[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Didn't move Tim, just a little levity to excuse my bad habit of staying up until the hours long after the wee ones. I was trying to pretend that it was still the "night before" when it was becoming the "morning after" in progressively western time zones. Still here in NJ. Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Jon, I've made two Greek lyres. The second one was better than the first. You can get turtle shells here: http:// www.skullsunlimited.com/. I recommend a snapping turtle shell; they're big enough to give you a large tympanum. The first lyre had rough branches for the arms; I ended up laminating 1/8 inch cherry over a form to make the arms on the second one, and that looked better. On the crosspiece, I used strips of leather over the wood to provide friction to tighten the strings, and little pieces of wood under the leathers to give you something to grasp to tighten the strings. If you look at details of lyres on Greek vases, they have something like that. And use goat hide for the tympanum; it's thinner and more supple than cow hide. Tandy Leather sells goat rawhide. I've been away from listservs for a while. When did you move to Hawaii? Tim On Dec 28, 2008, at 5:16 AM, Jon Murphy wrote: What an enjoyable thread, I will read the rest of it tomorrow to avoid being up until midnight Hawaiian time zone. But I must insert a comment on historical construction. I think I'll make a Greek lyre tomorrow, in my spare time. The tetrachord (and the name of the instrument escapes me) was truely that - a tonic and a perfect fourth (or fifth, depending on whether you start at the top or the bottom), and a couple of undefined intervals in between (actually there are definitions, but they are regional and ethnic). Mankind did evolve his skills, and depending on whether you are biblical or Darwinian it took either many millenia or a few. Music is one of them. Our western music is relatively unique in its evolution, our scales are basically modifications of the Greek, and our tuning temperaments are to a great extent caused by the desire for multi-voices in the Church. The oriental scales are quite different (and I use orient in the old sense that it include everything "east of Eden"). We can make a good guess that the virtuosos of olden days might have sounded a bit amateurish today, the materials and construction have improved - but that is not to knock them, simplicity has a beauty of its own. The lute is a development on the Arabic "oud", as brought into Europe by either travelers or Moorish invaders (and probably both). The oud, and the early lute, was played with a pick (ok, plectrum is the proper term) and therefore a melody instrument as the tuning isn't amenable to a broad strum - and certainly not in the Arabic scale. So far as I'm concerned the music should advance, while also keeping the traditions of sound alive (as best we can judge them). I have a collection of medieval dance tunes I play on harp and psaltery, I know I'm not in their tuning as I tune to equal temperament. We should certainly explore the sounds of old, as best we can approximate them - but we should not worship at the temple of historic sound. When I first heard the Swingle Singers doing Bach's Brandenburgs in scat my reaction was that Bach would have loved it. He had a touch of the jazz musician in him in his use of variations around a fixed theme. As one whose primary instrument is voice I have tried to transcribe early notation of the monastic chants, but am also aware that the "Gregorian chants" were notated nearly a thousand years after the Pope's death. It is all interpretation with a bit of "by guess and by golly". Notation was a late comer into the passing on of music (although there actually is some Greek notation from around 500 BC, but even that is as interpreted). Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
What an enjoyable thread, I will read the rest of it tomorrow to avoid being up until midnight Hawaiian time zone. But I must insert a comment on historical construction. I think I'll make a Greek lyre tomorrow, in my spare time. The tetrachord (and the name of the instrument escapes me) was truely that - a tonic and a perfect fourth (or fifth, depending on whether you start at the top or the bottom), and a couple of undefined intervals in between (actually there are definitions, but they are regional and ethnic). Mankind did evolve his skills, and depending on whether you are biblical or Darwinian it took either many millenia or a few. Music is one of them. Our western music is relatively unique in its evolution, our scales are basically modifications of the Greek, and our tuning temperaments are to a great extent caused by the desire for multi-voices in the Church. The oriental scales are quite different (and I use orient in the old sense that it include everything "east of Eden"). We can make a good guess that the virtuosos of olden days might have sounded a bit amateurish today, the materials and construction have improved - but that is not to knock them, simplicity has a beauty of its own. The lute is a development on the Arabic "oud", as brought into Europe by either travelers or Moorish invaders (and probably both). The oud, and the early lute, was played with a pick (ok, plectrum is the proper term) and therefore a melody instrument as the tuning isn't amenable to a broad strum - and certainly not in the Arabic scale. So far as I'm concerned the music should advance, while also keeping the traditions of sound alive (as best we can judge them). I have a collection of medieval dance tunes I play on harp and psaltery, I know I'm not in their tuning as I tune to equal temperament. We should certainly explore the sounds of old, as best we can approximate them - but we should not worship at the temple of historic sound. When I first heard the Swingle Singers doing Bach's Brandenburgs in scat my reaction was that Bach would have loved it. He had a touch of the jazz musician in him in his use of variations around a fixed theme. As one whose primary instrument is voice I have tried to transcribe early notation of the monastic chants, but am also aware that the "Gregorian chants" were notated nearly a thousand years after the Pope's death. It is all interpretation with a bit of "by guess and by golly". Notation was a late comer into the passing on of music (although there actually is some Greek notation from around 500 BC, but even that is as interpreted). Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey said: >1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. >We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of >the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant >writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. >2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously >attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Just as books were offered unbound (to be bound later), I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? >3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not >avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. >we have no hard evidence of how fast not true, the human heart beat is a strong indication of tempo, and has not changed dramatically; at least not beyond the range of variation an individual experiences in performance today. We have practical confirmation of tempo in dances with leaping steps such as the galliard, humans go up as fast and far as they like, but the come down at the speed of gravity, which has not changed significantly, and which limits the range of tempos at which galliardes can be played for live dancers. > If we had a time machine, we might go back and > embarrass ourselves mightily. Dance music gives us a sort of time machine, English country dance remains popular today and is a sort of link to the past in that many of the tunes found in Playfords 1651 edition were known a century or more before, and remain in use today. The dances he describes from then are enjoyed today (Jenny pluck pears, Grimstock, Rufty Tufty ...) with gusto. Doesnt matter if the band is playing hoboys, violins, orpharions and viols da gamba; a good time will be had by the dancers so long as the refreshments hold out. -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey said: >1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. >We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of >the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant >writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. >2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously >attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Nobody played >them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite >playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course >renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for >example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - >from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. Just as books were offered sans bindings, I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? >3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not >avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. >we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what >inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we >can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. >Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus >indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection >markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the >style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and >embarrass ourselves mightily. > > > >Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to >the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology >was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from >the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain >their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and >tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like >the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, >the whole viral modern publicist path. > > > >So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to >play, to last and to please. So far so good. > > > >Rob Dorsey > >[1]http://LuteCraft.com > >-- > > References > >1. http://LuteCraft.com/ > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- Dana Emery
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey said: >1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. >We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of >the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant >writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. >2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously >attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Nobody played >them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite >playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course >renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for >example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - >from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. Just as books were offered sans bindings, I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? >3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not >avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. >we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what >inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we >can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. >Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus >indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection >markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the >style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and >embarrass ourselves mightily. > > > >Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to >the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology >was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from >the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain >their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and >tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like >the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, >the whole viral modern publicist path. > > > >So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to >play, to last and to please. So far so good. > > > >Rob Dorsey > >[1]http://LuteCraft.com > >-- > > References > >1. http://LuteCraft.com/ > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- Dana Emery
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey said: >1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. >We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of >the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant >writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. >2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously >attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Nobody played >them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite >playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course >renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for >example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - >from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. Just as books were offered sans bindings, I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? >3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not >avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. >we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what >inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we >can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. >Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus >indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection >markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the >style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and >embarrass ourselves mightily. > > > >Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to >the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology >was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from >the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain >their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and >tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like >the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, >the whole viral modern publicist path. > > > >So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to >play, to last and to please. So far so good. > > > >Rob Dorsey > >[1]http://LuteCraft.com > >-- > > References > >1. http://LuteCraft.com/ > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- Dana Emery
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey said: >1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. >We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of >the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant >writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. >2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously >attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Nobody played >them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite >playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course >renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for >example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - >from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. Just as books were offered sans bindings, I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? >3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not >avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. >we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what >inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we >can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. >Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus >indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection >markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the >style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and >embarrass ourselves mightily. > > > >Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to >the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology >was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from >the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain >their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and >tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like >the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, >the whole viral modern publicist path. > > > >So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to >play, to last and to please. So far so good. > > > >Rob Dorsey > >[1]http://LuteCraft.com > >-- > > References > >1. http://LuteCraft.com/ > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- Dana Emery
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008, Rob Dorsey said: >1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. >We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of >the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant >writings. All true, but, we have our own ears, and they too must be convinced; IMHO we need to explore the music and see what can be done with it on reasonable approximations of the instruments. After several decades of exploration we have numerous soloists and ensembles who have done this, some of them are making most excellent and enjoyable music; the ultimate test of any makers work. And, we do have at least one indication that a particular makers work was generally thought most excellent by his contemporarys and successors, that of Laux Maler; we can (have, and will) look to his surviving instruments as works to be studied. >2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously >attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. including the howling-dog headed NMM 13500 cittern recently bought at auction :-) Nobody played >them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite >playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course >renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for >example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - >from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. Just as books were offered sans bindings, I suspect instruments were often sold in a choice of cases (including none); modern makers are disinclined to spend working time making mere cases, why should period luthiers have thought any less practically? >3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not >avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. Woods yes, but glues, well, Yes, there are alternatives with special properties that make them reasonable in certain uses (ACC/Superglue for securing fine cracks for example). Todays apprentice maker brings a cavalier attitude towards the choice of glue to his work. There are reasons for prefering certain glues over others on each of several joints in our work. The one thing we do know, it is hard to go wrong by choosing hide glue; it was the generally used glue historically. Yes, there was also fish glue, casein glue, shellac, gum arabic, pitch and other adhesives; but the ubiquitous pot of hide glue was always in the corner ready for use, it was the casual glue historically. >we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what >inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we >can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. >Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus >indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection >markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the >style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and >embarrass ourselves mightily. > > > >Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to >the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology >was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from >the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain >their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and >tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like >the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, >the whole viral modern publicist path. > > > >So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to >play, to last and to please. So far so good. > > > >Rob Dorsey > >[1]http://LuteCraft.com > >-- > > References > >1. http://LuteCraft.com/ > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- Dana Emery
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
All, I regret that I must take exception to the idea that attempting to replicate historical construction techniques somehow gives us entry into the way the music sounded way back then. This, in my opinion, is for several reasons: (Please understand that I am basically a maker of baroque instruments so I'm mostly referring to that period and it's instruments.) 1. We have no idea what historical musical presentation sounded like. We can only infer from the notations on the tablature and the style of the instruments along with basically anecdotal comments in extant writings. I play trombone. I happen to have a 1925 King in good condition and I can listen to recordings of Author Pryor and Miff Mole and work to duplicate their phrasing, attack and tempos. We have no idea how fast, loud or even well the period lutenists played. 2. It is very possible that the extant instruments we so arduously attempt to replicate were dogs and that's why they exist. Nobody played them. They have spent their lives in cases in closets. The favorite playable instruments, many recycled from earlier lutes - 10 course renaissance lutes turned into 11 and 13 course baroque instruments for example - had hard playing lives and we can infer - that word again - from art that they hung on the wall and were treated quite casually. My guess is that many of the favorite "players" are dust now or were turned into hurdy gurdys in the 19th century. The protected instruments may be unpleasant to play or even unplayable. Beauty really can be just skin deep. 3. I too cannot believe that renaissance or baroque builders would not avail themselves of modern available woods or glues. So in our quest to build instruments for a music where: we have no idea how it sounded; we have no hard evidence of how fast or with what inflections it was played, we latch onto the only concrete thing we can. We try to replicate instruments extant in museums and collections. Then we take the written music we have - a wonderfully rich corpus indeed I must admit - read the performance notes and inflection markings, try to interpret them, and play in what we believe to be the style of the period. If we had a time machine, we might go back and embarrass ourselves mightily. Or, we can build lutes of stable and beautiful woods not available to the ancients, put together with glues and adhesives who's technology was not even envisioned and strung with state of the art strings from the 21st century. These instruments will last much longer, maintain their appearance much longer and, using that same written music and tab, produce sounds that will please the contemporary ear. People like the sound, buy the CDs, tell their friends, get you on a radio spot, the whole viral modern publicist path. So, for myself, I reject lute building as a study in dogma. I build to play, to last and to please. So far so good. Rob Dorsey [1]http://LuteCraft.com -- References 1. http://LuteCraft.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Santiago, I found your post amusing, because I actually am trained as an archaeologist. But I understand your point. At this point I am making lutes for myself and am still grappling with the basics of construction. I feel no inhibition to changing string spacing to fit my hands, which are large, somewhat arthritic, and fumbling. My lutes fit me, and that is all I worry about. We cannot build a 16th century lute. It isn't the 16th century. The wood is different, the gut is different. To me, the value of rigorous historically-informed construction is that it suggests what the original experience of playing and listening to a lute might have been. We will never really know, but rigorously following historical precedent gives us an idea. What we make of that idea is up to every builder, musician, and audience member. Fortunately, there is no lute papacy to determine orthodoxy. I was amused by an article in a recent Lute Society Quarterly about x- raying historical lutes. It seems that some of the instruments examined had the ends of the ribs simply broken off underneath the end cap and the void filled with glue. I had done that with a few ribs on the first couple of lutes I had made and I hoped no one ever found out how bad my workmanship was. But it seems that I was following historical precedent after all! So historical precedent is where you find it. Tim On Dec 20, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Santiago Ramos-Collado wrote: > Greetings. > > A maverick or heretic? Perhaps more of a visionary. Please, allow > me for one second to push heresy a couple of notches further. > > Why should historical instruments be built historically? Will the > use of historical methods, instrumentation and tooling actually > result in a superior instrument? I do not think so. > > Tradition is extremely important, inasmuch as it illustrates a way, > a path to follow; it affords us methods that have worked well for > decades, or even centuries. It offers a boundless source of > knowledge. It is, nevertheless, ever changing, evolving. What is > done effectively and efficiently today will surely become > tomorrow's tradition. However, when tradition ceases to evolve, it > dies, and thus, falls under the realm of archeology. And most > certainly, we are not archeologists; we are people who intend to > build lutes, who are seeking for efficient ways to achieve that end. > > I am of the opinion that Tielke, for instance, would have never, > ever regarded his instruments as historical or traditional, but > rather as contemporary, since they were instruments he built for > lutenists of his own day. If he were around today, he would > probably draw his plans with AutoCad, use molds made out of > fiberglass or ABS, carve his rosettes with laser, and fit his lutes > with Savarez strings, planetary pegs and Dunlop straplocks (that > is, provided that he were building lutes, and not--let's say-- > electric guitars). Anyone would be able to find him readily at > www.tielkelau...@freenet.de. We should all think about that, I > believe, when building a lute in the dawn of the 21st century. > > Best regards and season's greetings to all, > > S. Ramos-Collado > > > --- El jue 18-dic-08, Rob Dorsey escribió: > De: Rob Dorsey > Asunto: [LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build. > A: "'Timothy Motz'" , > dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us > Cc: lute-buil...@cs.dartmouth.edu > Fecha: jueves, 18 diciembre, 2008, 11:44 am > > Let me preface this post by saying that I consider Robert Lundberg the > greatest American Lute maker, living or dead. He was a true master > producing > master works. > > I learned my building from Bob Lundberg in his shop during the > 1980s. I was > somewhat surprised by some of the offerings in the book as the > processes > were not all exactly as I had learned. Experience has made me alter my > building procedures even more from that initial tuition to suit my own > vision of the instrument. I found that Bob's fealty to exact > historical > precedent, while not slavish or dogmatic, carried an importance that I > thought unnecessary to modern playing. He was, however, just what > the HIP > advocate ordered. > > I, therefore, have assumed a comfortable position of maverick or > outright > heretic in my building techniques and uses of modern available > woods. I > depart from Bob's teaching in adhesive choices and uses, hardwood > applications and string tensions. My barring has matured with time > and my > top thicknessing scheme has evolved as well. Bob would be > interested in some > of those innovations, aghast at others. But, he might be gratified > that I > to
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Greetings.
A maverick or heretic? Perhaps more of a visionary. Please, allow me
for one second to push heresy a couple of notches further.
Why should historical instruments be built historically? Will the use
of historical methods, instrumentation and tooling actually result in a
superior instrument? I do not think so.
Tradition is extremely important, inasmuch as it illustrates a way, a
path to follow; it affords us methods that have worked well for
decades, or even centuries. It offers a boundless source of knowledge.
It is, nevertheless, ever changing, evolving. What is done effectively
and efficiently today will surely become tomorrow's tradition. However,
when tradition ceases to evolve, it dies, and thus, falls under the
realm of archeology. And most certainly, we are not archeologists; we
are people who intend to build lutes, who are seeking for efficient
ways to achieve that end.
I am of the opinion that Tielke, for instance, would have never,
ever regarded his instruments as historical or traditional, but rather
as contemporary, since they were instruments he built for lutenists of
his own day. If he were around today, he would probably draw his plans
with AutoCad, use molds made out of fiberglass or ABS, carve his
rosettes with laser, and fit his lutes with Savarez strings, planetary
pegs and Dunlop straplocks (that is, provided that he were building
lutes, and not--let's say--electric guitars). Anyone would be able to
find him readily at [1]www.tielkelau...@freenet.de. We should all think
about that, I believe, when building a lute in the dawn of the 21st
century.
Best regards and season's greetings to all,
S. Ramos-Collado
--- El jue 18-dic-08, Rob Dorsey escribiA^3:
De: Rob Dorsey
Asunto: [LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
A: "'Timothy Motz'" ,
dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us
Cc: lute-buil...@cs.dartmouth.edu
Fecha: jueves, 18 diciembre, 2008, 11:44 am
Let me preface this post by saying that I consider Robert Lundberg the
greatest American Lute maker, living or dead. He was a true master producing
master works.
I learned my building from Bob Lundberg in his shop during the 1980s. I was
somewhat surprised by some of the offerings in the book as the processes
were not all exactly as I had learned. Experience has made me alter my
building procedures even more from that initial tuition to suit my own
vision of the instrument. I found that Bob's fealty to exact historical
precedent, while not slavish or dogmatic, carried an importance that I
thought unnecessary to modern playing. He was, however, just what the HIP
advocate ordered.
I, therefore, have assumed a comfortable position of maverick or outright
heretic in my building techniques and uses of modern available woods. I
depart from Bob's teaching in adhesive choices and uses, hardwood
applications and string tensions. My barring has matured with time and my
top thicknessing scheme has evolved as well. Bob would be interested in some
of those innovations, aghast at others. But, he might be gratified that I
toast him often and keep a worn copy of his book right beside my own
building notes on the shelf in the shop.
"From each according to his gifts." Read the book, it has much to
offer if
not everything.
Rob Dorsey
http://LuteCraft.com
-Original Message-
From: Timothy Motz [mailto:tam...@buckeye-express.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:05 PM
To: dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us
Cc: lute-buil...@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Someone once told me that I needed to read the book, but that no one would
really build lutes that way. Having read the book, I would agree. I'm
glad
he wrote the book and I refer to it a lot, but I wouldn't build a lute that
way.
Tim Motz
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
__
A!Todo sobre Amor y Sexo!
La guAa completa para tu vida en Mujer de Hoy:
http://mujerdehoy.telemundo.yahoo.com/ --
References
1. http://www.tielkelau...@freenet.de/
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Yes lighting is everything. I'm sure north light was the be all end all of lighting. Today I have seen luthiers do certain tasks at certain times of day when the light is right. I dream of a north light studio even a tiny one please. Ken -- Original message -- From: Timothy Motz > Someone once told me that I needed to read the book, but that no one > would really build lutes that way. Having read the book, I would > agree. I'm glad he wrote the book and I refer to it a lot, but I > wouldn't build a lute that way. > > Tim Motz > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 8:12 PM, wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008, kenp...@comcast.net said: > > > >> Hi. > >> I can't speak with authority but I think the Lundberg as great as > >> it is did not work out as had been hoped. > > > > Yes, He gave a series of lectures in germany; the book pulls that > > material > > together. There was considerable trouble getting the results > > published, > > no one thought it could ever sell; I suspect he aimed the lectures at > > people with some experience in building, using a variety of > > methods. It > > really is hard to do things entirely using historical technology. > > Lighting is something we all take for granted for example, try > > working by > > lantern and firelight alone sometime; I will grant you modern windows > > (instead of oiled parchment in frames). > > -- > > Dana Emery > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Let me preface this post by saying that I consider Robert Lundberg the greatest American Lute maker, living or dead. He was a true master producing master works. I learned my building from Bob Lundberg in his shop during the 1980s. I was somewhat surprised by some of the offerings in the book as the processes were not all exactly as I had learned. Experience has made me alter my building procedures even more from that initial tuition to suit my own vision of the instrument. I found that Bob's fealty to exact historical precedent, while not slavish or dogmatic, carried an importance that I thought unnecessary to modern playing. He was, however, just what the HIP advocate ordered. I, therefore, have assumed a comfortable position of maverick or outright heretic in my building techniques and uses of modern available woods. I depart from Bob's teaching in adhesive choices and uses, hardwood applications and string tensions. My barring has matured with time and my top thicknessing scheme has evolved as well. Bob would be interested in some of those innovations, aghast at others. But, he might be gratified that I toast him often and keep a worn copy of his book right beside my own building notes on the shelf in the shop. "From each according to his gifts." Read the book, it has much to offer if not everything. Rob Dorsey http://LuteCraft.com -Original Message- From: Timothy Motz [mailto:tam...@buckeye-express.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:05 PM To: dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us Cc: lute-buil...@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build. Someone once told me that I needed to read the book, but that no one would really build lutes that way. Having read the book, I would agree. I'm glad he wrote the book and I refer to it a lot, but I wouldn't build a lute that way. Tim Motz To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Someone once told me that I needed to read the book, but that no one would really build lutes that way. Having read the book, I would agree. I'm glad he wrote the book and I refer to it a lot, but I wouldn't build a lute that way. Tim Motz On Dec 17, 2008, at 8:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2008, kenp...@comcast.net said: Hi. I can't speak with authority but I think the Lundberg as great as it is did not work out as had been hoped. Yes, He gave a series of lectures in germany; the book pulls that material together. There was considerable trouble getting the results published, no one thought it could ever sell; I suspect he aimed the lectures at people with some experience in building, using a variety of methods. It really is hard to do things entirely using historical technology. Lighting is something we all take for granted for example, try working by lantern and firelight alone sometime; I will grant you modern windows (instead of oiled parchment in frames). -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008, kenp...@comcast.net said: > Hi. > I can't speak with authority but I think the Lundberg as great as it is did > not work out as had been hoped. Yes, He gave a series of lectures in germany; the book pulls that material together. There was considerable trouble getting the results published, no one thought it could ever sell; I suspect he aimed the lectures at people with some experience in building, using a variety of methods. It really is hard to do things entirely using historical technology. Lighting is something we all take for granted for example, try working by lantern and firelight alone sometime; I will grant you modern windows (instead of oiled parchment in frames). -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Read the foreword, introduction, what-have-you. I know, I know, who wants to read introductions and forewords? In this case, it's enlightening. I'd be more specific as to intro or foreword, but I can't lay my hands on my copy right now. Still, it should answer some of those nagging questions. I always felt like Lundberg wasn't trying to show me how to build a lute, but rather he gave glimpses of how he built his lutes. Sort of like visiting his workshop and watching him. I agree that David Van Edwards course plus Lundberg's book is a formidable combination. Augment that with knowledge gleaned ( or wrested in some cases) from here, and you've got everything you need to start the process. Interestingly enough, after a sacroiliac injury, I'm seriously thinking about building a flat backed lute just so I can have an instrument to play whilst laying about on the heating pad. Good luck! Garry -Original Message- From: kenp...@comcast.net [mailto:kenp...@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:37 PM To: luciano bernardi; lute-buil...@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build. Hi. I can't speak with authority but I think the Lundberg as great as it is did not work out as had been hoped. There are great holes in the work and it can in no way be called a true how to. I don't know why but these holes were never filled. I suspect Lundberg's poor health interfered. For example Lundberg starts out by making a mold which is not faceted. Then in the next installment he begins to install ribs onto a mold which is faceted. How did he get to that point? The real value of the book is in the theory section. However with Van Edwards in hand the practicum section of Lundberg made more sense to me. I valued being able to see how great instruments were made in 2 very different ways. Ken -- Original message -- From: luciano bernardi > Hi, > I have used Lundberg instructions for my 2 first lutes. Indeed it worked > well for me, but I had some previous general knowledge of woodworking and > musical instruments construction. > I have found that -again in my opinion- David's courses are much more deep > and detailed, so very useful not only for absolute novices, but also for > some (self-supposing) little more experienced people like me. > Sincerely, > Luciano > > > On 15-12-2008 22:11, Rob Dorsey, r...@dorseymail.com wrote: > > > Like so many things in life, the best way to learn lute building is to do > > it. Build a lute. > > > > I most highly recommend Robert Lundberg's book "Historical Lute > > Construction" available through the Lute Society. First carve your mold (I > > do not personally believe in the skeletal molds but rather the solid forms) > > and then start building. A 6 course renaissance instrument is a good > > starter. Take your time and don't be afraid of mistakes, you will make them. > > And, in correcting them you will learn the real luthier's magic - a good > > recovery. A good recovery is worth a thousand first time completions. > > > > Build, it's how you learn to build, > > > > Rob Dorsey > > http://LuteCraft.com > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us [mailto:dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us] > > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:14 PM > > To: lute-buil...@cs.dartmouth.edu > > Subject: [LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build. > > > > Hello Paul: > > > >>> I am considering building a lute. Unfortunately, I have little > >>> knowledge of the lute other that hearing the wonderful, mellow tone of > >>> the lute on various recordings. I see there are plans available for > >>> building various types of lutes. Does any one know of a resource that > >>> has a list of the various types of lutes and a sound sampling of each > >>> type? > > > > it is diffucult to list and describe instruments which failed to survive but > > are known to have existed. > > > > How the lute was used has changed considerably over the centuries it has > > been in use in europe. Three and four instruments of differant pitches, > > each a 5 or 6 course instrument might take the several parts of a motet, > > madrigal, partsong or what have you. An instrument for accompanying voice > > might have extra bass strings and benefit from a larger body, but could be > > tuned in the tenor range (G lute); or Alto (A lute). > > > > As we get later in the repetoire, lutes are more used for basso continuo > > with large body size and exended necks for bass string sets which came to > > resemble har
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Hi. I can't speak with authority but I think the Lundberg as great as it is did not work out as had been hoped. There are great holes in the work and it can in no way be called a true how to. I don't know why but these holes were never filled. I suspect Lundberg's poor health interfered. For example Lundberg starts out by making a mold which is not faceted. Then in the next installment he begins to install ribs onto a mold which is faceted. How did he get to that point? The real value of the book is in the theory section. However with Van Edwards in hand the practicum section of Lundberg made more sense to me. I valued being able to see how great instruments were made in 2 very different ways. Ken -- Original message -- From: luciano bernardi > Hi, > I have used Lundberg instructions for my 2 first lutes. Indeed it worked > well for me, but I had some previous general knowledge of woodworking and > musical instruments construction. > I have found that -again in my opinion- David's courses are much more deep > and detailed, so very useful not only for absolute novices, but also for > some (self-supposing) little more experienced people like me. > Sincerely, > Luciano > > > On 15-12-2008 22:11, Rob Dorsey, r...@dorseymail.com wrote: > > > Like so many things in life, the best way to learn lute building is to do > > it. Build a lute. > > > > I most highly recommend Robert Lundberg's book "Historical Lute > > Construction" available through the Lute Society. First carve your mold (I > > do not personally believe in the skeletal molds but rather the solid forms) > > and then start building. A 6 course renaissance instrument is a good > > starter. Take your time and don't be afraid of mistakes, you will make them. > > And, in correcting them you will learn the real luthier's magic - a good > > recovery. A good recovery is worth a thousand first time completions. > > > > Build, it's how you learn to build, > > > > Rob Dorsey > > http://LuteCraft.com > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us [mailto:dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us] > > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:14 PM > > To: lute-buil...@cs.dartmouth.edu > > Subject: [LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build. > > > > Hello Paul: > > > >>> I am considering building a lute. Unfortunately, I have little > >>> knowledge of the lute other that hearing the wonderful, mellow tone of > >>> the lute on various recordings. I see there are plans available for > >>> building various types of lutes. Does any one know of a resource that > >>> has a list of the various types of lutes and a sound sampling of each > >>> type? > > > > it is diffucult to list and describe instruments which failed to survive but > > are known to have existed. > > > > How the lute was used has changed considerably over the centuries it has > > been in use in europe. Three and four instruments of differant pitches, > > each a 5 or 6 course instrument might take the several parts of a motet, > > madrigal, partsong or what have you. An instrument for accompanying voice > > might have extra bass strings and benefit from a larger body, but could be > > tuned in the tenor range (G lute); or Alto (A lute). > > > > As we get later in the repetoire, lutes are more used for basso continuo > > with large body size and exended necks for bass string sets which came to > > resemble harps, and replicas begin to need their own tickets to fly. > > > > Laux Maler made excellent lutes in the late 1500's, much valued by later > > generations; worthy of being converted into 9,10,11,12+ course instruments; > > so much so that few if any survive today with original neck and top. > > > > Douglas Alton Smith has a book out on the history of the lute, Lundberg has > > another on Historical Lute Construction; both are complements to the Dave > > Van Edwards DVD course. Galpin Society Journal, Oxfords quarterly _Early > > Music_, Early Music America, the journals and magazines of Lute Society, > > Lute Society of America, and the numerous other lute societys are all of > > interest if you are seeking reading material. > > -- > > Dana Emery > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > >
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Hi, I have used Lundberg instructions for my 2 first lutes. Indeed it worked well for me, but I had some previous general knowledge of woodworking and musical instruments construction. I have found that -again in my opinion- David's courses are much more deep and detailed, so very useful not only for absolute novices, but also for some (self-supposing) little more experienced people like me. Sincerely, Luciano On 15-12-2008 22:11, Rob Dorsey, r...@dorseymail.com wrote: > Like so many things in life, the best way to learn lute building is to do > it. Build a lute. > > I most highly recommend Robert Lundberg's book "Historical Lute > Construction" available through the Lute Society. First carve your mold (I > do not personally believe in the skeletal molds but rather the solid forms) > and then start building. A 6 course renaissance instrument is a good > starter. Take your time and don't be afraid of mistakes, you will make them. > And, in correcting them you will learn the real luthier's magic - a good > recovery. A good recovery is worth a thousand first time completions. > > Build, it's how you learn to build, > > Rob Dorsey > http://LuteCraft.com > > > -Original Message- > From: dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us [mailto:dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:14 PM > To: lute-buil...@cs.dartmouth.edu > Subject: [LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build. > > Hello Paul: > >>> I am considering building a lute. Unfortunately, I have little >>> knowledge of the lute other that hearing the wonderful, mellow tone of >>> the lute on various recordings. I see there are plans available for >>> building various types of lutes. Does any one know of a resource that >>> has a list of the various types of lutes and a sound sampling of each >>> type? > > it is diffucult to list and describe instruments which failed to survive but > are known to have existed. > > How the lute was used has changed considerably over the centuries it has > been in use in europe. Three and four instruments of differant pitches, > each a 5 or 6 course instrument might take the several parts of a motet, > madrigal, partsong or what have you. An instrument for accompanying voice > might have extra bass strings and benefit from a larger body, but could be > tuned in the tenor range (G lute); or Alto (A lute). > > As we get later in the repetoire, lutes are more used for basso continuo > with large body size and exended necks for bass string sets which came to > resemble harps, and replicas begin to need their own tickets to fly. > > Laux Maler made excellent lutes in the late 1500's, much valued by later > generations; worthy of being converted into 9,10,11,12+ course instruments; > so much so that few if any survive today with original neck and top. > > Douglas Alton Smith has a book out on the history of the lute, Lundberg has > another on Historical Lute Construction; both are complements to the Dave > Van Edwards DVD course. Galpin Society Journal, Oxfords quarterly _Early > Music_, Early Music America, the journals and magazines of Lute Society, > Lute Society of America, and the numerous other lute societys are all of > interest if you are seeking reading material. > -- > Dana Emery > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Like so many things in life, the best way to learn lute building is to do it. Build a lute. I most highly recommend Robert Lundberg's book "Historical Lute Construction" available through the Lute Society. First carve your mold (I do not personally believe in the skeletal molds but rather the solid forms) and then start building. A 6 course renaissance instrument is a good starter. Take your time and don't be afraid of mistakes, you will make them. And, in correcting them you will learn the real luthier's magic - a good recovery. A good recovery is worth a thousand first time completions. Build, it's how you learn to build, Rob Dorsey http://LuteCraft.com -Original Message- From: dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us [mailto:dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:14 PM To: lute-buil...@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build. Hello Paul: >> I am considering building a lute. Unfortunately, I have little >> knowledge of the lute other that hearing the wonderful, mellow tone of >> the lute on various recordings. I see there are plans available for >> building various types of lutes. Does any one know of a resource that >> has a list of the various types of lutes and a sound sampling of each >> type? it is diffucult to list and describe instruments which failed to survive but are known to have existed. How the lute was used has changed considerably over the centuries it has been in use in europe. Three and four instruments of differant pitches, each a 5 or 6 course instrument might take the several parts of a motet, madrigal, partsong or what have you. An instrument for accompanying voice might have extra bass strings and benefit from a larger body, but could be tuned in the tenor range (G lute); or Alto (A lute). As we get later in the repetoire, lutes are more used for basso continuo with large body size and exended necks for bass string sets which came to resemble harps, and replicas begin to need their own tickets to fly. Laux Maler made excellent lutes in the late 1500's, much valued by later generations; worthy of being converted into 9,10,11,12+ course instruments; so much so that few if any survive today with original neck and top. Douglas Alton Smith has a book out on the history of the lute, Lundberg has another on Historical Lute Construction; both are complements to the Dave Van Edwards DVD course. Galpin Society Journal, Oxfords quarterly _Early Music_, Early Music America, the journals and magazines of Lute Society, Lute Society of America, and the numerous other lute societys are all of interest if you are seeking reading material. -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Hello Paul: >> I am considering building a lute. Unfortunately, I have little >> knowledge of the lute other that hearing the wonderful, mellow tone of >> the lute on various recordings. I see there are plans available for >> building various types of lutes. Does any one know of a resource that >> has a list of the various types of lutes and a sound sampling of each >> type? it is diffucult to list and describe instruments which failed to survive but are known to have existed. How the lute was used has changed considerably over the centuries it has been in use in europe. Three and four instruments of differant pitches, each a 5 or 6 course instrument might take the several parts of a motet, madrigal, partsong or what have you. An instrument for accompanying voice might have extra bass strings and benefit from a larger body, but could be tuned in the tenor range (G lute); or Alto (A lute). As we get later in the repetoire, lutes are more used for basso continuo with large body size and exended necks for bass string sets which came to resemble harps, and replicas begin to need their own tickets to fly. Laux Maler made excellent lutes in the late 1500's, much valued by later generations; worthy of being converted into 9,10,11,12+ course instruments; so much so that few if any survive today with original neck and top. Douglas Alton Smith has a book out on the history of the lute, Lundberg has another on Historical Lute Construction; both are complements to the Dave Van Edwards DVD course. Galpin Society Journal, Oxfords quarterly _Early Music_, Early Music America, the journals and magazines of Lute Society, Lute Society of America, and the numerous other lute societys are all of interest if you are seeking reading material. -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: What to build.
Hello Paul: I would strongly suggest that you look into David Van Edwards WONDERFUL course on the building of either a Renaissance or Baroque lute Which type of lute you build will actually depend on the music you wish to play and the level of your skills. I think the baroque lute might be a little more daunting if only for the construction of the neck and fingerboard as well as the bass rider. If you want to play the music of Bach or Weiss, then the Baroque. If you are interested in the music of Dowland, Da Milano etc then the Renaissance lute. After this decision is made while at the professional level there are going to be differences between which kind of Baroque or Renaissance instrument you are going to build be it a Tielke or Mahler or Venere or Hoffman, for the beginning luthier this kind of differentiation should be less of a concern than picking a good representative example of the type of lute which allows you to play the music you wish and then make it as well as possible and that with good guidance. In general lutes are among the richest sounding plucked instruments we have anyway and I don't think you can go wrong using any good historical example as a guide actually. David used a Hoffman 13c lute for his baroque course (Hoffman being one of the greatest instrument builders of any age - he was the builder to JS Bach no less) and a lovely instrument based on the George Gerle lute of 1560 for his Renaissance course There is a lot of "special" things which must be done to build an instrument like a lute and as well these things really need to be done in a certain order - David's course covers these things and gives you wonderful information as well. I would also suggest you look at his web site and see the instruments he builds.. http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/ I am especially fond of his realization of the Leopold Widhalm 13c baroque lute as well as the 6-8 course Renaissance lute in G after VVendelio Venere 1592. I think one cannot do better than to do his course. As far as the "mellow" quality of lutes you hear on recordings, by the way, I would say first that a lot of the sound quality you might hear on a disc relates as much to touch of the player as to the instrument and also to the recording venue and equipment used for the recordings. I worked for decades in ultra high end audio design and also with Kavi Alexander at Waterlily Acoustics doing several recordings one of Ali Akbar Kahn and can attest to the differences which varying recording chains can create in the overall sound. In general the quality of the instrument at least with respect to the materials used, absolutely rests with the choice of woods for the top. Yes the staves if they are of blackwood or rosewood etc figured maple will have an effect, but the quality of the top is ultimately the most important. As important too is your woodworking skills. one can get a C- sound from an AAA top simply by rushing the project and by not paying CAREFUL attention to the thicknesses of the top and the bracing. David goes into great detail here. Finally , and all things being equal, your strings will have a good deal to say as to the final character of sound you will ultimately attain. Carbon fiber is a bright and brilliant sound , many baroque players use carbon fiber, while nylgut will give a bit richer sound and is also preferred by many. In general real gut strings will give you the roundest and richest sound (in my opinion) of all. Good luck with your project! - Original Message - From: "Paul Daverman" To: Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:52 AM Subject: [LUTE-BUILDER] What to build. I am considering building a lute. Unfortunately, I have little knowledge of the lute other that hearing the wonderful, mellow tone of the lute on various recordings. I see there are plans available for building various types of lutes. Does any one know of a resource that has a list of the various types of lutes and a sound sampling of each type? So far, I have built a dulcimer (hammered), two mandolins, and am currently working on a violin. (I also built two ukuleles for the kids, but somehow it doesn't seem like those count.) I am looking to build a plucked instrument with a richer, more mellow sound than the mandolins. Any ideas on what type of lute? Thanks for any suggestions. Paul -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
