Re: Newbie Question #2
Dear Mike; I haven't had a problem. I also play viola da gamba which has a pretty flat bridge compared to a cello. Maybe that's the reason. I think the canter of the bridge is determined by the shape of the fingerboard. My 5 string was originally built as a 5 string about 160 years ago, it wasn't adapted from a 4 string bass as most 5 string basses are. Maybe these adapted basses have flatter fingerboards. Gary - Original Message - From: "MWWilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "gary digman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lutelist" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > Hi Gary, > > How do you like your 5 string double bass? I could never get used to the > flatter arch of a 5 string bridge and opted for a low C fingered extension > many years ago. > > Regards, > Mike > > - Original Message - > From: "gary digman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lutelist" > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:58 AM > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > >> We could have some form of "French" tuning pegs such as exist on my 5 > string >> double bass. They combine a gear with a wooden peg under slight friction. > I >> like them so much on my bass that I've often wished I had them on my > lutes, >> baroque guitar and gamba also. Maybe we can get the ear of a luthier on >> this. >> >> Gary >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" > ; >> "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:11 PM >> Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 >> >> >> > Vance Wood wrote: >> > >> > "However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the >> > limits of >> > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague >> > us." >> > >> > ++I agree with Vance on this one. >> > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with historical accuracy. >> > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the coast where >> > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where it is hot and dry. >> > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they are. If we >> > were more interested in efficiency than were were in historical >> > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can tune three >> > or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 cent accuracy >> > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to tune one string >> > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or humidity. >> > >> > I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I really see no >> > advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the historical significance. >> > Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag in terms of >> > time wasted that otherwise could be used for practicing. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Marion >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM >> > To: lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 >> > >> > Dear Caroline: >> > >> > In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to > understanding >> > the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered > to >> > the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that >> > painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. If you >> > mean >> > that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which incidentally is not >> > so >> > because I cannot afford it, and should have not used the word "We" I >> > stand >> > corrected. However from the way things tend to go on this list it >> > would >> > seem that most are very much centered on historical accuracy. However >> > there >> > is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the limits of >> > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague > us. >> > - Original Message - >> > From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > To: "lute list" >> > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:04 PM >> > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 >> > >> > >> >> At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: >> >> >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of >> >> >what >> > it >> >> >is we do. >> >> >> >> What you mean we, white man? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ;-) >> >> Caroline >> >> Caroline Usher >> >> DCMB Administrative Coordinator >> >> 613-8155, Box 91000 >> >> B343 LSRC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >
Re: Newbie Question #2
Dear Vance, Thank you for sharing your thoughts with the list. Please see my comments below. Best regards, Marion -Original Message- From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Apr 5, 2005 2:57 PM To: lute list , "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 Dear Marion and Chris, On the face of it I agree with your objection to the way the Lute is tuned, mechanically not musically. ++When you come right down to it, the manner of tuning is a tool that in the end is not supposed to affect the way the instrument is played. It really is a mechanical question and not a musical one. It is not as though one kind of tuning method or another affects the sound itself. However, if you take all of the arguments that can be made about an historically correct Lute and its many difficulties and choose to update the instrument, we would wind up with the kind of instruments that were being cranked out as Lutes about forty years ago by Guitar makers. They had metal frets like a Guitar, the were heavily built, like a Guitar, and they sounded a lot like a Guitar. This is the kind of instrument that Gulian Bream played and received a lot of grief for doing so. ++Actually, I saw a couple of baroque lutes for sale on eBay not too long ago and they had metal frets. Mostly they looked great but the metal frets seemed to me to be out of place. Movable gut frets are a pain on the ren lutes with tapered necks more so than they are on straight necks. One of my ren lutes has a tapered neck and the other one as well as my baroque lute have straight necks. The frets on the lutes with straight necks are fairly stable but until recently (after I devised a method of stabilizing the frets that would make some people cringe) the frets on the tapered neck would be loose frequently. I have arrived at the point where I can see the advantage of gut frets and have a way to deal with them so they don't drive me crazy. ++However, pegs are another thing. I still think that tuning machines can be made to work on a lute if the weight can be distributed so that the center of gravity is in the middle of the lute somewhere. You would have to experiment with different CGs to find the most comfortable playing configuration. The weight distribution can be shifted by a complete redesign of the lute to put some tuners at on one end of the string and the other tuners at the opposite end. This already has been done on some guitars and lutes. I would be interested to see if anyone has tried this. - Original Message - From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" ; "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 7:41 PM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > Dear Chris, > > I see no disadvantage with the very slight added weight > My 11-string guitar has 11 metal tuning machines and I have > no trouble holding it for long periods of time. In any case, > you could always get a strap or a piece of silk if it became > a problem. It is a very small price to pay for great efficiency, > linearity in pitch vs. angle, and exactness of pitch without a > big hassle and worry about environmental changes. > > As for bowed strings, I don't know about your violins, > but mine have small machine tuners at the loop end of > the strings. You can install them very easily and coarse > tune with the pegs. To get the fine tuning, you use the > machines. The fact that these machine tuners are > readily available is proof positive that the pegs don't > work very well at all, especially for the short > diapasons of violins. > > If lutes had them we would not have so much trouble > tuning. However, we all are in this long-term > worship service of historical accuracy and no one > would dare modify anything on a lute if it looked > modern just to be efficient. > > It might be pointed out that the design of the lutes that > we use today was the state of the art during the 16th > and 17h centuries, for example. Modern luthiers have > copied, this design with no attempt to update it, all out of > concern for historical accuracy. If the luthiers of the 16th > and 17th century had had access to better technology, they > would have had the practical wisdom to used it. > Modern luthiers will make anything we order. We order > the old designs, then we pay for it in terms of time > wasted on tuning when we could be composing or > sending email messages to our lute friends all across > the world. > > Best regards, > Marion > > -----Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 2:15 PM > To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > lute
Re: Newbie Question #2
Hi Gary, How do you like your 5 string double bass? I could never get used to the flatter arch of a 5 string bridge and opted for a low C fingered extension many years ago. Regards, Mike - Original Message - From: "gary digman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lutelist" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:58 AM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > We could have some form of "French" tuning pegs such as exist on my 5 string > double bass. They combine a gear with a wooden peg under slight friction. I > like them so much on my bass that I've often wished I had them on my lutes, > baroque guitar and gamba also. Maybe we can get the ear of a luthier on > this. > > Gary > > - Original Message - > From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" ; > "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:11 PM > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > > > Vance Wood wrote: > > > > "However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the > > limits of > > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague > > us." > > > > ++I agree with Vance on this one. > > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with historical accuracy. > > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the coast where > > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where it is hot and dry. > > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they are. If we > > were more interested in efficiency than were were in historical > > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can tune three > > or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 cent accuracy > > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to tune one string > > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or humidity. > > > > I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I really see no > > advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the historical significance. > > Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag in terms of > > time wasted that otherwise could be used for practicing. > > > > Best regards, > > Marion > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM > > To: lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > > > Dear Caroline: > > > > In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to understanding > > the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered to > > the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that > > painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. If you > > mean > > that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which incidentally is not so > > because I cannot afford it, and should have not used the word "We" I > > stand > > corrected. However from the way things tend to go on this list it would > > seem that most are very much centered on historical accuracy. However > > there > > is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the limits of > > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague us. > > - Original Message - > > From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "lute list" > > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:04 PM > > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > > > > >> At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: > >> >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of > >> >what > > it > >> >is we do. > >> > >> What you mean we, white man? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ;-) > >> Caroline > >> Caroline Usher > >> DCMB Administrative Coordinator > >> 613-8155, Box 91000 > >> B343 LSRC > >> > >> > >> > >> To get on or off this list see list information at > >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Newbie Question #2
Dear Caroline: That's good to hear, I think it is important to be focused but not cemented in one spot. When you take the sum total of all we know about the way the Lute was played and the kinds of Lutes that were played, or not played as the case may be, we really know, for sure, very little as a fact. I thought I detected the smile in there but I was not sure. We don't even know for sure the nature of the strings that were used, and are left having to make a best guess; of course we can take that scenario one step further and condemn anyone else that does not agree with our conclusions. Even when we have what some may consider a detailed description of "this or that" we are still left with the fact that English of the period (in the case of English sources) has changed over the years leaving us with a degree of doubt even in the face of the obvious. In a sense we are kind of left struggling with an icon in the Lute many generations removed in time and understanding in much the same way scholars are left dealing with understanding The Bible translated from obscure sources, dead languages and years of abuse. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > At 03:22 PM 4/4/2005, Vance Wood wrote: > >Dear Caroline: > > > >In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to understanding > >the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered to > >the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that > >painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. > > I was simply commenting on your assumption that you were speaking for all of us. (I assume most people got the reference to the old Bill Cosby routine about the Lone Ranger and Tonto??? There was a smiley in my message.) > > Personally, I don't feel that there is an imbalance in my practice between historical accuracy and being a 21st-century lute player. > Caroline > > Caroline Usher > DCMB Administrative Coordinator > 613-8155, Box 91000 > B343 LSRC > > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Newbie Question #2
Dear Marion and Chris, On the face of it I agree with your objection to the way the Lute is tuned, mechanically not musically. However, if you take all of the arguments that can be made about an historically correct Lute and its many difficulties and choose to update the instrument, we would wind up with the kind of instruments that were being cranked out as Lutes about forty years ago by Guitar makers. They had metal frets like a Guitar, the were heavily built, like a Guitar, and they sounded a lot like a Guitar. This is the kind of instrument that Gulian Bream played and received a lot of grief for doing so. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" ; "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 7:41 PM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > Dear Chris, > > I see no disadvantage with the very slight added weight > My 11-string guitar has 11 metal tuning machines and I have > no trouble holding it for long periods of time. In any case, > you could always get a strap or a piece of silk if it became > a problem. It is a very small price to pay for great efficiency, > linearity in pitch vs. angle, and exactness of pitch without a > big hassle and worry about environmental changes. > > As for bowed strings, I don't know about your violins, > but mine have small machine tuners at the loop end of > the strings. You can install them very easily and coarse > tune with the pegs. To get the fine tuning, you use the > machines. The fact that these machine tuners are > readily available is proof positive that the pegs don't > work very well at all, especially for the short > diapasons of violins. > > If lutes had them we would not have so much trouble > tuning. However, we all are in this long-term > worship service of historical accuracy and no one > would dare modify anything on a lute if it looked > modern just to be efficient. > > It might be pointed out that the design of the lutes that > we use today was the state of the art during the 16th > and 17h centuries, for example. Modern luthiers have > copied, this design with no attempt to update it, all out of > concern for historical accuracy. If the luthiers of the 16th > and 17th century had had access to better technology, they > would have had the practical wisdom to used it. > Modern luthiers will make anything we order. We order > the old designs, then we pay for it in terms of time > wasted on tuning when we could be composing or > sending email messages to our lute friends all across > the world. > > Best regards, > Marion > > -Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 2:15 PM > To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > Marion, > > > I see an advantage to pegs: weight! I can't > imaging how much the pegbox of a 13-course baroque > lute would weigh with metal tuning machines. My > ten-course was a real balancing act when I got it > without having to deal with even more uneven weight > distribution. Also, pegs seem to work pretty well for > modern bowed strings with metal strings and high > tension (with the exception of the bass, of course). > > > > Chris > > > > > > --- "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vance Wood wrote: > > > > "However there is an historical accuracy not touched > > on and that is the limits of > > expediency in addressing some of the same problems > > that seem to plague us." > > > > ++I agree with Vance on this one. > > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with > > historical accuracy. > > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the > > coast where > > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where > > it is hot and dry. > > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they > > are. If we > > were more interested in efficiency than were were in > > historical > > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can > > tune three > > or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 > > cent accuracy > > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to > > tune one string > > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or > > humidity. > > > > I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I > > really see no > > advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the > > historical significan
Re: Newbie Question #2
>Unless the Pegheds were specially made for a lute, peg length and diameter would be a problem. The first lute I built for myself had Schaller adjustable tension pegs (I didn't have a lathe to do my own pegs, didn't know where to buy any lute pegs, and wasn't sure I could fit traditional pegs accurately). I had to build the peg head with a center rib to take the tips of the violin pegs. They worked just fine, but because of their larger diameter they were finicky to tune. And also because the pegs were bigger, the peg head had to be larger (no taper towards the tip) and looked pretty horsey. The internal gears on the Pegheds would take care of the finicky tuning, but if they were violin-sized you would still have the big horsey-looking things (relative to lute pegs) on the end of your lute. I've heard that these pegs are expensive. Imagine buying 15 for an 8 course lute! Tim > > > Original Message >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 >Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:27:52 -0600 > >>This might be interesting. Be careful though if you mention the >word >>"lute" or "how's business?" to this guy he goes ballistic, as I have >>painfully found out. A couple of clients of mine have put them on >their >>flamenco guitars. Jury's still out! >> >>http://www.pegheds.com/ >>Michael Thames >>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com >>- Original Message ----- >>From: "gary digman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "lutelist" >>Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:58 AM >>Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 >> >> >>> We could have some form of "French" tuning pegs such as exist on >my 5 >>string >>> double bass. They combine a gear with a wooden peg under slight >friction. >>I >>> like them so much on my bass that I've often wished I had them on >my >>lutes, >>> baroque guitar and gamba also. Maybe we can get the ear of a >luthier on >>> this. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" >>; >>> "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:11 PM >>> Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 >>> >>> >>> > Vance Wood wrote: >>> > >>> > "However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that >is the >>> > limits of >>> > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to >plague >>> > us." >>> > >>> > ++I agree with Vance on this one. >>> > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with historical >accuracy. >>> > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the coast where >>> > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where it is hot >and dry. >>> > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they are. If we >>> > were more interested in efficiency than were were in historical >>> > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can tune three >>> > or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 cent >accuracy >>> > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to tune one string >>> > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or humidity. >>> > >>> > I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I really see no >>> > advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the historical >significance. >>> > Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag in terms of >>> > time wasted that otherwise could be used for practicing. >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > Marion >>> > >>> > >>> > -Original Message- >>> > From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM >>> > To: lute list , Caroline Usher ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 >>> > >>> > Dear Caroline: >>> > >>> > In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to >>understanding >>> > the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In >answered >>to >>> > the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself >from that >>> > paintin
Re: Newbie Question #2
This might be interesting. Be careful though if you mention the word "lute" or "how's business?" to this guy he goes ballistic, as I have painfully found out. A couple of clients of mine have put them on their flamenco guitars. Jury's still out! http://www.pegheds.com/ Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "gary digman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lutelist" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:58 AM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > We could have some form of "French" tuning pegs such as exist on my 5 string > double bass. They combine a gear with a wooden peg under slight friction. I > like them so much on my bass that I've often wished I had them on my lutes, > baroque guitar and gamba also. Maybe we can get the ear of a luthier on > this. > > Gary > > - Original Message - > From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" ; > "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:11 PM > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > > > Vance Wood wrote: > > > > "However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the > > limits of > > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague > > us." > > > > ++I agree with Vance on this one. > > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with historical accuracy. > > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the coast where > > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where it is hot and dry. > > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they are. If we > > were more interested in efficiency than were were in historical > > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can tune three > > or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 cent accuracy > > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to tune one string > > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or humidity. > > > > I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I really see no > > advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the historical significance. > > Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag in terms of > > time wasted that otherwise could be used for practicing. > > > > Best regards, > > Marion > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM > > To: lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > > > Dear Caroline: > > > > In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to understanding > > the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered to > > the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that > > painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. If you > > mean > > that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which incidentally is not so > > because I cannot afford it, and should have not used the word "We" I > > stand > > corrected. However from the way things tend to go on this list it would > > seem that most are very much centered on historical accuracy. However > > there > > is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the limits of > > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague us. > > - Original Message - > > From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "lute list" > > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:04 PM > > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > > > > >> At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: > >> >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of > >> >what > > it > >> >is we do. > >> > >> What you mean we, white man? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ;-) > >> Caroline > >> Caroline Usher > >> DCMB Administrative Coordinator > >> 613-8155, Box 91000 > >> B343 LSRC > >> > >> > >> > >> To get on or off this list see list information at > >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Newbie Question #2
Dear Gary, I've thought about these for some instrument or other, can't remember which, probably a clarinet, and the price of the ones in my catalogue made them prohibitive, especially if you think that you're talking about a minimum of eleven. My catalogue isn't to hand, but I think they were Schaller, and violin size, which would be too short for most lutes... Yours, Tony - Original Message - From: "gary digman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lutelist" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > We could have some form of "French" tuning pegs such as exist on my 5 string > double bass. They combine a gear with a wooden peg under slight friction. I > like them so much on my bass that I've often wished I had them on my lutes, > baroque guitar and gamba also. Maybe we can get the ear of a luthier on > this. > > Gary > > - Original Message - > From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" ; > "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:11 PM > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > > > Vance Wood wrote: > > > > "However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the > > limits of > > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague > > us." > > > > ++I agree with Vance on this one. > > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with historical accuracy. > > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the coast where > > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where it is hot and dry. > > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they are. If we > > were more interested in efficiency than were were in historical > > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can tune three > > or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 cent accuracy > > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to tune one string > > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or humidity. > > > > I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I really see no > > advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the historical significance. > > Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag in terms of > > time wasted that otherwise could be used for practicing. > > > > Best regards, > > Marion > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM > > To: lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > > > Dear Caroline: > > > > In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to understanding > > the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered to > > the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that > > painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. If you > > mean > > that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which incidentally is not so > > because I cannot afford it, and should have not used the word "We" I > > stand > > corrected. However from the way things tend to go on this list it would > > seem that most are very much centered on historical accuracy. However > > there > > is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the limits of > > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague us. > > - Original Message - > > From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "lute list" > > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:04 PM > > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > > > > >> At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: > >> >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of > >> >what > > it > >> >is we do. > >> > >> What you mean we, white man? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ;-) > >> Caroline > >> Caroline Usher > >> DCMB Administrative Coordinator > >> 613-8155, Box 91000 > >> B343 LSRC > >> > >> > >> > >> To get on or off this list see list information at > >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Newbie Question #2
At 03:22 PM 4/4/2005, Vance Wood wrote: >Dear Caroline: > >In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to understanding >the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered to >the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that >painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. I was simply commenting on your assumption that you were speaking for all of us. (I assume most people got the reference to the old Bill Cosby routine about the Lone Ranger and Tonto??? There was a smiley in my message.) Personally, I don't feel that there is an imbalance in my practice between historical accuracy and being a 21st-century lute player. Caroline Caroline Usher DCMB Administrative Coordinator 613-8155, Box 91000 B343 LSRC To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Newbie Question #2
> of a long lute and this is the reason for the strap. > You also could use the strap with a newly designed > instrument with tuning machines. By now, the > purists are sufficiently horrified Probably not. They would have seen these inanities come and go, once a year or so. BTW, what do you call non-purists? "Pollutists" perchance? RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Newbie Question #2
> ++Please see a later message about this. My idea is > to come up with a totally new design that addresses > all the problems of tuning, weight, etc. There are always a few people that would take great pains to avoid actually spending time with an instrument (or one's voice) and get to be half-decent on it. RT -- http://polyhymnion.org/torban To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Newbie Question #2
I think it is time to stop beating that dead donkey back to life. This has been tried many times, with the results of eye-sore harmful to one's left shoulder. Google it up. And enough already. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://polyhymnion.org/swv > A uniform weight distribution could be achieved by a new design that > would have half of the tuners at one end and half at the other like > we have seen on some practice guitars and some unusual > instruments, the Stossel lute being one of them (not sure of > spelling the name). > > Cheers, > Marion > > -Original Message- > From: gary digman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Apr 5, 2005 3:58 AM > To: lutelist > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > We could have some form of "French" tuning pegs such as exist on my 5 string > double bass. They combine a gear with a wooden peg under slight friction. I > like them so much on my bass that I've often wished I had them on my lutes, > baroque guitar and gamba also. Maybe we can get the ear of a luthier on > this. > > Gary > > - Original Message - > From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" ; > "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:11 PM > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > >> Vance Wood wrote: >> >> "However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the >> limits of >> expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague >> us." >> >> ++I agree with Vance on this one. >> Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with historical accuracy. >> This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the coast where >> it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where it is hot and dry. >> It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they are. If we >> were more interested in efficiency than were were in historical >> accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can tune three >> or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 cent accuracy >> (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to tune one string >> on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or humidity. >> >> I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I really see no >> advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the historical significance. >> Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag in terms of >> time wasted that otherwise could be used for practicing. >> >> Best regards, >> Marion >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM >> To: lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 >> >> Dear Caroline: >> >> In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to understanding >> the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered to >> the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that >> painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. If you >> mean >> that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which incidentally is not so >> because I cannot afford it, and should have not used the word "We" I >> stand >> corrected. However from the way things tend to go on this list it would >> seem that most are very much centered on historical accuracy. However >> there >> is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the limits of >> expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague us. >> - Original Message - >> From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "lute list" >> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:04 PM >> Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 >> >> >>> At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: >>>> I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of >>>> what >> it >>>> is we do. >>> >>> What you mean we, white man? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ;-) >>> Caroline >>> Caroline Usher >>> DCMB Administrative Coordinator >>> 613-8155, Box 91000 >>> B343 LSRC >>> >>> >>> >>> To get on or off this list see list information at >>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
Re: Newbie Question #2
Dear Chris, Thank you for posting. Please see my comments below. Best regards, Marion -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 4, 2005 5:32 PM To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 Marion, I don't know about your guitar, but every lute I've played is about 50% lighter than any guitar I've ever played. ++Yes, all of my 8 guitars are heavier than any of my lutes.. Guitars need to be heavier because the strings have higher tension than on lutes. I am not an expert on ouds but I seem to remember that the time I played one it was heavier than ren or baroque lutes. Even with wooden pegs, the pegbox is already by far the heaviest component of the lute. The prospect of adding any more weight makes my back sore just thinking of it. ++Please see a later message about this. My idea is to come up with a totally new design that addresses all the problems of tuning, weight, etc. This design would have half of the tuners at one end and half at the other end to balance the weight. There is another tread going on now about strap buttons in which people have shared ideas about how best to utilize this. Using a strap can make a difference in terms of the ergonomics of the situation. I think it is too hard for some people to hold up the neck of a long lute and this is the reason for the strap. You also could use the strap with a newly designed instrument with tuning machines. By now, the purists are sufficiently horrified but we must remember that today's crazy idea is tomorrow's implementation. It is perhaps not unrelated, but when I took violin lessons, the first thing my teacher told me to do was remove the fine tuners from my instrument, claiming that it effected the tone. ++Interesting that your teacher thought this. Maybe this has been a problem for some people but my uncle was a very good violinist using a very good (read "expensive") violin. He used the fine tuners with out any problems. Whereas the violin is not my specialty by any means, perhaps it matters more on some instruments than on others. I don't remember any tone problems, but then my uncle played much better than I did (read past tense.) My ear wasn't exactly accustomed to the minutae of violin tone at the time, (probably a good thing to spare me from the full impact of the wretched tone I managed to produce) ++I had to laugh a this one. We who have attempted the violin have all had experiences like this, so you are in good company! Back in the days when I played 4c mandolin more often than I do now, I would pick up a violin every now and then and 'fiddle' around with it. Other than differences like the ones between D sharp and E flat, the left hand is about the same as on a mandolin. I actually managed to play some tunes that you could recognize. What I missed most about the violin was the plucked aspect of the strings, which is a technique that can be used but it is not the usual one. but it did seem to me that the sound improved. Not only that, but since I didn't rely on the fine tuners as a crutch, I eventually became able to tune much faster and just as accurately. ++There are two aspects here. One, you have only four strings so even if each is a hassle and a pain in the neck, at least you will be done relatively quickly. Even on a ren lute, you are not even half way done after four strings. The other aspect is how did you measure the tuning? Were you using the kind of tuner that tells you how many cents off the pitch is? By trial and error you eventually can hit the correct pitch but it just takes longer. The better tuning you want the longer it takes. With the fine tuners, you can cut down on the tuning time and use the remaining time for other things, like accompanying a beautiful mezzo soprano voice on the lute. :) Chris --- "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Chris, > > I see no disadvantage with the very slight added > weight > My 11-string guitar has 11 metal tuning machines and > I have > no trouble holding it for long periods of time. In > any case, > you could always get a strap or a piece of silk if > it became > a problem. It is a very small price to pay for great > efficiency, > linearity in pitch vs. angle, and exactness of pitch > without a > big hassle and worry about environmental changes. > > As for bowed strings, I don't know about your > violins, > but mine have small machine tuners at the loop end > of > the strings. You can install them very easily and > coarse > tune with the pegs. To get the fine tuning, you use > the > machines. The fact that these machine tuners are > readily available is proof positive that the pegs > don&#x
Re: Newbie Question #2
A uniform weight distribution could be achieved by a new design that would have half of the tuners at one end and half at the other like we have seen on some practice guitars and some unusual instruments, the Stossel lute being one of them (not sure of spelling the name). Cheers, Marion -Original Message- From: gary digman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Apr 5, 2005 3:58 AM To: lutelist Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 We could have some form of "French" tuning pegs such as exist on my 5 string double bass. They combine a gear with a wooden peg under slight friction. I like them so much on my bass that I've often wished I had them on my lutes, baroque guitar and gamba also. Maybe we can get the ear of a luthier on this. Gary - Original Message - From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" ; "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:11 PM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > Vance Wood wrote: > > "However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the > limits of > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague > us." > > ++I agree with Vance on this one. > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with historical accuracy. > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the coast where > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where it is hot and dry. > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they are. If we > were more interested in efficiency than were were in historical > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can tune three > or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 cent accuracy > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to tune one string > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or humidity. > > I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I really see no > advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the historical significance. > Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag in terms of > time wasted that otherwise could be used for practicing. > > Best regards, > Marion > > > -Original Message- > From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM > To: lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > Dear Caroline: > > In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to understanding > the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered to > the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that > painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. If you > mean > that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which incidentally is not so > because I cannot afford it, and should have not used the word "We" I > stand > corrected. However from the way things tend to go on this list it would > seem that most are very much centered on historical accuracy. However > there > is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the limits of > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague us. > - Original Message - > From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute list" > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:04 PM > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > >> At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: >> >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of >> >what > it >> >is we do. >> >> What you mean we, white man? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ;-) >> Caroline >> Caroline Usher >> DCMB Administrative Coordinator >> 613-8155, Box 91000 >> B343 LSRC >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> > > > > > >
Re: Newbie Question #2
We could have some form of "French" tuning pegs such as exist on my 5 string double bass. They combine a gear with a wooden peg under slight friction. I like them so much on my bass that I've often wished I had them on my lutes, baroque guitar and gamba also. Maybe we can get the ear of a luthier on this. Gary - Original Message - From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" ; "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:11 PM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > Vance Wood wrote: > > "However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the > limits of > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague > us." > > ++I agree with Vance on this one. > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with historical accuracy. > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the coast where > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where it is hot and dry. > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they are. If we > were more interested in efficiency than were were in historical > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can tune three > or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 cent accuracy > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to tune one string > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or humidity. > > I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I really see no > advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the historical significance. > Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag in terms of > time wasted that otherwise could be used for practicing. > > Best regards, > Marion > > > -----Original Message- > From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM > To: lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > Dear Caroline: > > In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to understanding > the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered to > the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that > painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. If you > mean > that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which incidentally is not so > because I cannot afford it, and should have not used the word "We" I > stand > corrected. However from the way things tend to go on this list it would > seem that most are very much centered on historical accuracy. However > there > is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the limits of > expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague us. > - Original Message - > From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute list" > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:04 PM > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > >> At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: >> >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of >> >what > it >> >is we do. >> >> What you mean we, white man? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ;-) >> Caroline >> Caroline Usher >> DCMB Administrative Coordinator >> 613-8155, Box 91000 >> B343 LSRC >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> > > > > > >
Re: Newbie Question #2
Marion, I don't know about your guitar, but every lute I've played is about 50% lighter than any guitar I've ever played. Even with wooden pegs, the pegbox is already by far the heaviest component of the lute. The prospect of adding any more weight makes my back sore just thinking of it. It is perhaps not unrelated, but when I took violin lessons, the first thing my teacher told me to do was remove the fine tuners from my instrument, claiming that it effected the tone. My ear wasn't exactly accustomed to the minutae of violin tone at the time, (probably a good thing to spare me from the full impact of the wretched tone I managed to produce) but it did seem to me that the sound improved. Not only that, but since I didn't rely on the fine tuners as a crutch, I eventually became able to tune much faster and just as accurately. Chris --- "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Chris, > > I see no disadvantage with the very slight added > weight > My 11-string guitar has 11 metal tuning machines and > I have > no trouble holding it for long periods of time. In > any case, > you could always get a strap or a piece of silk if > it became > a problem. It is a very small price to pay for great > efficiency, > linearity in pitch vs. angle, and exactness of pitch > without a > big hassle and worry about environmental changes. > > As for bowed strings, I don't know about your > violins, > but mine have small machine tuners at the loop end > of > the strings. You can install them very easily and > coarse > tune with the pegs. To get the fine tuning, you use > the > machines. The fact that these machine tuners are > readily available is proof positive that the pegs > don't > work very well at all, especially for the short > diapasons of violins. > > If lutes had them we would not have so much trouble > tuning. However, we all are in this long-term > worship service of historical accuracy and no one > would dare modify anything on a lute if it looked > modern just to be efficient. > > It might be pointed out that the design of the lutes > that > we use today was the state of the art during the > 16th > and 17h centuries, for example. Modern luthiers have > copied, this design with no attempt to update it, > all out of > concern for historical accuracy. If the luthiers of > the 16th > and 17th century had had access to better > technology, they > would have had the practical wisdom to used it. > Modern luthiers will make anything we order. We > order > the old designs, then we pay for it in terms of time > wasted on tuning when we could be composing or > sending email messages to our lute friends all > across > the world. > > Best regards, > Marion > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 2:15 PM > To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > lute list , Caroline Usher > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > Marion, > > > I see an advantage to pegs: weight! I can't > imaging how much the pegbox of a 13-course baroque > lute would weigh with metal tuning machines. My > ten-course was a real balancing act when I got it > without having to deal with even more uneven weight > distribution. Also, pegs seem to work pretty well > for > modern bowed strings with metal strings and high > tension (with the exception of the bass, of course). > > > > Chris > > > > > > --- "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Vance Wood wrote: > > > > "However there is an historical accuracy not > touched > > on and that is the limits of > > expediency in addressing some of the same problems > > that seem to plague us." > > > > ++I agree with Vance on this one. > > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with > > historical accuracy. > > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from > the > > coast where > > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert > where > > it is hot and dry. > > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way > they > > are. If we > > were more interested in efficiency than were were > in > > historical > > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can > > tune three > > or four strings on a modern instrument to within > 1/4 > > cent accuracy > > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to > > tune one string > > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or > > humidity.
Re: Newbie Question #2
> If lutes had them we would not have so much trouble > tuning. However, we all are in this long-term > worship service of historical accuracy and no one > would dare modify anything on a lute if it looked > modern just to be efficient. I have a nagging feeling that this is Michael Stitt writing under a false name. Cello pins for lutes is next... RT -- http://polyhymnion.org/torban To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Newbie Question #2
> I see no disadvantage with the very slight added weight > My 11-string guitar has 11 metal tuning machines and I have > no trouble holding it for long periods of time. In any case, > you could always get a strap or a piece of silk if it became > a problem. It is a very small price to pay for great efficiency, > linearity in pitch vs. angle, and exactness of pitch without a > big hassle and worry about environmental changes. > > As for bowed strings, I don't know about your violins, > but mine have small machine tuners at the loop end of > the strings. You can install them very easily and coarse > tune with the pegs. Do you have these on your vocal chords as well??? RT -- http://polyhymnion.org/torban To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Newbie Question #2
Dear Chris, I see no disadvantage with the very slight added weight My 11-string guitar has 11 metal tuning machines and I have no trouble holding it for long periods of time. In any case, you could always get a strap or a piece of silk if it became a problem. It is a very small price to pay for great efficiency, linearity in pitch vs. angle, and exactness of pitch without a big hassle and worry about environmental changes. As for bowed strings, I don't know about your violins, but mine have small machine tuners at the loop end of the strings. You can install them very easily and coarse tune with the pegs. To get the fine tuning, you use the machines. The fact that these machine tuners are readily available is proof positive that the pegs don't work very well at all, especially for the short diapasons of violins. If lutes had them we would not have so much trouble tuning. However, we all are in this long-term worship service of historical accuracy and no one would dare modify anything on a lute if it looked modern just to be efficient. It might be pointed out that the design of the lutes that we use today was the state of the art during the 16th and 17h centuries, for example. Modern luthiers have copied, this design with no attempt to update it, all out of concern for historical accuracy. If the luthiers of the 16th and 17th century had had access to better technology, they would have had the practical wisdom to used it. Modern luthiers will make anything we order. We order the old designs, then we pay for it in terms of time wasted on tuning when we could be composing or sending email messages to our lute friends all across the world. Best regards, Marion -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 4, 2005 2:15 PM To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 Marion, I see an advantage to pegs: weight! I can't imaging how much the pegbox of a 13-course baroque lute would weigh with metal tuning machines. My ten-course was a real balancing act when I got it without having to deal with even more uneven weight distribution. Also, pegs seem to work pretty well for modern bowed strings with metal strings and high tension (with the exception of the bass, of course). Chris --- "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vance Wood wrote: > > "However there is an historical accuracy not touched > on and that is the limits of > expediency in addressing some of the same problems > that seem to plague us." > > ++I agree with Vance on this one. > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with > historical accuracy. > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the > coast where > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where > it is hot and dry. > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they > are. If we > were more interested in efficiency than were were in > historical > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can > tune three > or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 > cent accuracy > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to > tune one string > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or > humidity. > > I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I > really see no > advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the > historical significance. > Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag > in terms of > time wasted that otherwise could be used for > practicing. > > Best regards, > Marion > > > -Original Message- > From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM > To: lute list , Caroline > Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > Dear Caroline: > > In the context this was written--Yes. When it > comes to understanding > the instrument, the music and the > player/authors--No. In answered to > the question we? If that means you wish to exclude > yourself from that > painting with a broad brush I would like to hear > your thoughts. If you mean > that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which > incidentally is not so > because I cannot afford it, and should have not used > the word "We" I stand > corrected. However from the way things tend to go > on this list it would > seem that most are very much centered on historical > accuracy. However there > is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is > the limits of > expediency in addressing some of the same problems > that seem to plague us. > - Original Message - > From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute list" &g
Re: Newbie Question #2
Marion, I see an advantage to pegs: weight! I can't imaging how much the pegbox of a 13-course baroque lute would weigh with metal tuning machines. My ten-course was a real balancing act when I got it without having to deal with even more uneven weight distribution. Also, pegs seem to work pretty well for modern bowed strings with metal strings and high tension (with the exception of the bass, of course). Chris --- "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vance Wood wrote: > > "However there is an historical accuracy not touched > on and that is the limits of > expediency in addressing some of the same problems > that seem to plague us." > > ++I agree with Vance on this one. > Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with > historical accuracy. > This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the > coast where > it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where > it is hot and dry. > It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they > are. If we > were more interested in efficiency than were were in > historical > accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can > tune three > or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 > cent accuracy > (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to > tune one string > on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or > humidity. > > I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I > really see no > advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the > historical significance. > Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag > in terms of > time wasted that otherwise could be used for > practicing. > > Best regards, > Marion > > > -Original Message- > From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM > To: lute list , Caroline > Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > Dear Caroline: > > In the context this was written--Yes. When it > comes to understanding > the instrument, the music and the > player/authors--No. In answered to > the question we? If that means you wish to exclude > yourself from that > painting with a broad brush I would like to hear > your thoughts. If you mean > that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which > incidentally is not so > because I cannot afford it, and should have not used > the word "We" I stand > corrected. However from the way things tend to go > on this list it would > seem that most are very much centered on historical > accuracy. However there > is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is > the limits of > expediency in addressing some of the same problems > that seem to plague us. > - Original Message - > From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute list" > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:04 PM > Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > > > > At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: > > >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the > historical accuracy of what > it > > >is we do. > > > > What you mean we, white man? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > Caroline > > Caroline Usher > > DCMB Administrative Coordinator > > 613-8155, Box 91000 > > B343 LSRC > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com
Re: Newbie Question #2
Vance Wood wrote: "However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the limits of expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague us." ++I agree with Vance on this one. Whether we like it or not, we are stuck with historical accuracy. This past weekend I brought my 8c ren lute from the coast where it is cool and (relatively) damp to the desert where it is hot and dry. It took me an hour to tune, pegs being the way they are. If we were more interested in efficiency than were were in historical accuracy we would be using machine tuning. I can tune three or four strings on a modern instrument to within 1/4 cent accuracy (the limit of the gauge) in the time it takes to tune one string on a peg given a change in ambient temperature or humidity. I can see some advantage in movable frets, but I really see no advantage whatsoever in pegs, other than the historical significance. Historical accuracy comes with a very high pricetag in terms of time wasted that otherwise could be used for practicing. Best regards, Marion -Original Message- From: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Apr 4, 2005 12:22 PM To: lute list , Caroline Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 Dear Caroline: In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to understanding the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered to the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. If you mean that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which incidentally is not so because I cannot afford it, and should have not used the word "We" I stand corrected. However from the way things tend to go on this list it would seem that most are very much centered on historical accuracy. However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the limits of expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague us. - Original Message - From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: > >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of what it > >is we do. > > What you mean we, white man? > > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > Caroline > Caroline Usher > DCMB Administrative Coordinator > 613-8155, Box 91000 > B343 LSRC > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: Newbie Question #2
Dear Caroline: In the context this was written--Yes. When it comes to understanding the instrument, the music and the player/authors--No. In answered to the question we? If that means you wish to exclude yourself from that painting with a broad brush I would like to hear your thoughts. If you mean that I am caught up in historical accuracy, which incidentally is not so because I cannot afford it, and should have not used the word "We" I stand corrected. However from the way things tend to go on this list it would seem that most are very much centered on historical accuracy. However there is an historical accuracy not touched on and that is the limits of expediency in addressing some of the same problems that seem to plague us. - Original Message - From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: > >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of what it > >is we do. > > What you mean we, white man? > > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > Caroline > Caroline Usher > DCMB Administrative Coordinator > 613-8155, Box 91000 > B343 LSRC > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: Newbie Question #2
At 11:29 AM 4/3/2005, Vance Wood wrote: >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of what it >is we do. What you mean we, white man? ;-) Caroline Caroline Usher DCMB Administrative Coordinator 613-8155, Box 91000 B343 LSRC To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Newbie Question #2
On the subject of authenticity, I recently read a review of the film "In My Country" (involving South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission) that criticized it for being implausible and unconvincing. The film would have been far more convincing and artistically satisfying, the reviewer wrote, if it had been more historically accurate. Cheers, Jim To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Newbie Question #2
"Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Anyway, this has been the argument, > but I'm not sure it is a show stopper, depending on why you want > to play the lute. I have two 8c ren lutes and there are times > when I would like to have 1 or two additional courses. Agreed, the tone color of a well-designed 10c will vary from that of a well- designed 6c. But, not enough to be a major concern for someone not a professional. MOre important is the repetoire one wants to address. A shorter necked 6c instrument would be the choice of someone doing non-polyphonic or semi- polyphonic works rich in passagi; A large-bodied instrument for someone doing continuo and/or bass parts in ensemble. Some 9,10,11+ course pieces dont use all of the bass strings and can be adapted to an 8c by retuning; but your programme then has to allow the time to do that retuning. I would rather make my second and third instrument ones that contrasts by size or tone color - an orpharion, cittern, treble/bass lute. My first 'lute' was a lute-tuned classical guitar. The first lute I had access to was a loaner, a 7c by an unknown maker. The lute I now own is an 8c. I enjoy having the extra bass strings, but in reality they havent expanded the repetoire I do all that much (1600 and earlier). Hard to read your mind, and perhaps futile to try; a lot can be changed by chance encounters with exceptional performances of newly discoverd old material. > > ++You can think of the courses on a lute like tools in a toolkit. > If all you need are a few tools (e.g. 6 courses), why carry a large toolkit > (10c) to do a job that requires only a small one? > > And would it be any different if I "accidentally" didn't > bother to string the lower courses? > > ++You would be missing the advantages of a 10c lute. It might be OK > for practice. It would be like painting your gold medal flat black. > > I can see how it may not be desirable to go the other way--play X-course > music on 6-course instruments. > > ++You can come up with 6c versions of music written for 10c but > you will need to make some compromises and naturally you will need > to find another way to play it. It will be harder to play and it won't sound > as good. > > But since my having multiple lutes is not a > possibility in the near, intermediate, and probably even long-term future, > I'm trying to find a compromise that'll maximize the music I could play, > without doing undue violence to the musical text itself. > > ++What kind of music do you want to play? > > (Allow a me brief note on why lutes aren't popular in this day and > age. Instruments are expensive and fragile. > > ++Some of them are cheap. The problems are peg tuning, > > Repertoire is in a fairly unfamiliar idiom. > > ++With exposure to more lute music this problem goes away. > > I was originally put off guitar by the (relative > non-)complexity of having to choose 650 mm or 640 mm scale length, > cedar/spruce top, "country" vs. classical, and choice of back/side > wood. There's no decent lute tutor that I can find. > > ++There are books available on eBay. You can order very good > texts from various companies. I don't have time to write down all > the information, but email me if you want me to dig it up later. > I have five ren lute books, two in Italian and three in English. > > The instrument doesn't receive airplay or have superstars > prancing on stage--hunk, punk, or babe, variously. > > ++Thank God! Can you imagine Paul Odette "prancing" around > with a lute on stage? You can play or prance but not simultaneously. > > And, as Segovia is reported to have said, We live in a noisy age.) > > Tim B. > > Best > Marion > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > --
Re: Newbie Question #2
> First, Andres Segovia: hunk, punk, or babe? Neither; a chorizo. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Newbie Question #2
Hi Thomas, I think this is good advice. Knowing what I know now, if I could buy only one ren lute it would be a 10c. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. best regards, Marion -Original Message- From: Thomas Schall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Apr 3, 2005 3:54 AM To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 Hi Tim, my teacher advised her students to buy 10-course lutes. The reason is that you can play nearly every piece written in "vielle ton" on it. It's practical. In the meantime I have learned that earlier music doesn't sound right on a larger instrument but I still think a 10-course is a good choice. But a 8-course would do also (this was my first lute) because there are surprisingly few pieces which cannot be played on an 8-course. There are even pieces which do not work on a 10-course but well on a smaller lute (example: Dowland's Farewell-Fantasia in the setting of Mylius) Best wishes Thomas Am Sonntag, 3. April 2005 03:35 schrieb Tim Beasley: > Thanks all for a lot of great advice. It's greatly appreciated. > > I've (obviously) been doing a bit of reading. One luthier's webpage I ran > across pointed out that 6-course Renaissance music doesn't suffer horribly > on 7/8-course lutes, but that one should never even think of playing music > intended for 6-course lute on a 10-course instrument. > > My question is: Why not?(Assuming the first six courses are tuned > appropriately.) And would it be any different if I "accidentally" didn't > bother to string the lower courses? > > I can see how it may not be desirable to go the other way--play X-course > music on 6-course instruments. But since my having multiple lutes is not a > possibility in the near, intermediate, and probably even long-term future, > I'm trying to find a compromise that'll maximize the music I could play, > without doing undue violence to the musical text itself. > > (Allow a me brief note on why lutes aren't popular in this day and > age. Instruments are expensive and fragile. Repertoire is in a fairly > unfamiliar idiom. I was originally put off guitar by the (relative > non-)complexity of having to choose 650 mm or 640 mm scale length, > cedar/spruce top, "country" vs. classical, and choice of back/side > wood. There's no decent lute tutor that I can find. The instrument > doesn't receive airplay or have superstars prancing on stage--hunk, punk, > or babe, variously. And, as Segovia is reported to have said, We live in a > noisy age.) > > Tim B. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Thomas Schall Niederhofheimer Weg 3 D-65843 Sulzbach 06196/74519 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newbie Question #2
When I was a total newbie, I read the same item on Martin Shepherd's web site where he says to not even bother to play 6 course music on a 10 course lute. My first "real" lute was a 10 course loaner and I approached the early 6 course repertoire with trepidation. Of course, it is all playable, with the following caveats, in order of importance from most to least (to me that is): 1) 10 course lutes often have a longer string length making some of the LH stretches found in Milano and Capirola almost impossible for me 2) String spacing is usually tighter on a 10 course, making the beloved Eb major chord (with the first finger holding down first fret on courses 2 and 3 below an open 1st course) impossible for me without cheating 3) It's a lot of extra tuning of unused bass courses that will sound bad in sympathy if not tuned 4) There are some cool effects, especially when accompanying a singer, with the 6 course octave tuning I did eventually buy my own 10 course to complement my main 8 course lute, because I enjoy Vallet's music so much and his sequential bass runs just don't do it for me putting the notes up an octave. On Sunday, April 03, 2005, at 11:23AM, Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of what it >is we do. That does not mean that we should abandon all historic accuracy >but try instead,to put some sort of logical sanity to it. If one could put >themselves into the shoes of a period player who may not be professional but >like many players in England, and ourselves for that matter, were skilled >amateurs. > > Even then lutes were expensive items not to mention the cost and hassle of >strings for each Lute if more than one were possessed. It seems >unreasonable to me to assume that if one of these individuals desiring >to play one of Milano's pieces on an eight course Lute would object to the >practice,understanding that a good deal of Milano's music was found in >sources from Dowland's time, I have found several in the Cambridge >Manuscript Dd 2.11. Having said that, they may even have been tempted to >utilize the extra courses to fill in some of the base notes that much of >Milano's music seems to imply. > >I think that we forget it is about the music and the desire to play it and >if we do not have the instrument it was written for we play it on the >instrument we have. It's like the old "Pop Song" if you're not with the one >you love, love the one you're with. > >riginal Message - >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Tim Beasley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; >Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 10:20 AM >Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2 > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Newbie Question #2
I think sometimes we get too caught up in the historical accuracy of what it
is we do. That does not mean that we should abandon all historic accuracy
but try instead,to put some sort of logical sanity to it. If one could put
themselves into the shoes of a period player who may not be professional but
like many players in England, and ourselves for that matter, were skilled
amateurs.
Even then lutes were expensive items not to mention the cost and hassle of
strings for each Lute if more than one were possessed. It seems
unreasonable to me to assume that if one of these individuals desiring
to play one of Milano's pieces on an eight course Lute would object to the
practice,understanding that a good deal of Milano's music was found in
sources from Dowland's time, I have found several in the Cambridge
Manuscript Dd 2.11. Having said that, they may even have been tempted to
utilize the extra courses to fill in some of the base notes that much of
Milano's music seems to imply.
I think that we forget it is about the music and the desire to play it and
if we do not have the instrument it was written for we play it on the
instrument we have. It's like the old "Pop Song" if you're not with the one
you love, love the one you're with.
riginal Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tim Beasley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Newbie Question #2
> Tim,
>
>
> First, Andres Segovia: hunk, punk, or babe?
>
>
> Seriously, a lot of folks get caught up on the
> difference between the various coursed models, but
> there is simply not that much difference actual in
> sound between the Renaissance lutes. (There is
> between Ren. and Baroque lutes.) I'm not saying that
> there are NO structural differences - when you become
> a famous professional, you might want to delve into
> what lute works best for what period's music.
>
> In fact, I would hazard a guess that many people who
> consider themselves serious lute players would have a
> very difficult time distinguishing between the sound
> of these lutes on recordings if repertoire and octave
> stringing is not a factor. I.e. Dalza played on
> various instruments. ("Example one was seven course
> lute, number two a six course, and number three a ten
> - no, wait, sounds like a nine course lute.")
>
> I used to feel guilty playing Francesco da Milano on
> my ten course, but should I? We know that Francesco's
> music was popular long after his death. Would players
> of eight course lutes during this period have set down
> their instruments and picked up their six courses to
> perform this stuff?
>
> Finally I might just mention that when Ronn McFarlane
> tours, he plays everything from early to late (and his
> own) renaissance repertoire on a ten course lute that
> is not based on a historical model. Perhaps he can be
> forgiven since much of it is memorized :-)
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> --- Tim Beasley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks all for a lot of great advice. It's greatly
> > appreciated.
> >
> > I've (obviously) been doing a bit of reading. One
> > luthier's webpage I ran
> > across pointed out that 6-course Renaissance music
> > doesn't suffer horribly
> > on 7/8-course lutes, but that one should never even
> > think of playing music
> > intended for 6-course lute on a 10-course
> > instrument.
> >
> > My question is: Why not?(Assuming the first six
> > courses are tuned
> > appropriately.) And would it be any different if I
> > "accidentally" didn't
> > bother to string the lower courses?
> >
> > I can see how it may not be desirable to go the
> > other way--play X-course
> > music on 6-course instruments. But since my having
> > multiple lutes is not a
> > possibility in the near, intermediate, and probably
> > even long-term future,
> > I'm trying to find a compromise that'll maximize the
> > music I could play,
> > without doing undue violence to the musical text
> > itself.
> >
> > (Allow a me brief note on why lutes aren't popular
> > in this day and
> > age. Instruments are expensive and fragile.
> > Repertoire is in a fairly
> > unfamiliar idiom. I was originally put off guitar
> > by the (relative
> > non-)complexity of having to choose 650 mm or 640 mm
> > scale length,
> > cedar/spruce top, "country" vs. classical, and
> > choice of back/side
> > wood. There's no decent lute tutor that I can find.
> > The instrument
> > doesn't receive airplay or have superstars prancing
> > on stage--hunk, punk,
> > or babe, variously. And, as Segovia is reported to
> > have said, We live in a
> > noisy age.)
> >
> > Tim B.
> >
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> >
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
>
>
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
Re: Newbie Question #2
Tim,
First, Andres Segovia: hunk, punk, or babe?
Seriously, a lot of folks get caught up on the
difference between the various coursed models, but
there is simply not that much difference actual in
sound between the Renaissance lutes. (There is
between Ren. and Baroque lutes.) I'm not saying that
there are NO structural differences - when you become
a famous professional, you might want to delve into
what lute works best for what period's music.
In fact, I would hazard a guess that many people who
consider themselves serious lute players would have a
very difficult time distinguishing between the sound
of these lutes on recordings if repertoire and octave
stringing is not a factor. I.e. Dalza played on
various instruments. ("Example one was seven course
lute, number two a six course, and number three a ten
- no, wait, sounds like a nine course lute.")
I used to feel guilty playing Francesco da Milano on
my ten course, but should I? We know that Francesco's
music was popular long after his death. Would players
of eight course lutes during this period have set down
their instruments and picked up their six courses to
perform this stuff?
Finally I might just mention that when Ronn McFarlane
tours, he plays everything from early to late (and his
own) renaissance repertoire on a ten course lute that
is not based on a historical model. Perhaps he can be
forgiven since much of it is memorized :-)
Chris
--- Tim Beasley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks all for a lot of great advice. It's greatly
> appreciated.
>
> I've (obviously) been doing a bit of reading. One
> luthier's webpage I ran
> across pointed out that 6-course Renaissance music
> doesn't suffer horribly
> on 7/8-course lutes, but that one should never even
> think of playing music
> intended for 6-course lute on a 10-course
> instrument.
>
> My question is: Why not?(Assuming the first six
> courses are tuned
> appropriately.) And would it be any different if I
> "accidentally" didn't
> bother to string the lower courses?
>
> I can see how it may not be desirable to go the
> other way--play X-course
> music on 6-course instruments. But since my having
> multiple lutes is not a
> possibility in the near, intermediate, and probably
> even long-term future,
> I'm trying to find a compromise that'll maximize the
> music I could play,
> without doing undue violence to the musical text
> itself.
>
> (Allow a me brief note on why lutes aren't popular
> in this day and
> age. Instruments are expensive and fragile.
> Repertoire is in a fairly
> unfamiliar idiom. I was originally put off guitar
> by the (relative
> non-)complexity of having to choose 650 mm or 640 mm
> scale length,
> cedar/spruce top, "country" vs. classical, and
> choice of back/side
> wood. There's no decent lute tutor that I can find.
> The instrument
> doesn't receive airplay or have superstars prancing
> on stage--hunk, punk,
> or babe, variously. And, as Segovia is reported to
> have said, We live in a
> noisy age.)
>
> Tim B.
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Newbie Question #2
Hi Tim, my teacher advised her students to buy 10-course lutes. The reason is that you can play nearly every piece written in "vielle ton" on it. It's practical. In the meantime I have learned that earlier music doesn't sound right on a larger instrument but I still think a 10-course is a good choice. But a 8-course would do also (this was my first lute) because there are surprisingly few pieces which cannot be played on an 8-course. There are even pieces which do not work on a 10-course but well on a smaller lute (example: Dowland's Farewell-Fantasia in the setting of Mylius) Best wishes Thomas Am Sonntag, 3. April 2005 03:35 schrieb Tim Beasley: > Thanks all for a lot of great advice. It's greatly appreciated. > > I've (obviously) been doing a bit of reading. One luthier's webpage I ran > across pointed out that 6-course Renaissance music doesn't suffer horribly > on 7/8-course lutes, but that one should never even think of playing music > intended for 6-course lute on a 10-course instrument. > > My question is: Why not?(Assuming the first six courses are tuned > appropriately.) And would it be any different if I "accidentally" didn't > bother to string the lower courses? > > I can see how it may not be desirable to go the other way--play X-course > music on 6-course instruments. But since my having multiple lutes is not a > possibility in the near, intermediate, and probably even long-term future, > I'm trying to find a compromise that'll maximize the music I could play, > without doing undue violence to the musical text itself. > > (Allow a me brief note on why lutes aren't popular in this day and > age. Instruments are expensive and fragile. Repertoire is in a fairly > unfamiliar idiom. I was originally put off guitar by the (relative > non-)complexity of having to choose 650 mm or 640 mm scale length, > cedar/spruce top, "country" vs. classical, and choice of back/side > wood. There's no decent lute tutor that I can find. The instrument > doesn't receive airplay or have superstars prancing on stage--hunk, punk, > or babe, variously. And, as Segovia is reported to have said, We live in a > noisy age.) > > Tim B. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Thomas Schall Niederhofheimer Weg 3 D-65843 Sulzbach 06196/74519 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newbie Question #2
-Original Message- From: Tim Beasley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Apr 2, 2005 5:35 PM To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: Newbie Question #2 Thanks all for a lot of great advice. It's greatly appreciated. I've (obviously) been doing a bit of reading. One luthier's webpage I ran across pointed out that 6-course Renaissance music doesn't suffer horribly on 7/8-course lutes, but that one should never even think of playing music intended for 6-course lute on a 10-course instrument. My question is: Why not?(Assuming the first six courses are tuned appropriately.) ++ For practice purposes, you could but the results will not be ideal. This question came up on the internet lute society list as well. The argument has been that the 6c lutes are designed especially to for good sound quality in the range available on the 6c lute whereas the 10c lute is designed for a lower range. With 10 courses, when you play on the upper six courses you may get some sympathetic vibrations from the overtones of the lower courses that maybe you don't want. This leads to nonuniform sound quality in volume. The strings that do not have resonant overtones with the bass courses may not sound as loud and maybe you ' would rather emphasize them or have a uniform volume. On a 6c lute, you can play the lowest course without worrying about invoking these vibrations or hiting course number 7 by accident because it doesn't exist. Anyway, this has been the argument, but I'm not sure it is a show stopper, depending on why you want to play the lute. I have two 8c ren lutes and there are times when I would like to have 1 or two additional courses. ++You can think of the courses on a lute like tools in a toolkit. If all you need are a few tools (e.g. 6 courses), why carry a large toolkit (10c) to do a job that requires only a small one? And would it be any different if I "accidentally" didn't bother to string the lower courses? ++You would be missing the advantages of a 10c lute. It might be OK for practice. It would be like painting your gold medal flat black. I can see how it may not be desirable to go the other way--play X-course music on 6-course instruments. ++You can come up with 6c versions of music written for 10c but you will need to make some compromises and naturally you will need to find another way to play it. It will be harder to play and it won't sound as good. But since my having multiple lutes is not a possibility in the near, intermediate, and probably even long-term future, I'm trying to find a compromise that'll maximize the music I could play, without doing undue violence to the musical text itself. ++What kind of music do you want to play? (Allow a me brief note on why lutes aren't popular in this day and age. Instruments are expensive and fragile. ++Some of them are cheap. The problems are peg tuning, Repertoire is in a fairly unfamiliar idiom. ++With exposure to more lute music this problem goes away. I was originally put off guitar by the (relative non-)complexity of having to choose 650 mm or 640 mm scale length, cedar/spruce top, "country" vs. classical, and choice of back/side wood. There's no decent lute tutor that I can find. ++There are books available on eBay. You can order very good texts from various companies. I don't have time to write down all the information, but email me if you want me to dig it up later. I have five ren lute books, two in Italian and three in English. The instrument doesn't receive airplay or have superstars prancing on stage--hunk, punk, or babe, variously. ++Thank God! Can you imagine Paul Odette "prancing" around with a lute on stage? You can play or prance but not simultaneously. And, as Segovia is reported to have said, We live in a noisy age.) Tim B. Best Marion To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Newbie Question #2
Thanks all for a lot of great advice. It's greatly appreciated. I've (obviously) been doing a bit of reading. One luthier's webpage I ran across pointed out that 6-course Renaissance music doesn't suffer horribly on 7/8-course lutes, but that one should never even think of playing music intended for 6-course lute on a 10-course instrument. My question is: Why not?(Assuming the first six courses are tuned appropriately.) And would it be any different if I "accidentally" didn't bother to string the lower courses? I can see how it may not be desirable to go the other way--play X-course music on 6-course instruments. But since my having multiple lutes is not a possibility in the near, intermediate, and probably even long-term future, I'm trying to find a compromise that'll maximize the music I could play, without doing undue violence to the musical text itself. (Allow a me brief note on why lutes aren't popular in this day and age. Instruments are expensive and fragile. Repertoire is in a fairly unfamiliar idiom. I was originally put off guitar by the (relative non-)complexity of having to choose 650 mm or 640 mm scale length, cedar/spruce top, "country" vs. classical, and choice of back/side wood. There's no decent lute tutor that I can find. The instrument doesn't receive airplay or have superstars prancing on stage--hunk, punk, or babe, variously. And, as Segovia is reported to have said, We live in a noisy age.) Tim B. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
