Re: Neceffarie obferuations
Michael, Ed are you basing your theory on iconographical evidence? If so, Baron very clearly states to play half way between the rose and the bridge, at least for the German style. I think with less tension one could risk the clashing of courses, when played with any forcefulness, some that would be needed in 1750. Doesn't that depend on the overall length of the instrument? And the placement of the rose? I have a Bolivian charango that I've modified to make a Scots mandora (as classified in the Skene Mandora Book). It has a 31cm VL, and the neck to body ratio is quite different than the renaissance G lute. And unless I'm wrong I think the neck to body length ratio is also different among the lutes, the Baroque being a bit more neck than the renaissance. The rose is fixed to the best point of the body/soundboard for resonance, whatever the overall VL from bridge to nut. On my modified charango (I alternately call it a chandora or a mandango) I get the best sound by playing at the north end of the rose, but that places my pluck at about the same point (on a percent of VL) as a renaissance lute played south of the rose.I suggest that the variation of RH position is less the relationship to the rose than the relationship to the overall VL. As to tension, the lighter the tension the greater the displacement of the string at the pluck point given the same manual stroke. But the vibrating width is defined at the mid point of the string, the tonic note full length vibration, no matter where it is plucked. I'm not sure (but intend to test it), but I think that the displacement at the tonic mid point is greater than the displacement of the pluck when the pluck is hard and near the end. The string takes energy from the pluck, then divides that energy into its complex vibration. So, if I am right, the courses could easily clash at the midpoint on a lower tension instrument (given that it is easier to make a large displacement at the pluck point). I do hope I've explained my mental picture of this clearly, but I may not have. So I ask that you not criticize before considering. And my thoughts do depend on my assumption that the energy imparted to the string will make a wider swing at the central point (not node, the nodes are the negatives in displacement). And that latter brings up an argument of physics, wave versus particle. I am told by a member of the lute-builder's list that the displacement of the string doesn't echo from nut to bridge and back, but that the complex nodes of the vibrating strings become instantaneously in effect all at once. Don't ask me to explain this, I don't understand it. But it does match the effect. Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
I am reminded of an old joke. The searcher for truth is in search of the ultimate guru. He travels to India and Napal, he works his way through the villages, climbing ever higher into the Himalayas. He follows every lead in his search. After years of trekking, and always uphill, he finally comes to the place he is being guided to. There is a mystic in a cave, a great ascetic who contemplates everything. Oh ultimate guru, tell me the meaning of life. Life is a fountain, my son. Damn it to hell, I climb every mountain, I seek through the villages, I spend years looking for the ultimate guru to tell me the meaning of life - and all you can say is Life is a fountain. The guru says isn't it?. I work my butt off and wear down my fingers and now you tell me that Dowland liked thumb over?. Ah so, like the guru, whose disappointment had to be greater than the seeker's - after all he had devoted a life to the principle that life is a fountain, and a life on a mountain top, whereas the seeker had only wasted a few years - I wonder at any absolute. O'Carolan was the definitive Irish harpist of the 18th C., he was blind (as were many early harpists, a good job for the blind who couldn't bring in the harvest). What if there were a fine lutenist without a thumb? Would he be able to play the songs of the time with the other four fingers, I think he would have found a way. Not the same sound exactly, but he might have started a four finger school of the lute, were he skilled enough. And we might all be playing without using the thumb if the cognoscenti of his time decided that his technique was best. Oh tempore, oh mores - and who was the Paris Hilton of the renaissance? (Pompadour might have a claim to her time). Best, Jon Michael Thames wrote: Is Dowland suggesting thumb out, rather than thumb under? Yes. It comes up pretty often here. There's a remark in Johann Stobaeus' manuscript that Dowland changed from thumb-in to thumb-out in mid-career. For newbies, here's a more complete quote from Dowland: ...stretch out your Thombe with all the force you can, especially if thy Thombe be short, so that the other fingers may be carried in a manner of a fist, and let the Thombe be held higher then [sic] them, this in the beginning will be hard. Yet they which have a short Thombe may imitate those which strike the strings with the Thombe under the other fingers, which though it be nothing so elegant, yet to them it will be more easie. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
Matt, got to this one second - already answered your direct email. Thanks for the historical references, they are interesting and informative. You properly say that the p/i thumb under technique derives from the use of the quill pick in the early music. As do others in this thread (including myself). But what seems to be left out of the thread is the stroke. Damiano (current) makes a distinction between the finger articulation of polyphony and the forearm stroke of the p/i thumb under. The latter duplicates the stroke on the quill pick, using the entire forearm to make the sound. When one adds additional notes to the stroke one must use more RH fingers (obviously). The modern mandolin player in a country band uses a wrist action with his little plastic pick, but I doubt that could have been done with the more unwieldy quill pick. So it seems likely that the stroke was full forearm (weaker on the upbeat). It is consistant that the change to thumb out would come with the advent of using the instrument for a polyphonic line. One would want the strong sound in the bass to hold through the divisions in the treble. The instrument became two voiced. The lower voice being a line to play off of. Sometimes contrapuntal and sometimes harmonic, but always needing to carry against the divisions. Thumb over or thumb under, the thumb can make a nice legato in the bass, but I see little difference. The difference seems to be in the use of the fingers as the impetus. Are they articulated to produce the stroke, or are they riding on the forearm stroke. That is why I call thumb under/in a misnomer. It isn't the position of the thumb and fingers relative to the strings, it is the way they are used to make the pluck. A full chord can be made with a thumb stroke down with the full forearm, or up with a finger. But an open chord requires articulation of thumb and fingers since the forearm can't move in two directions at once. Please pardon an analysis from an amateur, but I think there is logic here. In my humble opinion the change over around 1600 matched the change in the music to two voices on the single instrument. The m/i articulation would have been used when the thumb was needed to provide the bass voice, and the p/i forearm stroke when making a fast run in the treble against a held bass note (which requires either an open string bass, or a bass note that can be held with a finger on the fret while playing the upper run). OK, so I'm full of Molson's and writing a lot of BS, I tend to do that - and am always willing to be corrected. Somerset annual Harp Festival this weekend. Got to switch gears. Best, Jon - Original Message - From: Mathias Rösel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:43 AM Subject: Re: Neceffarie obferuations Hi Jon, the aside remark *notwithstanding HIP* was actually supposed to help make it out of the academic ghetto. I'm wondering which technical demand leads to changing the right hand posture. You may call *thumb in* a misnomer, but I use this name to make sure you can recognize what I'm talking about. Thumb in is the earlier playing technique on the renaissance lute, dating from medieval times. Around 1600 it came to be generally dropped in favour of *thumb out*. The change was mentioned and discussed by teachers like Besard, Dowland et al (even someone as late as Reusner). Thumb-in has been explained as having developed from playing with quills, with the quill dropped but the posture kept, shortly before 1500 (cf. Joe Baldassare on medieval lute playing). It's good for playing runs with a steady interchange of heavy and light strokes (thumb--index). Then came a change, thumb out became more popular. This has been explained with expanded bass-registers which can be more easily reached that way. Runs were to be played with interchanging forefinger and middle finger. It is undisputed, I assume, that runs can be done much easier and quicker with thumb-in-technique than with i-m. Vice versa, you'll have to practice a lot more to achieve the same speed and fluency in playing runs with thumb out. Moreover, bass courses can be reached with thumb-in just as easily as with thumb-out (at least, that's my experience). To put it short, thumb-out cannot necessarily be called an improvement in terms of comfortability. Nevertheless, players around 1600 are generally depicted as dropping old fashioned thumb-in, replacing it by cute thumb-out-playing. Why was it that they did so? What was the big deal with that new fashion? Perhaps a new taste in strong, or preponderant, bass notes? Maybe a new sound ideal? (Thumb-in in the middle between rose and bridge vs. thumb-out as near the bridge as possible?) Just guessing... Best, Mathias -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
Michael, I couldn't tell you the physical principles involved. Maybe it has to do with friction and mass, and the fact they play with rest stroke. All I can say is it true! and Paco plays 10 times as fast as any of the guys you mentioned, and plays with nails... I know this because I saw one of his nails ( a fake one ) explode into the sky above the audience at a concert once. I can't speak to the use of nails on guitar or lute, I've never used nails. But I've observed it on the harp (easier to see as the instrument is more open). The players of the wire strung harp (the Celtic Clearsach) use nails, the more modern gut or nylon players use finger pads. The pluck is a shorter stroke with nails on the wire harp, and the possibility of speed better. Your physical principles of friction and mass are correct. But there is also the matter of skills, a big man can hit a baseball (or golf ball) farther than a small man - unless that small man has exceptional hand speed. So to say (as someone did) that there is one player who can play with fingertips as fast as others with nails is to compare apples and oranges. Any one individual may have an exceptional talent that overrides a perceived disadvantage. (As size, in the hitter - or nails in the player). To extrapolate the general from the specific is normally an error. The balalaika or mandolin player with a pick is probably going to make faster runs than the p/i player with nails, and the finger tip player will probably be a bit slower. Unless the finger picker is using all his fingers as a roll (that the nail player can also do). The issue is moot. The guitar is a higher tension, the nylon/gut guitar can be played with nails. The lute and harp have a bit less tension and the sound production is better with finger pads, except the wire strung harp (and I'm not sure about that, I've played them with fingertips). And since when did speed become music, a well paced piece is more enjoyable to me than a virtuoso race. I confess I took piano lessons 60 years ago until I could play Jack Fina's Bumble Boogie (a boogie woogie version of Flight of the Bumble Bee). In later years I've learned that music isn't meant to be a contest of speed, it is a matter of the appropriate pace, and the voices of the piece. Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
In this technique, notice that the hand is very, close to the bridge. But, it is not correct to say that one gets a very thin tone. My experience is that with current string tensions similar to those of renaissance lutes, the results are not very satisfying. There are current thoughts in which baroque lutes were strung with a considerably less amount of tension that we now use. After all, lighter tension strings make a set-up which is much less wear tear on the baroque instrument, considering that the overall tension is much less I think for Toyohiko Sotoh to follow though with a recording on an original instrument warrants some consideration and thought. However don't forget that the French Baroque lute, is quite different than the German Baroque lute, in design ( string length, size etc.) and musical culture, and changing times. The French Baroque lute was already finished, by the time the German Baroque lute was in it's glory. Allot can happen in a 100 years musically speaking! It was the German Baroque lute that was left to fight it out with the keyboard, and the French B lute was obsolete 100 years or so before. Ed are you basing your theory on iconographical evidence? If so, Baron very clearly states to play half way between the rose and the bridge, at least for the German style. I think with less tension one could risk the clashing of courses, when played with any forcefulness, something that would be needed in 1750. MT - Original Message - From: Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Greg M. Silverman [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jon Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 2:51 PM Subject: Re: Neceffarie obferuations Michael, The fingers seen in most paintings of baroque lutenists are not a 90 degree angle, but not as soft an angle as for thumb under technique. You are correct, in that the thumb is seen protruding towards the rose, and that is a position seldom seen in our times. Toyohiko Satoh has changed his technique, in following closer to what icongraphical sources show us. In this technique, notice that the hand is very, very close to the bridge. But, it is not correct to say that one gets a very thin tone. My experience is that with current string tensions similar to those of renaissance lutes, the results are not very satisfying. There are current thoughts in which baroque lutes were strung with a considerably less amount of tension that we now use. After all, lighter tension strings make a set-up which is much less wear tear on the baroque instrument, considering that the overall tension is much less. Recent experiments have shown that one can get an astonishingly beautiful sound played by the bridge with a protruding thumb, at very low tensions. Case in point, listen to Toyohiko Satoh's Weichennberger CD. He plays on the bridge, with very low tension strings on an original 11 course lute by Grieff. It is definitely not a very thin tone. Also, he uses all gut with no metal at all on the strings. I am uncertain, but I think he uses only 70% of usual tensions, overall - maybe even as low as 60%. In order to make this situation (playing with technique shown on icongraphical sources) work, one needs a light tension. With heavier tension played very close to the bridge, one gets a brittle sound. But,. with slack strings, the results are very clear and beautiful. ed At 09:09 AM 7/22/2005 -0600, Michael Thames wrote: The really strange thing is that most all thumb out, hand positions shown in paintings show the fingers at a 90 degree angle to the stings, and I've never seen anyone play this way thesedays. If you try it whether on gut or nylon one gets a very thin tone. Perhaps the trend in the early 1600's was towards a thin percussive tone? MT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
Christopher Schaub [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I haven't heard anyone play thumb-under faster than top rate classical or flamenco guitarists whose technique is not that different from thumb-out, especially in regards to imim The kind of speed flamenco guitarists have with imim, I believe has a great deal to do with playing with nails.Sor, wrote a duet for Aguado and himself, and gave the fast part to Agado, because he played with nails. I believe Sor played with thumb out lute technique, resting the LF on the top, and forbidding the use of A finger except in chords, and using thumb, and index ,for scales. As you can see Sor's technique influenced his composing style... very much different than Giuliani for example, which incorporates the use of scales far more than Sor. Personally, I've pondered the speed issue ( not an expert ) and believe that thumb under, has it over thumb out, for speed, but especially for acceleration and fluididity. Personally, I think Paul Odette's recordings of Dowland are unequalled. Recordings by well known players using thumb out, sound rather un- lute like after listening to Odette. Michael - Original Message - From: Christopher Schaub [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mathias RXsel [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 6:50 PM Subject: Re: Neceffarie obferuations Hi Mathias, see my comments in context below ... --- Mathias Rösel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher Schaub [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I haven't heard anyone play thumb-under faster than top rate classical or flamenco guitarists whose technique is not that different from thumb-out, especially in regards to imim. that may be so, but I'm an _average_ lutenist, you see, and I can comfortably reach top speed. Thumb-in allows average lute players to keep up with the others' speed. Good point. I have a feeling we're all pretty average compared with lutenists of the past. :?) I do notice that preparing the bass with the thumb before beginning a run gives quite a bit of leverage to allow for some more speed and power with imim. Many flamenco players do this for power and speed. which has nothing to do with thumb-in/thumb-out, right? Well, preparing bass notes is a pretty big part of Baroque lute technique and can be quite helpful on lutes of greater than 8 courses. I've also heard many say that thumb-under is more fluid. Again, I'm not sure if that's really true. to be sure, it's a matter of practicing :) Yeah, it always comes down to this. I wonder if there is a lute equivalent of selling your soul or magic to get better, like the blues guitar player Robert Johnson (I think it was him)? It just requires more attention to playing legato with the left hand using thumb-out. would you mind to elaborate? Well, I feel the legato comes from playing with a very connected left hand, from note to note. The right hand is the attack, the left is the expression of the line. Both hands are involved, but I feel the left hand has a greater role or harder role with thumb-out. The only area where I think thumb-under has an advantage is to achieve that swing affect with dance pieces. (...) I think it's safe to say that thumb-under was generally used for the first 1/3 of the lute era and thumb-out for the last 2/3. So which is really the dominant technique -- or even the technique to be taught? I didn't mean to discuss which technique is preferable but whether or not there are certain technical demands that require thumb-in, or thumb-out, respectively, notwithstanding the well known fact that the shift from one to the other technique did take place. of course What would Dowland do with his students? I think he makes it clear his intentions that he recommends thumb out. I'd love to find out what made him do so. You and the rest of us. Maybe it was just changing times. Thumb-out does generally produce a brighter sound which, to my ears, cuts through an ensemble better. Maybe it was just keeping up with the young hot shot players? It seems that an emphasis on thumb-out with the ability to thumb-under when really necessary is the most versatile strategy for playing the entire repertoire. or vice versa, if you don't mind. No problem. I actually also play runs with PIPI using thumb-out. The index finger crosses under the thumb. I think Dowland describes this technique -- somebody does because I remember reading it. It's funny, but it works really well when you get the thumb really stretched out as Dowland describes. It doesn't seem to work as well for me when the hand is too high though. I actually think it's about the same as runs with thumb-under in terms of ease. I can't see how you can really play Baroque music with thumb under -- jumping from the trebles
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
Nails give speed? What would the physical principle involved be? IIRC, there is a fairly well-known flamenco player that does NOT have nails, but does have the speed (I'll have to dig around to find out who this was, but I remember David Schramm mentioning him some time back on RMCG). Picado IS possible without nails. I couldn't tell you the physical principles involved. Maybe it has to do with friction and mass, and the fact they play with rest stroke. All I can say is it true! and Paco plays 10 times as fast as any of the guys you mentioned, and plays with nails... I know this because I saw one of his nails ( a fake one ) explode into the sky above the audience at a concert once. Michael - Original Message - From: Greg M. Silverman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mathias RXsel [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 3:23 PM Subject: Re: Neceffarie obferuations Michael Thames wrote: Christopher Schaub [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I haven't heard anyone play thumb-under faster than top rate classical or flamenco guitarists whose technique is not that different from thumb-out, especially in regards to imim The kind of speed flamenco guitarists have with imim, I believe has a great deal to do with playing with nails.Sor, wrote a duet for Aguado and himself, and gave the fast part to Agado, because he played with nails. Nails give speed? What would the physical principle involved be? IIRC, there is a fairly well-known flamenco player that does NOT have nails, but does have the speed (I'll have to dig around to find out who this was, but I remember David Schramm mentioning him some time back on RMCG). Picado IS possible without nails. Greg-- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
Wow, What a description, and what a lot of BS (with all due respect to the writers). I may be a beginner, but I play a few other stringed instruments. I love the feel and sound of thumb under when playing runs, it duplicates the feel of the pick that was the original form of lute playing (even if it was a goose quill). The forearm moves the stroke. But as the lute moved to polyphony there needed to be other fingers involved. I can't see how there can be a rule in a complex piece. It seems to me that the PIPI divisions should be played thumb under when possible, but sometimes one has to move to a different form by slipping in ring finger here and there. Well, I feel the legato comes from playing with a very connected left hand, from note to note. The right hand is the attack, the left is the expression of the line. Both hands are involved, but I feel the left hand has a greater role or harder role with thumb-out. And therein lies the rub. The lute of the middle ages and the early Renaissance was played as a melody instrument, in the main. How else can one play it with a pick? The addition of the contra line requires a legato on that line. Even as you vary the treble divisions you have to keep that continuo on the solo instrument. Perhaps that has been lost a bit in the movement to multiple instruments. After a year and a half of (untaught, no bucks here for lessons) practice I'm having to change my left hand positions to maintain the legato in the bass. I'm beginning to hear what was played centuries ago, but it takes a bit of work to get it from the tab. I don't yet see the difference between thumb in/out as to the expression vis-a-vis the left hand, but the thumb in does allow m to make a better sound off the doubled strings. Needless to say, my hand being normal, my ring finger is never over my thumb. I've also just discovered that renotating my fingering on my music, based on shifts of the entire hand, has enhanced my playing (although it has killed my skills at some pieces). On guitar one usually moves to a pitch level, on lute it seems to be a different approach (the same chord form done with different fingers in order to prepare for the next move). I am preaching to the experts, but I have no fear of that. I know I'll be corrected and will appreciate any correction. Yet it seems to me that the ancients each probably had their own ways of playing, but put the standard way down for their beginnning students. That is true of everything, and every skill. Learn by the book, then break the rules when you get good. I've always liked Mondrian's color patches, but to me they are decoration rather than art. Many moderns do abstract art, but I don't accept their work without their basics. Look at Picasso, look at his early drawings and paintings. then look at his abstract work again. My friend, and colloge classmate, John Eaton is a composer of Opera and innovator in microtuning (he was interested in working with me and my double strung harp so as to make the mini-scales he works with). I don't like his current work, even though I'm quite capable of hearing the good in off scales and new modes. But I have a fifty year history with the man, and his music, and I know how it developed. I run on, as usual. So I have to stop with a comment. Not all music is musical, and not all painting is pleasant. But all efforts in either, if grounded in sound principles of historical developments (whether one scale or another, or the polyrythms with undefined pitch) are valid, if they have a grounding. You don't have to choose them, or even like them. But if there is a grounding in melody, or form, then they are to be considered. And if there is no grounding then it is garbage. The lady who claims that painting her naked body in chocolate is art is not an artist (whatever the NEA thinks). The jury is out on Jackson Pollack. Best, Jon The only area where I think thumb-under has an advantage is to achieve that swing affect with dance pieces. (...) I think it's safe to say that thumb-under was generally used for the first 1/3 of the lute era and thumb-out for the last 2/3. So which is really the dominant technique -- or even the technique to be taught? I didn't mean to discuss which technique is preferable but whether or not there are certain technical demands that require thumb-in, or thumb-out, respectively, notwithstanding the well known fact that the shift from one to the other technique did take place. of course What would Dowland do with his students? I think he makes it clear his intentions that he recommends thumb out. I'd love to find out what made him do so. You and the rest of us. Maybe it was just changing times. Thumb-out does generally produce a brighter sound which, to my ears, cuts through an ensemble better. Maybe it was just keeping up with the young hot shot players? It seems that an emphasis on thumb-out with the ability to thumb-under when really necessary is the
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
BTW, does anyone yet know if/when Hopkinson Smith is giving his masterclass at the lsa convention? It's really maddening to not have a schedule posted somewhere, especially for us lsa members! Ok, here are some more thoughts ... The only quip I would note is that I'm not sure about the difference in speed vs thumb-under/out. I think many people can play fast runs with thumb-under but when you ask them to play with a volume and clarity that is acceptable for the concert stage then they might slow down a bit. I haven't heard anyone play thumb-under faster than top rate classical or flamenco guitarists whose technique is not that different from thumb-out, especially in regards to imim. I do notice that preparing the bass with the thumb before beginning a run gives quite a bit of leverage to allow for some more speed and power with imim. Many flamenco players do this for power and speed. I've also heard many say that thumb-under is more fluid. Again, I'm not sure if that's really true. It just requires more attention to playing legato with the left hand using thumb-out. The only area where I think thumb-under has an advantage is to achieve that swing affect with dance pieces. To get that swinging feel out of the 8th notes the arm motion is pretty key. For this reason I still practice thumb-under. I think it's safe to say that thumb-under was generally used for the first 1/3 of the lute era and thumb-out for the last 2/3. So which is really the dominant technique -- or even the technique to be taught? What would Dowland do with his students? I think he makes it clear his intentions that he recommends thumb out. It seems that an emphasis on thumb-out with the ability to thumb-under when really necessary is the most versatile strategy for playing the entire repertoire. I can't see how you can really play Baroque music with thumb under -- jumping from the trebles to the basses could disrupt the flow and also interfere with preparing the bass notes. --- Mathias Rösel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jon, the aside remark *notwithstanding HIP* was actually supposed to help make it out of the academic ghetto. I'm wondering which technical demand leads to changing the right hand posture. You may call *thumb in* a misnomer, but I use this name to make sure you can recognize what I'm talking about. Thumb in is the earlier playing technique on the renaissance lute, dating from medieval times. Around 1600 it came to be generally dropped in favour of *thumb out*. The change was mentioned and discussed by teachers like Besard, Dowland et al (even someone as late as Reusner). Thumb-in has been explained as having developed from playing with quills, with the quill dropped but the posture kept, shortly before 1500 (cf. Joe Baldassare on medieval lute playing). It's good for playing runs with a steady interchange of heavy and light strokes (thumb--index). Then came a change, thumb out became more popular. This has been explained with expanded bass-registers which can be more easily reached that way. Runs were to be played with interchanging forefinger and middle finger. It is undisputed, I assume, that runs can be done much easier and quicker with thumb-in-technique than with i-m. Vice versa, you'll have to practice a lot more to achieve the same speed and fluency in playing runs with thumb out. Moreover, bass courses can be reached with thumb-in just as easily as with thumb-out (at least, that's my experience). To put it short, thumb-out cannot necessarily be called an improvement in terms of comfortability. Nevertheless, players around 1600 are generally depicted as dropping old fashioned thumb-in, replacing it by cute thumb-out-playing. Why was it that they did so? What was the big deal with that new fashion? Perhaps a new taste in strong, or preponderant, bass notes? Maybe a new sound ideal? (Thumb-in in the middle between rose and bridge vs. thumb-out as near the bridge as possible?) Just guessing... Best, Mathias -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
Christopher Schaub [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I haven't heard anyone play thumb-under faster than top rate classical or flamenco guitarists whose technique is not that different from thumb-out, especially in regards to imim. that may be so, but I'm an _average_ lutenist, you see, and I can comfortably reach top speed. Thumb-in allows average lute players to keep up with the others' speed. I do notice that preparing the bass with the thumb before beginning a run gives quite a bit of leverage to allow for some more speed and power with imim. Many flamenco players do this for power and speed. which has nothing to do with thumb-in/thumb-out, right? I've also heard many say that thumb-under is more fluid. Again, I'm not sure if that's really true. to be sure, it's a matter of practicing :) It just requires more attention to playing legato with the left hand using thumb-out. would you mind to elaborate? The only area where I think thumb-under has an advantage is to achieve that swing affect with dance pieces. (...) I think it's safe to say that thumb-under was generally used for the first 1/3 of the lute era and thumb-out for the last 2/3. So which is really the dominant technique -- or even the technique to be taught? I didn't mean to discuss which technique is preferable but whether or not there are certain technical demands that require thumb-in, or thumb-out, respectively, notwithstanding the well known fact that the shift from one to the other technique did take place. What would Dowland do with his students? I think he makes it clear his intentions that he recommends thumb out. I'd love to find out what made him do so. It seems that an emphasis on thumb-out with the ability to thumb-under when really necessary is the most versatile strategy for playing the entire repertoire. or vice versa, if you don't mind. I can't see how you can really play Baroque music with thumb under -- jumping from the trebles to the basses could disrupt the flow and also interfere with preparing the bass notes. nevertheless, it's required quite often. Have a look into Gaultier's prints, Mouton, Gallot et al. In French baroque lute music, the thumb must be most versatile. Cheers, Mathias -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
Hi Mathias, see my comments in context below ... --- Mathias Rösel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher Schaub [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I haven't heard anyone play thumb-under faster than top rate classical or flamenco guitarists whose technique is not that different from thumb-out, especially in regards to imim. that may be so, but I'm an _average_ lutenist, you see, and I can comfortably reach top speed. Thumb-in allows average lute players to keep up with the others' speed. Good point. I have a feeling we're all pretty average compared with lutenists of the past. :?) I do notice that preparing the bass with the thumb before beginning a run gives quite a bit of leverage to allow for some more speed and power with imim. Many flamenco players do this for power and speed. which has nothing to do with thumb-in/thumb-out, right? Well, preparing bass notes is a pretty big part of Baroque lute technique and can be quite helpful on lutes of greater than 8 courses. I've also heard many say that thumb-under is more fluid. Again, I'm not sure if that's really true. to be sure, it's a matter of practicing :) Yeah, it always comes down to this. I wonder if there is a lute equivalent of selling your soul or magic to get better, like the blues guitar player Robert Johnson (I think it was him)? It just requires more attention to playing legato with the left hand using thumb-out. would you mind to elaborate? Well, I feel the legato comes from playing with a very connected left hand, from note to note. The right hand is the attack, the left is the expression of the line. Both hands are involved, but I feel the left hand has a greater role or harder role with thumb-out. The only area where I think thumb-under has an advantage is to achieve that swing affect with dance pieces. (...) I think it's safe to say that thumb-under was generally used for the first 1/3 of the lute era and thumb-out for the last 2/3. So which is really the dominant technique -- or even the technique to be taught? I didn't mean to discuss which technique is preferable but whether or not there are certain technical demands that require thumb-in, or thumb-out, respectively, notwithstanding the well known fact that the shift from one to the other technique did take place. of course What would Dowland do with his students? I think he makes it clear his intentions that he recommends thumb out. I'd love to find out what made him do so. You and the rest of us. Maybe it was just changing times. Thumb-out does generally produce a brighter sound which, to my ears, cuts through an ensemble better. Maybe it was just keeping up with the young hot shot players? It seems that an emphasis on thumb-out with the ability to thumb-under when really necessary is the most versatile strategy for playing the entire repertoire. or vice versa, if you don't mind. No problem. I actually also play runs with PIPI using thumb-out. The index finger crosses under the thumb. I think Dowland describes this technique -- somebody does because I remember reading it. It's funny, but it works really well when you get the thumb really stretched out as Dowland describes. It doesn't seem to work as well for me when the hand is too high though. I actually think it's about the same as runs with thumb-under in terms of ease. I can't see how you can really play Baroque music with thumb under -- jumping from the trebles to the basses could disrupt the flow and also interfere with preparing the bass notes. nevertheless, it's required quite often. Have a look into Gaultier's prints, Mouton, Gallot et al. In French baroque lute music, the thumb must be most versatile. I agree. Thanks for the comments and dose of moderation! :?) Cheers, Mathias -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:30 AM, Arthur Ness wrote: Dear Ed and Arne, There are two sets of instructions in that manuscript (London, BL, Ms.Sloane 1021), Thoughtful observations. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Neceffarie obferuations
In Dowland's observations in a varietie of LVTE - lessons, he instructs ( for the right hand) to stretch your thumb with all the force you can and ... the thumb under the other fingers, which though it be nothing so elegant, yet to them it will be more easy. Is Dowland suggesting thumb out, rather than thumb under? Sorry if this has come up before. Michael -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
