[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
Dana, I'm playing a lot of orpharion these days and it has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. Mine is a Rose orpharion and one of the scollops on the edge is perfectly placed for your right arm to hold it - plus with the flat back it's not as cumbersome as the lute. The neck is longer so between the right arm holding the body of the instrument and the neck, both hands end up being shifted slightly to the left. All of the above is easy to deal with, but the more challenging part of orpharions is how easy it is to pull those light wire strings out of tune. You need to train your left hand to come down exactly in the right place. You need to train your right hand not to pluck too hard or you get a sound that's like the cross between a lute and a snare drum. However, when you get it right the wire string sing in a delightful way. I love the lush sound you get when the chords really ring out - lots more sustain than my lute. Nancy Carlin My plan is to eventually have several instruments, the 8c I now own. a six-course 'a' lute, orpharion, and bandora will complete the list. The last too being wire-strung, fixed-fret lute equivalents. Sometimes those movable tied-on frets loosen, slip and become, um, awkward... -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Nancy Carlin Associates P.O. Box 6499 Concord, CA 94524 USA phone 925/686-5800 fax 925/680-2582 web site - www.nancycarlinassociates.com Administrator THE LUTE SOCIETY OF AMERICA web site - http://LuteSocietyofAmerica.org --
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
On Oct 7, 2005, at 12:06 AM, Greg M. Silverman wrote: I seem to recall a comment made by Nigel North in his book on continuo playing that theorbo being a very excellent choice for guitarists coming over to the world of continuo playing, more so then renaissance tuned lutes, mass of strings or no. So, there seems to be conflicting opinions on this. On page xii, North says, I would advise, again from experience, that continuo playing be studied on the lute or archlute first. The theorbo is such a different instrumenbt and has many problems which are best approached by one who is experienced in continuo playin on an easier instrument. Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
if he hasn't tip-toed quietly away during discussions, new boy has probably aged heaps since posting his question - may i ask him what he thinks of all this .. - bill ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.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: New Boy wants lute
Ed Durbrow wrote: On Oct 7, 2005, at 12:06 AM, Greg M. Silverman wrote: I seem to recall a comment made by Nigel North in his book on continuo playing that theorbo being a very excellent choice for guitarists coming over to the world of continuo playing, more so then renaissance tuned lutes, mass of strings or no. So, there seems to be conflicting opinions on this. On page xii, North says, I would advise, again from experience, that continuo playing be studied on the lute or archlute first. The theorbo is such a different instrumenbt and has many problems which are best approached by one who is experienced in continuo playin on an easier instrument. I stand corrected... still, I seem to recall him making a comment about guitarists and theorbos having to do with the single string or something or other. (Could I be a bit more vague p'haps? ;-) Don't have access to the book right at this moment, but I will have to look later when I do.) Greg-- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
On Thursday 06 October 2005 Charlie wrote: .. For various reasons baroque lute and theorbo are generally easier to play in technical terms. .. Anybody who has played guitar (any style) for any amount of time will immediately recognize many of the chord shapes and names on the theorbo and can generally learn to play continuo in a few months' time, provided he can read music. .. Oh no! :-) I have been playing theorbo/chitarrone for years, especially continuo, and yet I have not completely learnt to play continuo with it. Dear Charlie, do you play theorbo continuo yourself? Your comment looks like it were based only on theoretical speculation of chord shapes... ;-) I think theorbo with its re-entrant tuning is really quite a beast in continuo! And in two senses: it is quite hard to tame, and it really can be very effctive when tamed. And another aspect is the size: you really have to be careful with your posture and technic to be able to play so big and un-ergonomic instrument more than two months... I would NOT recommend theorbo as the first lute. Perhaps some 7 course renaissance lute or 11 course baroque lute is a good starter? And the latter only if you are mainly interested in the solo repertoire of French middle baroque and German and French late baroque. Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
EUGENE BRAIG IV wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2005 5:33 pm Subject: [LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute On the other hand, it is probably easier to switch from guitar to renaissance lute because of the tuning (fourths and a third). Better yet, if New Boy is interested in playing in ensembles either professionally or not, he should consider getting a theorbo. It shares many of the easy technical features of the baroque lute, and has the added advantage of being single strung and tuned almost exactly like a guitar. Michel Cardin makes this same case, but theorbo ordinarily constitutes a much more substantial monetary investment than any renaissance lute. I'm not sure any newish guitarist having never played any breed of lute before would be well advised to leap right in with commitment to the theorbo. Eugene My teacher has a theorbo for sale. I think he's asking around $2-3 K or so for it. Greg-- -- Greg Silverman EnHS Health Studies University of MN email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 612-625-6870 fax: 612-624-3370 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
Greg, I should mention that I also have a large theorbo for sale on Wayne's lute page for a paltry $1500. It would be very good for early baroque continuo, but if New Boy is interested in buying it, I'd still advise against it. Chris --- Greg M. Silverman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My teacher has a theorbo for sale. I think he's asking around $2-3 K or so for it. Greg-- -- Greg Silverman EnHS Health Studies University of MN email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 612-625-6870 fax: 612-624-3370 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg, I should mention that I also have a large theorbo for sale on Wayne's lute page for a paltry $1500. It would be very good for early baroque continuo, but if New Boy is interested in buying it, I'd still advise against it. Chris Actually my teacher's instrument may be about the same price as your. he just mentioned it the other day and I rightfully don't recall the price. Chalk it up to pre-senility or something! ;-) Anyway, back to theorbo as a first instrument into the realm of lutes, I seem to recall a comment made by Nigel North in his book on continuo playing that theorbo being a very excellent choice for guitarists coming over to the world of continuo playing, more so then renaissance tuned lutes, mass of strings or no. So, there seems to be conflicting opinions on this. Regards, Greg-- -- Greg Silverman EnHS Health Studies University of MN email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 612-625-6870 fax: 612-624-3370 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
Hello New boy, RT has given you the answers, but as usual they are rather cryptic. Having played guitar for over 55 years now, and the lute for about a year and a half, I may be able to help on your questions. Firstly unless you are you are incredibly talented you aren't a guitar player yet (in 9 months). The guitar, unlike the lute family, is a standardized instrument. But guitar music is far from standardized. Modern guitar, as used in Rock and much of folk and jazz, is a chorded instrument. One can strum the full six strings (although my play over the years has been the finger pickin' folk accompanyment. But there is also the older and more traditional Spanish and Classical. (Lute list, please forgive me for the simplification). You don't say how you are using your guitar. I have to assume that you are using it for modern styles of chording rather than the more careful playing of the individual strings as in the Classical guitar. The lute is more difficult than a strummed guitar, but not more difficult than a well played one. I'll go to your specific questions (which RT has properly answered). Questions: Why are frets made with 'gut' on a lute? Does this mean they wear out, if so how do you fix them yourself or do you need to be a professional? I assume that you are referring to the contrast between the fixed metal frets of the guitar and the tied frets of the lute, whether they are gut or nylon. The lute is a traditional instrument dating back to before the days of a fixed equal temperament and so the ability to slightly move the tied frets allows one to use a different tempering of the scale so as to better match the sound of historic times. If your musicology is not sufficient to understand this please ask me directly. BTW, metal frets (aside from being fixed) do ruin the sound. Do you use gut string with lutes? Will nylon ruin the sound? You can use gut, nylon or Nylgut. The sound and the feel is a bit different between them, but none will ruin the sound except for the particular ear that prefers gut. How bad are the old-style tuners? I heard they go out of tune a lot. Is this true, if so does it ruin the whole thing? Old style? Like on a violin? As RT says a well shaped peg is quite satisfactory (and aesthetically pleasing). If you get anything other than a 6 course lute, will it ruin your guitar playing? Or not? I still want to play guitar There is no relationship between the 6 courses of a lute and those of a guitar. One doesn't strum full chords on a lute, although there is chording. (And for the Spanish and Classical guitarists on the list I'm referring to the common guitar of today, not your machine). Other than the skills with the fingers the practice and technique is quite different. I am trying to break folk guitar habits in learning the lute. Is a 6 course easier to play than 7-8 course? Or not? RT said it, a 13 course is easier - but as is typical of him (with all due respect RT) he left it cryptic. The lute is a 6 course instrument in a sense. The courses below that are tuned a tone or a half tone off the string above them and are normally played open. If I want to play a piece written for 10 course lute on my 7 course I have to down tune the 7th course and recast the tab to finger the notes in between on that 7th course. So, in a sense, the more strings below the 6th course the easier to play pieces that use the lower harmonies. How much more difficult is it to play a lute versus a guitar? They are the same, as are all instruments. It depends on what you want to play. The early lute was a melody instrument played with a pick (sorry purists, a quill plectrum - and you might not call that a lute). But as music developed the play of the lute changed and became polyphonic. A chorded guitar is more difficult than a single string lute, but a lute played as in the late medieval and from then one is harder than a strummed guitar. I play penny whistle, it is an easy instrument to play slowly in ballad form, but an extremely difficult one to play as a virtuoso. A beginner can make credible music on a guitar, or on a lute, but the music written for lute is a bit more demanding of accuracy than the guitar when it is used for accompanyment. Best, Jon (PS, comment solicited from the list - I just pontificated without half the knowledge of any of you). To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
BTW, metal frets (aside from being fixed) do ruin the sound. On what do you base this statement ? I'm one of the few people (I think) who have actually done the experiment. A long time ago I bought a (non-battleship) lute that someone had inexplicably taken to a luthier for fretting with metal frets. I then paid the same luthier (a friend who spared me no ribbing about lunatic lute players) to remove those frets and fill the slots in the finger board. The difference between the instrument with metal frets and the same instrument with gut frets was... not audible. One might expect a slight difference since the gut is more compliant than metal and is thus a source of a bit of extra damping, but any such difference is tiny and much smaller than the difference in sound between different string types. You can check for yourself: take a small metal rod (the point of a cheap pencil compass will work) and slip it under the string near a fret. Hold it *FIRMLY* in place and, using a bit of contortion, hold it and fret the string with one hand and pluck with the other. (You may also use an assistant, preferably one with a dazzling smile and a sequined costume.) Remove it and pluck again. Repeat several times. Did you notice the sound being ruined ? Most lutes that you encounter with metal frets *do* sound terrible - but that's because they are most likely to be heavy, guitar-like, battleship lutes. The terrible sound is the fault of their design and construction not of the metal frets. I'm certainly not advocating metal frets - I like unequal temperament, being able to replace them myself and besides, metal one just plain look ugly. But I'm always amazed when people make sweeping generalizations based on little to no evidence. Bob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
Robert Clair wrote: BTW, metal frets (aside from being fixed) do ruin the sound. You can check for yourself: take a small metal rod (the point of a cheap pencil compass will work) and slip it under the string near a fret. Hold it *FIRMLY* in place and, using a bit of contortion, hold it and fret the string with one hand and pluck with the other. (You may also use an assistant, preferably one with a dazzling smile and a sequined costume.) Remove it and pluck again. Repeat several times. Did you notice the sound being ruined ? I'm not doubting that you couldn't detect a difference in sound, but what you've suggested doing is pretty subjective since it involves human hearing and a human hand. Has anyone ever performed an objective experiment with some sort of wave form analyzer and robotic plucker? It would be interesting to see the results from that. I definitely agree that the German lutes made in the early '60s ( in some little town with a quaint name ) were not of the lightest construction.They seem to all have a bracing scheme similar to either the classical guitar or a sea going kayak. The construction quality is a little suspect as well: I was recently fishing out a broken piece of rose from mine when I pulled out a 1 inch ball of very fine shavings. I don't believe they were placed there by the maker to enhance the sound :). And all these years I thought there was a small, dead rodent in there! To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
i was in the same position several years ago and instead of getting one of the ump-teen course instruments which some on the list play, i got an oud. they tend not to be too expensive and if you're comfortable with the guitar, it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt to. they have the added bonus of versatility, if you feel you'd like to add nylon frets (i did - the david van edwards site is useful for that info.). their necks tend to be narrow, however. as robert so humorously pointed out, most aren't made to to go to war with - quite the opposite, in fact. if any of this sounds of interest, mike's ouds is a good place to start: http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/index.php and you should be able to get a good quality, egyptian made instrument on ebay. buona fortuna! - bill --- Robert Clair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, metal frets (aside from being fixed) do ruin the sound. On what do you base this statement ? I'm one of the few people (I think) who have actually done the experiment. A long time ago I bought a (non-battleship) lute that someone had inexplicably taken to a luthier for fretting with metal frets. I then paid the same luthier (a friend who spared me no ribbing about lunatic lute players) to remove those frets and fill the slots in the finger board. The difference between the instrument with metal frets and the same instrument with gut frets was... not audible. One might expect a slight difference since the gut is more compliant than metal and is thus a source of a bit of extra damping, but any such difference is tiny and much smaller than the difference in sound between different string types. You can check for yourself: take a small metal rod (the point of a cheap pencil compass will work) and slip it under the string near a fret. Hold it *FIRMLY* in place and, using a bit of contortion, hold it and fret the string with one hand and pluck with the other. (You may also use an assistant, preferably one with a dazzling smile and a sequined costume.) Remove it and pluck again. Repeat several times. Did you notice the sound being ruined ? Most lutes that you encounter with metal frets *do* sound terrible - but that's because they are most likely to be heavy, guitar-like, battleship lutes. The terrible sound is the fault of their design and construction not of the metal frets. I'm certainly not advocating metal frets - I like unequal temperament, being able to replace them myself and besides, metal one just plain look ugly. But I'm always amazed when people make sweeping generalizations based on little to no evidence. Bob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html and thus i made...a small vihuela from the shell of a creepy crawly... - Don Gonzalo de Guerrero (1512), Historias de la Conquista del Mayab by Fra Joseph of San Buenaventura. go to: http://www.charango.cl/paginas/quieninvento.htm ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
Bill, Being an oud (and lute, theorbo, and guitar) owner myself, I would have to say I don't agree that its a good substitute for a lute. Although one can play chords on it, the oud was never really _intended_ to be more than a monophonic, melody playing instrument as is its function in classical arabic music. I'm not saying, of course, that you can't play chords or even polyphony on an oud, but one has to have a desire to adapt a repertoire to the instrument rather than exploring an existing one, which sounds more like what New Boy has in mind. (Sorry Bill, but keep discovering new ground if you like it!) For the New Boy: It seems like most people prefer to start on, and maybe even keep as their main instrument, the 8 course renaissance lute. This seems like a good compromise because you can play most of the music from the renaissance and even some early baroque music on this instrument. For myself, my main lute is a ten course, but then I am most interested in the music of the late renaissance/early baroque. This would not hurt your guitar technique at all: I practice my lutes (which vary from 10 to 14 courses) much more than guitar, but I can always go back and pick up my six-stringer without getting confused. Chris --- bill kilpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was in the same position several years ago and instead of getting one of the ump-teen course instruments which some on the list play, i got an oud. they tend not to be too expensive and if you're comfortable with the guitar, it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt to. they have the added bonus of versatility, if you feel you'd like to add nylon frets (i did - the david van edwards site is useful for that info.). their necks tend to be narrow, however. as robert so humorously pointed out, most aren't made to to go to war with - quite the opposite, in fact. if any of this sounds of interest, mike's ouds is a good place to start: http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/index.php and you should be able to get a good quality, egyptian made instrument on ebay. buona fortuna! - bill --- Robert Clair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, metal frets (aside from being fixed) do ruin the sound. On what do you base this statement ? I'm one of the few people (I think) who have actually done the experiment. A long time ago I bought a (non-battleship) lute that someone had inexplicably taken to a luthier for fretting with metal frets. I then paid the same luthier (a friend who spared me no ribbing about lunatic lute players) to remove those frets and fill the slots in the finger board. The difference between the instrument with metal frets and the same instrument with gut frets was... not audible. One might expect a slight difference since the gut is more compliant than metal and is thus a source of a bit of extra damping, but any such difference is tiny and much smaller than the difference in sound between different string types. You can check for yourself: take a small metal rod (the point of a cheap pencil compass will work) and slip it under the string near a fret. Hold it *FIRMLY* in place and, using a bit of contortion, hold it and fret the string with one hand and pluck with the other. (You may also use an assistant, preferably one with a dazzling smile and a sequined costume.) Remove it and pluck again. Repeat several times. Did you notice the sound being ruined ? Most lutes that you encounter with metal frets *do* sound terrible - but that's because they are most likely to be heavy, guitar-like, battleship lutes. The terrible sound is the fault of their design and construction not of the metal frets. I'm certainly not advocating metal frets - I like unequal temperament, being able to replace them myself and besides, metal one just plain look ugly. But I'm always amazed when people make sweeping generalizations based on little to no evidence. Bob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html and thus i made...a small vihuela from the shell of a creepy crawly... - Don Gonzalo de Guerrero (1512), Historias de la Conquista del Mayab by Fra Joseph of San Buenaventura. go to: http://www.charango.cl/paginas/quieninvento.htm ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:20 AM, saw 192837 wrote: If you get anything other than a 6 course lute, will it ruin your guitar playing? Not unless you stop practicing the guitar. You might possibly want to get a lute with similar spacing, but I think you get used to playing different pieces on different instruments, just as you would between a mandoline and a guitar or violin or whatever. I have to admit I get a little messed up trying to switch between four different lutes. For what it is worth, I believe Julian Bream had his lute made to the same scale as his guitar, way back when. Is a 6 course easier to play than 7-8 course? Yes, a bit. However, I would recommend getting a 7 course lute if you want to keep it easy. The reason I recommend 7 over 8 courses is because that opens up soo much more repertoire for you. 8 course music is MUCH rarer than the numbers of modern 8 course lutes would lead you to believe. Almost all of Dowland's music can be played on 7 course instruments, for instance. Of course you have to switch between tuning the 7th course to F or D, but that can be done pretty quickly. I find that English song repertoire usually requires a D and almost everything else F. (given a lute nominally in G) cheers, Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
On Oct 6, 2005, at 12:44 AM, Ed Durbrow wrote: The reason I recommend 7 over 8 courses is because that opens up soo much more repertoire for you. Oops, that should read '7 over 6 courses', - for repertoire reasons. 7 over 8 for reasons of simplicity. Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
Ed Durbrow wrote: On Oct 6, 2005, at 12:44 AM, Ed Durbrow wrote: The reason I recommend 7 over 8 courses is because that opens up soo much more repertoire for you. Oops, that should read '7 over 6 courses', - for repertoire reasons. 7 over 8 for reasons of simplicity. One thing that never came up, is choice of repertoire. I also come from a guitar background (completed up to grade 7 by the ABRSM standard). About 2.5 years ago, I bought an 11-course baroque instrument on a whim, but did not start playing it till after I recovered from an RSI injury to my left hand. I then decided to also get A and a G-tuned 7-course instruments, since I thought I would be playing some renaissance and continuo too. To this day, both the 7-course instruments have remained in their respective cases, since I really seem to want to delve head over heels into the 11-course baroque repertoire. So, back to the OP. He may wish to ask himself what repertoire he would be playing. Greg-- -- Greg Silverman EnHS Health Studies University of MN email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 612-625-6870 fax: 612-624-3370 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
i was thinking mostly of medieval and early renaissance music with simple, two finger chords but .. fair enough ... your advice is better. new boy - there are some friends you should never ask to go shopping with: have you thought of a vihuela? depending, of course on what sort of music you're interested in, you might find the vihuela or baroque guitar to be the easiest and most satisfactory option of all. buoan fortuna (II) - bill --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill, Being an oud (and lute, theorbo, and guitar) owner myself, I would have to say I don't agree that its a good substitute for a lute. Although one can play chords on it, the oud was never really _intended_ to be more than a monophonic, melody playing instrument as is its function in classical arabic music. I'm not saying, of course, that you can't play chords or even polyphony on an oud, but one has to have a desire to adapt a repertoire to the instrument rather than exploring an existing one, which sounds more like what New Boy has in mind. (Sorry Bill, but keep discovering new ground if you like it!) For the New Boy: It seems like most people prefer to start on, and maybe even keep as their main instrument, the 8 course renaissance lute. This seems like a good compromise because you can play most of the music from the renaissance and even some early baroque music on this instrument. For myself, my main lute is a ten course, but then I am most interested in the music of the late renaissance/early baroque. This would not hurt your guitar technique at all: I practice my lutes (which vary from 10 to 14 courses) much more than guitar, but I can always go back and pick up my six-stringer without getting confused. Chris --- bill kilpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was in the same position several years ago and instead of getting one of the ump-teen course instruments which some on the list play, i got an oud. they tend not to be too expensive and if you're comfortable with the guitar, it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt to. they have the added bonus of versatility, if you feel you'd like to add nylon frets (i did - the david van edwards site is useful for that info.). their necks tend to be narrow, however. as robert so humorously pointed out, most aren't made to to go to war with - quite the opposite, in fact. if any of this sounds of interest, mike's ouds is a good place to start: http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/index.php and you should be able to get a good quality, egyptian made instrument on ebay. buona fortuna! - bill --- Robert Clair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, metal frets (aside from being fixed) do ruin the sound. On what do you base this statement ? I'm one of the few people (I think) who have actually done the experiment. A long time ago I bought a (non-battleship) lute that someone had inexplicably taken to a luthier for fretting with metal frets. I then paid the same luthier (a friend who spared me no ribbing about lunatic lute players) to remove those frets and fill the slots in the finger board. The difference between the instrument with metal frets and the same instrument with gut frets was... not audible. One might expect a slight difference since the gut is more compliant than metal and is thus a source of a bit of extra damping, but any such difference is tiny and much smaller than the difference in sound between different string types. You can check for yourself: take a small metal rod (the point of a cheap pencil compass will work) and slip it under the string near a fret. Hold it *FIRMLY* in place and, using a bit of contortion, hold it and fret the string with one hand and pluck with the other. (You may also use an assistant, preferably one with a dazzling smile and a sequined costume.) Remove it and pluck again. Repeat several times. Did you notice the sound being ruined ? Most lutes that you encounter with metal frets *do* sound terrible - but that's because they are most likely to be heavy, guitar-like, battleship lutes. The terrible sound is the fault of their design and construction not of the metal frets. I'm certainly not advocating metal frets - I like unequal temperament, being able to replace them myself and besides, metal one just plain look ugly. But I'm always amazed when people make sweeping generalizations based on little to no evidence. Bob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html and thus i made...a small vihuela from the shell of a creepy crawly... - Don Gonzalo de
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
At 12:04 PM 10/5/2005, Greg M. Silverman wrote: So, back to the OP. He may wish to ask himself what repertoire he would be playing. In thinking on repertoire, our new boy should also be made aware that the things called lute in the baroque era, the 11- and 13-course instruments, are quite different in standard tuning. The core tuning of baroque lutes is to an open d-minor chord where the core tuning of renaissance lutes is more like guitars, a series of fourths with an interspersed third. Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
bill kilpatrick wrote: have you thought of a vihuela? depending, of course on what sort of music you're interested in, you might find the vihuela or baroque guitar to be the easiest and most satisfactory option of all. The vihuela repertoire can appear as simple and therefore easy, but it is not. Quite on the contrary, it is very demanding. But playing the lute repertoire with a vihuela is a good idea, because the vihuela is without doubt easier to hold than the lute. I would recommend a 7 course vihuela; that's the instrument I ordered a year ago and that will be finished, I hope, in November... saludos from Barcelona Manolo Laguillo -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
It is true that hand size has no importance with what kind of lute you can play. Roman has quite small hands, as does Paul O'Dette, not to mention that people were generally smaller in the seventeenth century. For various reasons baroque lute and theorbo are generally easier to play in technical terms. First, the curved fingerboard makes barring easier, and the abundance of bass strings takes a lot of stress off the left hand. These are reasons cited by Thomas Mace. On the other hand, it is probably easier to switch from guitar to renaissance lute because of the tuning (fourths and a third). Better yet, if New Boy is interested in playing in ensembles either professionally or not, he should consider getting a theorbo. It shares many of the easy technical features of the baroque lute, and has the added advantage of being single strung and tuned almost exactly like a guitar. Anybody who has played guitar (any style) for any amount of time will immediately recognize many of the chord shapes and names on the theorbo and can generally learn to play continuo in a few months' time, provided he can read music. This opens up such a vast repertoire of chamber and orchestral music and opera that you could hardly explore it all in a lifetime, not to mention the wonderful and basically neglected (comparatively) solo repertoire. It is quite common for guitarists also to be theorbo players. This was true in de Visee's time and in ours. It is nearly impossible to make a living as a classical guitarist unless you are one of a handful of incredibly talented people. On the other hand, there really aren't enough theorboes to go around these days. Charlie Weaver To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
It is true that hand size has no importance with what kind of lute you can play. Roman has quite small hands, as does Paul O'Dette, not to mention that people were generally smaller in the seventeenth century. For various reasons baroque lute and theorbo are generally easier to play in technical terms. First, the curved fingerboard makes barring easier, and the abundance of bass strings takes a lot of stress off the left hand. These are reasons cited by Thomas Mace. On the other hand, it is probably easier to switch from guitar to renaissance lute because of the tuning (fourths and a third). Better yet, if New Boy is interested in playing in ensembles either professionally or not, he should consider getting a theorbo. It shares many of the easy technical features of the baroque lute, and has the added advantage of being single strung and tuned almost exactly like a guitar. Anybody who has played guitar (any style) for any amount of time will immediately recognize many of the chord shapes and names on the theorbo and can generally learn to play continuo in a few months' time, provided he can read music. This opens up such a vast repertoire of chamber and orchestral music and opera that you could hardly explore it all in a lifetime, not to mention the wonderful and basically neglected (comparatively) solo repertoire. It is quite common for guitarists also to be theorbo players. This was true in de Visee's time and in ours. It is nearly impossible to make a living as a classical guitarist unless you are one of a handful of incredibly talented people. On the other hand, there really aren't enough theorboes to go around these days. Charlie Weaver To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Better yet, if New Boy is interested in playing in ensembles either professionally or not, he should consider getting a theorbo. It shares many of the easy technical features of the baroque lute, and has the added advantage of being single strung and tuned almost exactly like a guitar. Anybody who has played guitar (any style) for any amount of time will immediately recognize many of the chord shapes and names on the theorbo and can generally learn to play continuo in a few months' time, provided he can read music. This opens up such a vast repertoire of chamber and orchestral music and opera that you could hardly explore it all in a lifetime, not to mention the wonderful and basically neglected (comparatively) solo repertoire. It is quite common for guitarists also to be theorbo players. This was true in de Visee's time and in ours. It is nearly impossible to make a living as a classical guitarist unless you are one of a handful of incredibly talented people. On the other hand, there really aren't enough theorboes to go around these days. Charlie Weaver Sorry, buy I disagree with you, Charlie: going into the lute world through the theorbo is not really the best entrance door for New Boy. He is_beginning_with the guitar, and the theorbo has a steep learning curve for an absolute beginner. Why? Because the theorbo repertoire is not easy (Kapsberger, de Visee...). Besides, it would be quite strange if he would come to the idea of playing chamber music as a theorbist right now... First he must learn to read tablature (french_and_italian), to get a nice rich sound out of his instrument, to know a minimum of the Renaissance repertoire. Here in Spain many professional guitar players of a certain age (around 40-50) came to the early music via the theorbo, exactly because the reasons in your last paragraph: more possiblities of working and earning money. But they did it after years of work, which included learning not only the guitar, but music in general; so they could manage to make the jump in a very short time. 3 years ago I came to the lute using the theorbo door, and although I don't regret it, it could have been better. I sold my theorbo (it was quite small, only 74 cm string length) 8 months after buying it; in the meanwhile I had bought a ren lute, with which I progressed much quicker than with the theorbo. With the theorbo I got actually a pain in the left thumb (it is not so easy to hold), which lasted for a long time. It is quite usual that ex-guitar players, professionals in any case, express the advice you gave. They forget that their background and goals are not the same as the one's from an amateur; in my opinion, and with the due respect, it is not a good advice. Last curious and funny point: who bought my theorbo? It was bought by a young boy (14 years old) who plays violin since he was 5... Saludos from Barcelona Manolo Laguillo -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
Luters, I'd have to say I agree with Manolo. The theorbo presents such a mass of strings that its really a handfull compared to guitar or ren. lute. In the olden days, it seems to have been customary for would-be theorbists to study the _lute_ with a master first and then progress to the bigger instrument. As for Manolo's experience, I also must agree, although I started with lute (after playing guitar for years) and then took up theorbo. When I first started playing chitarrone, I also developed a pain in my left hand and had to re-evaluate my whole approach which had worked fine on classical guitar and, with modest concessions, with the lute. (Yep, Kapsperger, de Visee, and even Piccinini present some difficult moments!) In short: the theorbo's a beast! Chris --- Manolo Laguillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Better yet, if New Boy is interested in playing in ensembles either professionally or not, he should consider getting a theorbo. It shares many of the easy technical features of the baroque lute, and has the added advantage of being single strung and tuned almost exactly like a guitar. Anybody who has played guitar (any style) for any amount of time will immediately recognize many of the chord shapes and names on the theorbo and can generally learn to play continuo in a few months' time, provided he can read music. This opens up such a vast repertoire of chamber and orchestral music and opera that you could hardly explore it all in a lifetime, not to mention the wonderful and basically neglected (comparatively) solo repertoire. It is quite common for guitarists also to be theorbo players. This was true in de Visee's time and in ours. It is nearly impossible to make a living as a classical guitarist unless you are one of a handful of incredibly talented people. On the other hand, there really aren't enough theorboes to go around these days. Charlie Weaver Sorry, buy I disagree with you, Charlie: going into the lute world through the theorbo is not really the best entrance door for New Boy. He is_beginning_with the guitar, and the theorbo has a steep learning curve for an absolute beginner. Why? Because the theorbo repertoire is not easy (Kapsberger, de Visee...). Besides, it would be quite strange if he would come to the idea of playing chamber music as a theorbist right now... First he must learn to read tablature (french_and_italian), to get a nice rich sound out of his instrument, to know a minimum of the Renaissance repertoire. Here in Spain many professional guitar players of a certain age (around 40-50) came to the early music via the theorbo, exactly because the reasons in your last paragraph: more possiblities of working and earning money. But they did it after years of work, which included learning not only the guitar, but music in general; so they could manage to make the jump in a very short time. 3 years ago I came to the lute using the theorbo door, and although I don't regret it, it could have been better. I sold my theorbo (it was quite small, only 74 cm string length) 8 months after buying it; in the meanwhile I had bought a ren lute, with which I progressed much quicker than with the theorbo. With the theorbo I got actually a pain in the left thumb (it is not so easy to hold), which lasted for a long time. It is quite usual that ex-guitar players, professionals in any case, express the advice you gave. They forget that their background and goals are not the same as the one's from an amateur; in my opinion, and with the due respect, it is not a good advice. Last curious and funny point: who bought my theorbo? It was bought by a young boy (14 years old) who plays violin since he was 5... Saludos from Barcelona Manolo Laguillo -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2005 5:33 pm Subject: [LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute On the other hand, it is probably easier to switch from guitar to renaissance lute because of the tuning (fourths and a third). Better yet, if New Boy is interested in playing in ensembles either professionally or not, he should consider getting a theorbo. It shares many of the easy technical features of the baroque lute, and has the added advantage of being single strung and tuned almost exactly like a guitar. Michel Cardin makes this same case, but theorbo ordinarily constitutes a much more substantial monetary investment than any renaissance lute. I'm not sure any newish guitarist having never played any breed of lute before would be well advised to leap right in with commitment to the theorbo. Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: New Boy wants lute
what say we team up with a few kind words for the lute of the andes? ... hola - bill and thus i made...a small vihuela from the shell of a creepy crawly... - Don Gonzalo de Guerrero (1512), Historias de la Conquista del Mayab by Fra Joseph of San Buenaventura. go to: http://www.charango.cl/paginas/quieninvento.htm ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.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: New Boy wants lute
Questions: Why are frets made with 'gut' on a lute? Gut frets male strings last A LOT longer. Does this mean they wear out, if so how do you fix them yourself or do you need to be a professional? They do wear out, but ANYONE could tie a new fret in seconds. Do you use gut string with lutes? Will nylon ruin the sound? No. Nylon (and carbon) is a lot cheaper than gut, and most people use it. Some prefer gut sound, some prefer nylon. How bad are the old-style tuners? I heard they go out of tune a lot. Is this true, if so does it ruin the whole thing? Well made friction pegs are not prone to going out of tune escessively. Violinists and cellists (and pianists for that matter) use them, exclusively. If you get anything other than a 6 course lute, will it ruin your guitar playing? Or not? I still want to play guitar It is hard to imagine trading a Maserati for a Fiat.. Is a 6 course easier to play than 7-8 course? Or not? 13 course is the easiest. How much more difficult is it to play a lute versus a guitar? I have no idea, never played the latter. RT == http://polyhymnion.org Feci quod potui. Faciant meliora potentes. ___ $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
