the 4th and 5th course, so I can play Continental 6 course music. In gut, it sound absolutely no different from other 6 course lutes in gut. ed At 11:54 PM 11/26/2007 +, Stewart McCoy wrote: Dear All, Unlike many of the contributors to this thread, I don't have a problem with 8-course lutes. They suit Terzi and Molinaro, of course, but you can use them to play earlier music like Capirola, and to some extent later music where nine or ten courses are required. If you want to buy many instruments, by all means buy a 6-course for Milano, a 7-course for (some) Dowland, an 8-course for Terzi, a 9-course for Francisque, a 10-course for Vallet, and then splash out on an 11-course for Mouton, a 12-course for Wilson, and a 13-course for Weiss. Why stop there? Why not spend a few more thousand quid on various sorts of theorbo and archlute, and throw in a mandora or two? If, instead, you want to compromise, and not fill your house with lutes, simply buy one 8-course lute, at least to start with. Having low F and D as open strings is useful for Dowland, you don't have the complexities of a lute with lots of strings, and you can happily play anything from the 16th century. If a note is too low for one's instrument, either play it an octave higher, or re-tune the lowest course down a tone (e.g. 8th-course D to C), as Capirola did (from 6th-course G to F). More significant than the number of strings, is the tuning of the strings, i.e. whether or not to tune the 4th and 5th courses in octaves. That makes far more difference to the sound than the number of courses. If I might add to what Ron has written, the heart-shaped Pesaro manuscript copied in the 15th century, contains music for a 7- course instrument; the music in Osborn fb7 is for a 7-course lute, and dates from about 1630. Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose. Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Crona [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:42 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Dear Michael, G=F6ran all: While G=F6ran gives an eloquent summary of our received notion of the development multiple courses on lutes throughout the 16th century, there is evidence
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I wonder how big of a difference the 8 courses really make in the long run. Sure there are minute tonal differences, but... Let's say, in a sadistic experiment, someone plays a piece by, say, Francesco behind a screen four times - twice on six-course lutes and twice on eight-coursers in no particular order. Now, who on this list would really feel comfortable identifying which was which if a gun was put to your head? I believe I'd more easily pick up on the subtle tonal differences between makers more than the string setup - and that would have me sweating! Chris --- Anthony Hind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed I keep my 7c at D, and then stop it down for F. Of course this means the7c is no longer open, which no doubt does effect the way the string resonates. So there is a compromise, involved. I would agree that in gut, the additional 8c is not so much of a problem, for 6c or 7c music. However, how many beginners keep their lutes in gut? Probably more important than choosing between 8c and 7c, is finding a good lute, and then succeeding in stringing it well. It took me about two years to find the best stringing for my lute. Even now, I am still ready to experiment. Initially, I found my Gerle a little bass heavy, as Jacob Heringman told me I would, saying approximately that as the Gerle had a deeper body, it would have a plummy bass, an explosive sound but with not so much sustain. That is in contrast to the Venere that might be brighter with a more sustained sound and possibly less rich bass. Using Venice twine has helped balance that out a little better. Presumably, in the case of the Venere, it might be too much of a good thing, but I haven't tried. Regards Anthony Le 27 nov. 07 =E0 01:26, Edward Martin a ecrit : I agree fully with Stewart. Although there is more music for 7 course and 9 course lutes as compared to 8 course lutes, an 8 course is a good compromise. I have that very instrument, an 8 course. A great majority of the music for which I use that instrument is for 7 course, but it is so very convenient to have both a low F _and_ D, so I do not have to re-tune the 7th course. I also sometimes put octaves on both the 4th and 5th course, so I can play Continental 6 course music. In gut, it sound absolutely no different from other 6 course lutes in gut. ed At 11:54 PM 11/26/2007 +, Stewart McCoy wrote: Dear All, Unlike many of the contributors to this thread, I don't have a problem with 8-course lutes. They suit Terzi and Molinaro, of course, but you can use them to play earlier music like Capirola, and to some extent later music where nine or ten courses are required. If you want to buy many instruments, by all means buy a 6-course for Milano, a 7-course for (some) Dowland, an 8-course for Terzi, a 9-course for Francisque, a 10-course for Vallet, and then splash out on an 11-course for Mouton, a 12-course for Wilson, and a 13-course for Weiss. Why stop there? Why not spend a few more thousand quid on various sorts of theorbo and archlute, and throw in a mandora or two? If, instead, you want to compromise, and not fill your house with lutes, simply buy one 8-course lute, at least to start with. Having low F and D as open strings is useful for Dowland, you don't have the complexities of a lute with lots of strings, and you can happily play anything from the 16th century. If a note is too low for one's instrument, either play it an octave higher, or re-tune the lowest course down a tone (e.g. 8th-course D to C), as Capirola did (from 6th-course G to F). More significant than the number of strings, is the tuning of the strings, i.e. whether or not to tune the 4th and 5th courses in octaves. That makes far more difference to the sound than the number of courses. If I might add to what Ron has written, the heart-shaped Pesaro manuscript copied in the 15th century, contains music for a 7- course instrument; the music in Osborn fb7 is for a 7-course lute, and dates from about 1630. Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose. Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Crona [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:42 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Dear Michael, G=F6ran all: While G=F6ran gives an eloquent summary of our received notion of the development multiple courses on lutes throughout the 16th century, there is evidence that the matter
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
. In gut, it sound absolutely no different from other 6 course lutes in gut. ed At 11:54 PM 11/26/2007 +, Stewart McCoy wrote: Dear All, Unlike many of the contributors to this thread, I don't have a problem with 8-course lutes. They suit Terzi and Molinaro, of course, but you can use them to play earlier music like Capirola, and to some extent later music where nine or ten courses are required. If you want to buy many instruments, by all means buy a 6-course for Milano, a 7-course for (some) Dowland, an 8-course for Terzi, a 9-course for Francisque, a 10-course for Vallet, and then splash out on an 11-course for Mouton, a 12-course for Wilson, and a 13-course for Weiss. Why stop there? Why not spend a few more thousand quid on various sorts of theorbo and archlute, and throw in a mandora or two? If, instead, you want to compromise, and not fill your house with lutes, simply buy one 8-course lute, at least to start with. Having low F and D as open strings is useful for Dowland, you don't have the complexities of a lute with lots of strings, and you can happily play anything from the 16th century. If a note is too low for one's instrument, either play it an octave higher, or re-tune the lowest course down a tone (e.g. 8th-course D to C), as Capirola did (from 6th-course G to F). More significant than the number of strings, is the tuning of the strings, i.e. whether or not to tune the 4th and 5th courses in octaves. That makes far more difference to the sound than the number of courses. If I might add to what Ron has written, the heart-shaped Pesaro manuscript copied in the 15th century, contains music for a 7- course instrument; the music in Osborn fb7 is for a 7-course lute, and dates from about 1630. Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose. Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Crona [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:42 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Dear Michael, G=F6ran all: While G=F6ran gives an eloquent summary of our received notion of the development multiple courses on lutes throughout the 16th century, there is evidence that the matter was not quite so clearly defined. No surprise. H. Colin Slim, in his excellent article, 'Musicians on Parnassus,' (Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 12 (1965), pp. 134-163) describes the poem Monte Parnasso by Philippo Oriolo da Bassano. Bassano appears to outdo Rabelais' Pantagruel in the art of name-dropping within the poem, which Slim dates to circa 1519-1522. Cantos XIX, XX and XXI name several theorists, composers and instrumentalists, including Spinacino and Francesco da Milano, Canto XX describes a contest between two lutenists playing lutes with 13 and 17 strings. Presumably, the poet was counting individual strings of the courses. Slim notes that Sebastian Virdung also mentions lutes with fourteen strings as early as 1511. We seem to have a collective need to create neat categories and a progression of events for historical music but the real story is always less systematic and more complex. Best wishes, Ron Andrico http://www.mignarda.com Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:48:43 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Hi Michael, when I got my first lute in the === message truncated === __ __ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
with lutes, simply buy one 8-course lute, at least to start with. Having low F and D as open strings is useful for Dowland, you don't have the complexities of a lute with lots of strings, and you can happily play anything from the 16th century. If a note is too low for one's instrument, either play it an octave higher, or re-tune the lowest course down a tone (e.g. 8th-course D to C), as Capirola did (from 6th-course G to F). More significant than the number of strings, is the tuning of the strings, i.e. whether or not to tune the 4th and 5th courses in octaves. That makes far more difference to the sound than the number of courses. If I might add to what Ron has written, the heart-shaped Pesaro manuscript copied in the 15th century, contains music for a 7- course instrument; the music in Osborn fb7 is for a 7-course lute, and dates from about 1630. Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose. Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Crona [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:42 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Dear Michael, G=F6ran all: While G=F6ran gives an eloquent summary of our received notion of the development multiple courses on lutes throughout the 16th century, there is evidence that the matter was not quite so clearly defined. No surprise. H. Colin Slim, in his excellent article, 'Musicians on Parnassus,' (Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 12 (1965), pp. 134-163) describes the poem Monte Parnasso by Philippo Oriolo da Bassano. Bassano appears to outdo Rabelais' Pantagruel in the art of name-dropping within the poem, which Slim dates to circa 1519-1522. Cantos XIX, XX and XXI name several theorists, composers and instrumentalists, including Spinacino and Francesco da Milano, Canto XX describes a contest between two lutenists playing lutes with 13 and 17 strings. Presumably, the poet was counting individual strings of the courses. Slim notes that Sebastian Virdung also mentions lutes with fourteen strings as early as 1511. We seem to have a collective need to create neat categories and a progression of events for historical music but the real story is always less systematic and more complex. Best wishes, Ron Andrico http://www.mignarda.com Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:48:43 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Hi Michael, when I got my first lute in the === message truncated === __ __ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
It's important to play 6 7 course for the renaissance repertory. I understand the issues of resale value, etc, but I really think for most of the 16th century the three instruments, 6 course, 7 course _F and 7 course D give the most insights into the music. Also, if you are going to sell the lute it is best not to buy it :) As important as course, ideally one should have an instrument set up for intabs and one for ricercars, and the optimum setup really requires the right number of courses. It's possible that without the best setup, it might be harder to learn certain techniques, and that an eight course could become a bit of a tugboat. There's a big difference in the sound when the eighth course goes on, which is immediately attractive, but for me, ultimately, later sounding, rich rather than clear. Many instruments share these issues of practicality and range. When buying an Italian harpsichorp, people have to decide whether to buy an instrument with a very wide range, so they can play everything, or an historical instrument. But there is a fundamental difference in the sound; sound vs practicality: no easy answers. dt To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Michael, I believe that in fact 7c was standard, but they either tuned the 7th course to F or D on a G lute. The 8c is a convenient way to have both tunings on one lute, so it is sort of a standard today. g Zitat von Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED]: People who have purchased lutes from me in the past have all come to me with the common wisdom that the 8c. is the standard. Why would this be? Is it true now? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Michael As an amateur, I was in the position that I felt I could only justify purchasing one Renaissance lute. I was also hoping to venture later into 11c French Baroque music. I therefore had to make a compromise, and chose the 7c Gerle, because this actual model is used by Jacob Heringman on his Siena record http://magnatune.com/artists/heringman http://tinyurl.com/2so2sh He uses it for track 7. a four-part Fantasia from the Medici Lute Book, and also for the few Dance pieces. I figured that because of its Bologna form, it would do for the Italian repertoire, and because of its 7c status, it would be alright for most Elizabethan music, too, even if perhaps, by that period multi ribbed Paduan lutes might have become more popular. Indeed, I notice this Dowland concert in which Jacob used the very same lute, at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~lsa/old/Cleveland2004/Ellen- JacobConcert.html http://tinyurl.com/324kog The actual lute I tried at Martin Haycock's belonged to Liz Kenny. The balance and sound seemed very good, and that two such excellent professional lutists had chosen this model seemed a further guarantee. You can see front and back of the lute, here: http://tinyurl.com/2ca4cp http://tinyurl.com/38ypxx However, it IS a compromise, if a very good sounding lute, especially in gut. I have controlled the slight tendency to bass heaviness on the Gerle, by adopting Aquila Venice twine on the diapason of the 6th and on the 5th through to the 4th. This has a very good high frequency response, and has helped open out the sound, that was already very sweet, but with excellent projection. I have a Gamut gimped on the 7th. I could also have adopted a 6c lute, as these were used throughout the same period, and are often considered the ideal Renaissance lute in their poise and balance, but I hoped that using gut basses would control the the sympathetic ring of a 7c when playing 6c Milan. Indeed, Stephen Gottlieb made an excellent 8c 64 cm Rauwolf mutiribbed lute, for a guitarist who had completed, or was completing, his Masters program requirements. While this was strung in gut, the sympathetic ring of the 7 and 8c does not seem too overpowering, as can be heard in his rendering of da Milano at http://www.myspace.com/lute On the other hand, I do have to admit that when Jacob played the Siena repertoire at Caen (a year ago), he brought his 6c Andy Rutherford lute. You can see the photos of this here, by going to http://tinyurl.com/2njg45 and clicking on the thumb nails. About string length, I also asked advice on this issue from Jacob Heringman, but I can only quote from memory. This was not set down in any formal way that can actually make it truly quotable. He said he preferred longer string lengths for a solo instrument, and that anything longer than 60 has more expressive capability, 64 or 67 or even 71 were all excellent string lengths according to the player's stretch. However, he also added that the hand has a wonderful ability to adapt, and that a longer string length doesn't make the music that much harder to play (it might even be easier as you move up to higher positions on the neck). The main problem would be the pitch issue, if you play with other people. I seem to remember several lute makers saying that guitar necks were much longer than the average lute neck, and that caused no problem for guitarists. Perhaps, there is a neck-width issue, also to contend with, on modern lutes. Original lutes may have had narrower necks. I imagine string spacing must also be taken into account in relation to stretch. There was a lute meeting in London, not so long ago, two or three years, where a number of long necked Renaissance lutes, Warwick Bass lutes and C36 Venere Tenor lutes, were demonstrated with 67 cm and over string length, and I believe it was argued that many more long necked solo instruments would have existed, and that the modern tendency for 60 cm and below, may not be historical. Of course, so many large lutes have been Baroqued, and it is sometimes difficult to conjecture their original string length. I have to admit that I did chicken out and go for a 60 cm lute. Regards Anthony Le 26 nov. 07 =E0 07:24, Michael Bocchicchio a ecrit : People who have purchased lutes from me in the past have all come to me with the common wisdom that the 8c. is the standard. Why would this be? Is it true now? Was it true in the past or something like that? Furthermore, for who? A first time buyer? A graduate school student studying guitar , who will only need one lute to complete the Masters program requirements? A Renaissance Fair performer? I wonder if this notion is a holdover from a time when historical or true lutes were hard to come by and players had to chose instruments for their versatility rather than for their appropriateness for a
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
There is at least that print by Simone Molinaro, Venice 1599 (facsimile available from S.P.E.S.), if memory serves. It is a large collection of pieces, entirely written for the 8c lute. -- Mathias Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Michael, I believe that in fact 7c was standard, but they either tuned the 7th course to F or D on a G lute. The 8c is a convenient way to have both tunings on one lute, so it is sort of a standard today. People who have purchased lutes from me in the past have all come to me with the common wisdom that the 8c. is the standard. Why would this be? Is it true now? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
On Monday 26 November 2007 11:34, Mathias Rösel rattled on the keyboard: There is at least that print by Simone Molinaro, Venice 1599 (facsimile available from S.P.E.S.), if memory serves. It is a large collection of pieces, entirely written for the 8c lute. A few pieces require a 9 course instrument if I remember well. But basically it's indeed for 8 course. Taco To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Hi Michael, when I got my first lute in the early 80's, after playing lute music on guitar since the early 60's, my teacher recommended an 8-course, arguing in favour of a versatile instrument which could be used for a time span of roughly the whole 16th century. As you know, course development was roughly: 6c - ca. 1500-ca. 1575; 7c - ca. 1565 - 1590; 8c - ca. 1585 - 1600; 9c - ca. 1600 - 1615; 10c ca. 1615 - 1630; 11c - thereafter aso. (with slight overlappings). For me, the switch from 6 string guitar to 8 course lute was a _steep_ learning curve, with the thumb under and all. Not so much for the left as for the right hand. After several years of unsatisfying trial, I decided, that my synapses were not coping and that I wasn't enjoying it very much, in spite of the silvery sound, so I sold the instrument although it was a very fine one. I've often held the view on this list, that for a lute novice, or the transition from guitar should preferably be to a 6c (or a 7c with the 7th removed) and playing the 1500 to ca. 1570 repertory. After a year or two, when the hands have been properly trained, and are familiar with the instrument, one could progress to 7c for a year and then 8c for a year and so on. In this way the student will have a natural progression, and at the same time get familiar with the repertory and all its characteristics for the different epochs and regional differences. The 6c will be much easier to play on, and therefore give a higher feeling of mastering it all and consequently be more rewarding. The ground work will then be set, and I believe that further development will be quicker and more effective. Others will perhaps argue, that you can remove the 7th and 8th course in the beginning and add them when progressing which is certainly an option, but I think that there are many other issues when approaching the music, which speak for playing on the right instrument. (Right number of courses, right width and breadth of neck aso. although again, some will argue that there never was any right measures, and that lutists/lutenists in those days differed as much then as they do now.) But IMV all this talk about HIP somewhat looses its meaning, if not played on an instrument for which the music was intended. I also think that much of the virtuoso polyphonic music beginning around ca. 1560 should be played on a smaller, perhaps even descant lute, as the stretches are sometimes forbidding on an instrument with a long mensur, however better the sound. So to answer your question plainly: Yes, the eight course is best suited for a short span of english and italian music in the last decade of the 16th century. The reasons for it becoming the instrument par exellence for beginners today might have something to do with the lute-revival in the early to mid 20th c. starting mainly in England, (but I'm on thin ice there), and the traditional belief thereby to be getting a versatile instrument where the advantages excel the drawbacks. If the student plans to go into lute playing seriously, and not just as a nice pastime, get a 6 - or 7c first, and that will work much better and be both more enjoyable and lead to more effective learning in the long run. If you prefer Baroque, (and this indeed seems to be the preference nowadays, at least with the posters on this list) I don't know if it would perhaps be better to get an 11 - course from the start and just learn to cope with all the extra courses, or spend a couple of years on a 6 course first, to get the bearings. As I've never played an 11 - 13 course lute, others will have to give feedback on that. IMV there is much to be gained from following the epochs consequently, starting with early Renaissance and progressing from there. The pieces are often more suited for a beginner but still musically rewarding. This way one will be able to understand the development as it occurred and probably become a more compleat musitian. B.R. G. - Original Message - From: Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:24 AM Subject: [LUTE] Is 8c really the standard? People who have purchased lutes from me in the past have all come to me with the common wisdom that the 8c. is the standard. Why would this be? Is it true now? Was it true in the past or something like that? Furthermore, for who? A first time buyer? A graduate school student studying guitar , who will only need one lute to complete the Masters program requirements? A Renaissance Fair performer? I wonder if this notion is a holdover from a time when historical or true lutes were hard to come by and players had to chose instruments for their versatility rather than for their appropriateness for a given period of music. In fact, it seems to me that the greater body of Renaissance lute music is for 6 and 7c instruments. Eight course music seems limited to the very end of the 16th century, and mostly English. French music
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
This subject comes up regularly here. My two yen: There is hardly anything written specifically for 8 course that cannot be played on 7 course. There is far more music for 7 course than 8 course. 7 course is easier than 8 course. You just have to have a little awareness of what your 7th is tuned to so that you don't begin a piece and discover that the 7th is at the wrong pitch half way through the piece. I usually write tuning reminders on the set list or arrange it in an obvious way so that like tunings are together. cheers, On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:48 PM, G. Crona wrote: Hi Michael, when I got my first lute in the early 80's, after playing lute music on guitar since the early 60's, my teacher recommended an 8-course, arguing in favour of a versatile instrument which could be used for a time span of roughly the whole 16th century. As you know, course development was roughly: 6c - ca. 1500-ca. 1575; 7c - ca. 1565 - 1590; 8c - ca. 1585 - 1600; 9c - ca. 1600 - 1615; 10c ca. 1615 - 1630; 11c - thereafter aso. (with slight overlappings). For me, the switch from 6 string guitar to 8 course lute was a _steep_ learning curve, with the thumb under and all. Not so much for the left as for the right hand. After several years of unsatisfying trial, I decided, that my synapses were not coping and that I wasn't enjoying it very much, in spite of the silvery sound, so I sold the instrument although it was a very fine one. I've often held the view on this list, that for a lute novice, or the transition from guitar should preferably be to a 6c (or a 7c with the 7th removed) and playing the 1500 to ca. 1570 repertory. After a year or two, when the hands have been properly trained, and are familiar with the instrument, one could progress to 7c for a year and then 8c for a year and so on. In this way the student will have a natural progression, and at the same time get familiar with the repertory and all its characteristics for the different epochs and regional differences. The 6c will be much easier to play on, and therefore give a higher feeling of mastering it all and consequently be more rewarding. The ground work will then be set, and I believe that further development will be quicker and more effective. Others will perhaps argue, that you can remove the 7th and 8th course in the beginning and add them when progressing which is certainly an option, but I think that there are many other issues when approaching the music, which speak for playing on the right instrument. (Right number of courses, right width and breadth of neck aso. although again, some will argue that there never was any right measures, and that lutists/lutenists in those days differed as much then as they do now.) But IMV all this talk about HIP somewhat looses its meaning, if not played on an instrument for which the music was intended. I also think that much of the virtuoso polyphonic music beginning around ca. 1560 should be played on a smaller, perhaps even descant lute, as the stretches are sometimes forbidding on an instrument with a long mensur, however better the sound. So to answer your question plainly: Yes, the eight course is best suited for a short span of english and italian music in the last decade of the 16th century. The reasons for it becoming the instrument par exellence for beginners today might have something to do with the lute-revival in the early to mid 20th c. starting mainly in England, (but I'm on thin ice there), and the traditional belief thereby to be getting a versatile instrument where the advantages excel the drawbacks. If the student plans to go into lute playing seriously, and not just as a nice pastime, get a 6 - or 7c first, and that will work much better and be both more enjoyable and lead to more effective learning in the long run. If you prefer Baroque, (and this indeed seems to be the preference nowadays, at least with the posters on this list) I don't know if it would perhaps be better to get an 11 - course from the start and just learn to cope with all the extra courses, or spend a couple of years on a 6 course first, to get the bearings. As I've never played an 11 - 13 course lute, others will have to give feedback on that. IMV there is much to be gained from following the epochs consequently, starting with early Renaissance and progressing from there. The pieces are often more suited for a beginner but still musically rewarding. This way one will be able to understand the development as it occurred and probably become a more compleat musitian. B.R. G. - Original Message - From: Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:24 AM Subject: [LUTE] Is 8c really the standard? People who have purchased lutes from me in the past have all come to me with the common wisdom that the 8c. is the standard. Why would this be?
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
- Original Message - From: vance wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ed Durbrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? The only down side to that point of view is that occasionally you have to re-tune the seventh course and finger notes that would normally be played open. Other than that you are correct. My Lady Hunsdon's Puff, or Puss depending on which interpretation of ancient spelling you adhere to, is a good example. Most of S. Molinaro's music is another where having eight courses is an advantage---but who is counting? VW - Original Message - From: Ed Durbrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LuteNet list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 9:57 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? This subject comes up regularly here. My two yen: There is hardly anything written specifically for 8 course that cannot be played on 7 course. There is far more music for 7 course than 8 course. 7 course is easier than 8 course. You just have to have a little awareness of what your 7th is tuned to so that you don't begin a piece and discover that the 7th is at the wrong pitch half way through the piece. I usually write tuning reminders on the set list or arrange it in an obvious way so that like tunings are together. cheers, On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:48 PM, G. Crona wrote: Hi Michael, when I got my first lute in the early 80's, after playing lute music on guitar since the early 60's, my teacher recommended an 8-course, arguing in favour of a versatile instrument which could be used for a time span of roughly the whole 16th century. As you know, course development was roughly: 6c - ca. 1500-ca. 1575; 7c - ca. 1565 - 1590; 8c - ca. 1585 - 1600; 9c - ca. 1600 - 1615; 10c ca. 1615 - 1630; 11c - thereafter aso. (with slight overlappings). For me, the switch from 6 string guitar to 8 course lute was a _steep_ learning curve, with the thumb under and all. Not so much for the left as for the right hand. After several years of unsatisfying trial, I decided, that my synapses were not coping and that I wasn't enjoying it very much, in spite of the silvery sound, so I sold the instrument although it was a very fine one. I've often held the view on this list, that for a lute novice, or the transition from guitar should preferably be to a 6c (or a 7c with the 7th removed) and playing the 1500 to ca. 1570 repertory. After a year or two, when the hands have been properly trained, and are familiar with the instrument, one could progress to 7c for a year and then 8c for a year and so on. In this way the student will have a natural progression, and at the same time get familiar with the repertory and all its characteristics for the different epochs and regional differences. The 6c will be much easier to play on, and therefore give a higher feeling of mastering it all and consequently be more rewarding. The ground work will then be set, and I believe that further development will be quicker and more effective. Others will perhaps argue, that you can remove the 7th and 8th course in the beginning and add them when progressing which is certainly an option, but I think that there are many other issues when approaching the music, which speak for playing on the right instrument. (Right number of courses, right width and breadth of neck aso. although again, some will argue that there never was any right measures, and that lutists/lutenists in those days differed as much then as they do now.) But IMV all this talk about HIP somewhat looses its meaning, if not played on an instrument for which the music was intended. I also think that much of the virtuoso polyphonic music beginning around ca. 1560 should be played on a smaller, perhaps even descant lute, as the stretches are sometimes forbidding on an instrument with a long mensur, however better the sound. So to answer your question plainly: Yes, the eight course is best suited for a short span of english and italian music in the last decade of the 16th century. The reasons for it becoming the instrument par exellence for beginners today might have something to do with the lute-revival in the early to mid 20th c. starting mainly in England, (but I'm on thin ice there), and the traditional belief thereby to be getting a versatile instrument where the advantages excel the drawbacks. If the student plans to go into lute playing seriously, and not just as a nice pastime, get a 6 - or 7c first, and that will work much better and be both more enjoyable and lead to more effective learning in the long run. If you prefer Baroque, (and this indeed seems to be the preference nowadays, at least with the posters on this list) I don't know if it would perhaps be better to get an 11 - course from the start and just learn to cope with all the extra courses, or spend a couple of years on a 6 course first
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Dear Michael, G=F6ran all: While G=F6ran gives an eloquent summary of our received notion of the development multiple courses on lutes throughout the 16th century, there is evidence that the matter was not quite so clearly defined. No surprise. H. Colin Slim, in his excellent article, 'Musicians on Parnassus,' (Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 12 (1965), pp. 134-163) describes the poem Monte Parnasso by Philippo Oriolo da Bassano. Bassano appears to outdo Rabelais' Pantagruel in the art of name-dropping within the poem, which Slim dates to circa 1519-1522. Cantos XIX, XX and XXI name several theorists, composers and instrumentalists, including Spinacino and Francesco da Milano, Canto XX describes a contest between two lutenists playing lutes with 13 and 17 strings. Presumably, the poet was counting individual strings of the courses. Slim notes that Sebastian Virdung also mentions lutes with fourteen strings as early as 1511. We seem to have a collective need to create neat categories and a progression of events for historical music but the real story is always less systematic and more complex. Best wishes, Ron Andrico http://www.mignarda.com Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:48:43 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Hi Michael, when I got my first lute in the early 80's, after playing lute music on guitar since the early 60's, my teacher recommended an 8-course, arguing in favour of a versatile instrument which could be used for a time span of roughly the whole 16th century. As you know, course development was roughly: 6c - ca. 1500-ca. 1575; 7c - ca. 1565 - 1590; 8c - ca. 1585 - 1600; 9c - ca. 1600 - 1615; 10c ca. 1615 - 1630; 11c - thereafter aso. (with slight overlappings). For me, the switch from 6 string guitar to 8 course lute was a _steep_ learning curve, with the thumb under and all. Not so much for the left as for the right hand. After several years of unsatisfying trial, I decided, that my synapses were not coping and that I wasn't enjoying it very much, in spite of the silvery sound, so I s! old the instrument although it was a very fine one. I've often held the view on this list, that for a lute novice, or the transition from guitar should preferably be to a 6c (or a 7c with the 7th removed) and playing the 1500 to ca. 1570 repertory. After a year or two, when the hands have been properly trained, and are familiar with the instrument, one could progress to 7c for a year and then 8c for a year and so on. In this way the student will have a natural progression, and at the same time get familiar with the repertory and all its characteristics for the different epochs and regional differences. The 6c will be much easier to play on, and therefore give a higher feeling of mastering it all and consequently be more rewarding. The ground work will then be set, and I believe that further development will be quicker and more effective. Others will perhaps argue, that you can remove the 7th and 8th course in the beginning and add them when progressing wh! ich is certainly an option, but I think that there are many o! ther iss ues when approaching the music, which speak for playing on the right instrument. (Right number of courses, right width and breadth of neck aso. although again, some will argue that there never was any right measures, and that lutists/lutenists in those days differed as much then as they do now.) But IMV all this talk about HIP somewhat looses its meaning, if not played on an instrument for which the music was intended. I also think that much of the virtuoso polyphonic music beginning around ca. 1560 should be played on a smaller, perhaps even descant lute, as the stretches are sometimes forbidding on an instrument with a long mensur, however better the sound. So to answer your question plainly: Yes, the eight course is best suited for a short span of english and italian music in the last decade of the 16th century. The reasons for it becoming the instrument par exellence for beginners today might have something to do with the lute-revival in the early t! o mid 20th c. starting mainly in England, (but I'm on thin ice there), and the traditional belief thereby to be getting a versatile instrument where the advantages excel the drawbacks. If the student plans to go into lute playing seriously, and not just as a nice pastime, get a 6 - or 7c first, and that will work much better and be both more enjoyable and lead to more effective learning in the long run. If you prefer Baroque, (and this indeed seems to be the preference nowadays, at least with the posters on this list) I don't know if it would perhaps be better to get an 11 - course from the start and just learn to cope with all the extra courses, or spend a couple of years on a 6 course first, to get the bearings. As I've never played an 11
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
I agree fully with Stewart. Although there is more music for 7 course and 9 course lutes as compared to 8 course lutes, an 8 course is a good compromise. I have that very instrument, an 8 course. A great majority of the music for which I use that instrument is for 7 course, but it is so very convenient to have both a low F _and_ D, so I do not have to re-tune the 7th course. I also sometimes put octaves on both the 4th and 5th course, so I can play Continental 6 course music. In gut, it sound absolutely no different from other 6 course lutes in gut. ed At 11:54 PM 11/26/2007 +, Stewart McCoy wrote: Dear All, Unlike many of the contributors to this thread, I don't have a problem with 8-course lutes. They suit Terzi and Molinaro, of course, but you can use them to play earlier music like Capirola, and to some extent later music where nine or ten courses are required. If you want to buy many instruments, by all means buy a 6-course for Milano, a 7-course for (some) Dowland, an 8-course for Terzi, a 9-course for Francisque, a 10-course for Vallet, and then splash out on an 11-course for Mouton, a 12-course for Wilson, and a 13-course for Weiss. Why stop there? Why not spend a few more thousand quid on various sorts of theorbo and archlute, and throw in a mandora or two? If, instead, you want to compromise, and not fill your house with lutes, simply buy one 8-course lute, at least to start with. Having low F and D as open strings is useful for Dowland, you don't have the complexities of a lute with lots of strings, and you can happily play anything from the 16th century. If a note is too low for one's instrument, either play it an octave higher, or re-tune the lowest course down a tone (e.g. 8th-course D to C), as Capirola did (from 6th-course G to F). More significant than the number of strings, is the tuning of the strings, i.e. whether or not to tune the 4th and 5th courses in octaves. That makes far more difference to the sound than the number of courses. If I might add to what Ron has written, the heart-shaped Pesaro manuscript copied in the 15th century, contains music for a 7-course instrument; the music in Osborn fb7 is for a 7-course lute, and dates from about 1630. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or 17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or two courses more than necessary? Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Crona [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:42 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Dear Michael, G=F6ran all: While G=F6ran gives an eloquent summary of our received notion of the development multiple courses on lutes throughout the 16th century, there is evidence that the matter was not quite so clearly defined. No surprise. H. Colin Slim, in his excellent article, 'Musicians on Parnassus,' (Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 12 (1965), pp. 134-163) describes the poem Monte Parnasso by Philippo Oriolo da Bassano. Bassano appears to outdo Rabelais' Pantagruel in the art of name-dropping within the poem, which Slim dates to circa 1519-1522. Cantos XIX, XX and XXI name several theorists, composers and instrumentalists, including Spinacino and Francesco da Milano, Canto XX describes a contest between two lutenists playing lutes with 13 and 17 strings. Presumably, the poet was counting individual strings of the courses. Slim notes that Sebastian Virdung also mentions lutes with fourteen strings as early as 1511. We seem to have a collective need to create neat categories and a progression of events for historical music but the real story is always less systematic and more complex. Best wishes, Ron Andrico http://www.mignarda.com Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:48:43 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? Hi Michael, when I got my first lute in the early 80's, after playing lute music on guitar since the early 60's, my teacher recommended an 8-course, arguing in favour of a versatile instrument which could be used for a time span of roughly the whole 16th century. As you know, course development was roughly: 6c - ca. 1500-ca. 1575; 7c - ca. 1565 - 1590; 8c - ca. 1585 - 1600; 9c - ca. 1600 - 1615; 10c ca. 1615 - 1630; 11c - thereafter aso. (with slight overlappings). For me, the switch from 6 string guitar to 8 course lute was a _steep_ learning curve, with the thumb under and all. Not so much for the left as for the right hand. After several years of unsatisfying trial, I decided, that my synapses were not coping and that I wasn't enjoying it very much, in spite of the silvery sound, so I s! old the instrument although it was a very fine one. I've often held the view on this list
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Right on, Ed! The lute that I call a double 7 (It's NOT an 8 course!). A great majority of the music for which I use that instrument is for 7 course, but it is so very convenient to have both a low F _and_ D, so I do not have to re-tune the 7th course. I also sometimes put octaves on both the 4th and 5th course, so I can play Continental 6 course music. In gut, it sound absolutely no different from other 6 course lutes in gut. ed I know that lute. Works for everything, you lucky bastard. The slippery slope Vincenzo Galilei was warning us about when I posted on the way to 14 course Hell Stewart McCoy wrote: Dear All, Unlike many of the contributors to this thread, I don't have a problem with 8-course lutes. They suit Terzi and Molinaro, of course, but you can use them to play earlier music like Capirola, and to some extent later music where nine or ten courses are required. If you want to buy many instruments, by all means buy a 6-course for Milano, a 7-course for (some) Dowland, an 8-course for Terzi, a 9-course for Francisque, a 10-course for Vallet, and then splash out on an 11-course for Mouton, a 12-course for Wilson, and a 13-course for Weiss. Why stop there? Why not spend a few more thousand quid on various sorts of theorbo and archlute, and throw in a mandora or two? On the other hand, why not indeed? Part of being human is our love of too many toys- look at old Ray Fugger- and he only had 6 course instruments! I well remember the days when I just lusted for a single lute- it had to be 8 course for all the usual reasons as well as 60 cm to get as far away from guitar as possible. Now some of us have piles of lutes, and even include 70 cm 6 course lutes in E; what goes around comes around- sort of. I am right now babysitting a friend's collection while he is out of town- 2 six courses, an 8, 10, 11, 13, four acoustic and on electric guitar. No 7's or 9's- what's wrong with that guy? Cheap? But there are also several archcritters, of course. We're not that bad if we compare ourselves to Jerry Seinfeld and his car collection, among other obsessive compulsives. Don't ask about my archery stash, or my friend's watch clock pile. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Michael Bocchicchio wrote: People who have purchased lutes from me in the past have all come to me with the common wisdom that the 8c. is the standard. Why would this be? Is it true now? Was it true in the past or something like that? Furthermore, for who? A first time buyer? A graduate school student studying guitar , who will only need one lute to complete the Masters program requirements? A Renaissance Fair performer? I wonder if this notion is a holdover from a time when historical or true lutes were hard to come by and players had to chose instruments for their versatility rather than for their appropriateness for a given period of music. In fact, it seems to me that the greater body of Renaissance lute music is for 6 and 7c instruments. Eight course music seems limited to the very end of the 16th century, and mostly English. French music seems to jump from 7c to 10c beginning with Francisque c.1600. I'm not quite sure about how the dates went for Italy, Netherlands, and Germany, but it would seem that 8c music is a small body of music by comparison, no? If I have made too gross a generalization or am just plain wrong, please correct me. Even as an amateur player, I know that the instrument needs to fit the music---why would you want the sympathetic ring of an 8c when playing Milan? As a luthier, I fined that the popular 58-62cm instruments do best as 6 and 7 courses as a large bridge can choke a small sound board. I would think a 7c at 62-63cm is a good way to go, but appear to be going against the grain. If an 8c is the standard, can someone explain this to me? No, it's more like the lowest common denominator. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ** To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
6 7 9 10 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Just a passing fancy on the way to 14 course Hell. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
