Absolutely! And let's not forget that perhaps most (if not, indeed, all)
'professional' lutenists from c. 1600 on also played chitarrone /
theorbo and guitar where thumb-out is simply far more superior for the
sheer flexibility of it, for a wider variety of sound dynamics and of
tone colour tha
Morgan,
--- On Wed, 3/17/10, morgan cornwall wrote:
>
> Question to all. If thumb-under assists in playing
> the double courses simultaneously and without double
> striking, how did the baroque lutenists (or Dowland for that
> matter) avoid this problem when they switched to thumb-out?
>
Ah,
Joe,
--- On Wed, 3/17/10, Mayes, Joseph wrote:
> Not to be argumentative, but...
>
And why not? Its a discussion after all.
> A) you will also rarely listen to any performer with your
> ear pressed up against the strings. The very nature of
> recording subtracts ambience, what they call "room
Hi everyone,
Just a few comments to add:
In addition to Dowland, Gregory Howet also played thumb-out; my
ancient article on Sebastian Ochsenkuhn (American Lute Society Journal,
1982) points out that Ochsenkuhn (1558) is seen playing thumb out
(perhaps because his lute lo
Was he that really melancholy guy? I think I asked him to play at a party
and regretted it for quite a while. Seemed to know how to tickle the gut
though.
Question to all. If thumb-under assists in playing the double courses
simultaneously and without double striking, how did the baroque lu
This sounds plausible. To disprove it with certainty
I'd need to do methodical measurements.
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alexander Batov wrote:
> I think they only appear as 'equally' unstable because they would all need to
> be tuned up but ... to the rather unequal degree. Being more or less under
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:30 PM, David Tayler wrote:
about mics
> reasons, normally you have some at different distances, then you mix them.
> You can get by with three, four is better, six is insurance, eight is
My CD recordings, 30 so far and tomorrow will be the next one, have
been done in a v
On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:51 AM, morgan cornwall wrote:
> I would like to make the best use of the time I have. Given my
> circumstances, would you recommend that I learn thumb-under technique?
> Does it make more sense to use this technique from the start, or should
> I focus on the other as
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:51 PM, morgan cornwall
wrote:
> internet, and watching footage of lute players I realize that there
> aren't strictly thumb-under and thumb-out techniques, but all the
> shades in between.
Very true.
> circumstances, would you recommend that I learn thumb-under
"Mics are so cheap now there is no reason not to use four." Yes, the
standard practice is to use several microphones for stereo recording.
But there is something to be said for just using two. My favorite
orchestral - and chamber music - recordings are done with just two,
including
Because the mics can be in multiple places simultaneously.
The question is not a question of close miking anymore, for practical
reasons, normally you have some at different distances, then you mix them.
You can get by with three, four is better, six is insurance, eight is
the minimum I use for
I'm using SIR now for reverb, but I make my own impulse files.
The free version is fine.
dt
At 04:33 AM 3/17/2010, you wrote:
> I'm using the zoom H2, and add no reverb or anything, just the sound as it
>came out the box (but sometimes I think I should try a little bit of
>reverb... Or record in
Should I not even worry about using thumb-under?
Thank you in advance,
morgan
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4952 (201003
Hi Morgan,
I am in a similar situation than you, i.e., an amateur with guitar
experience. Like you I asked myself if it would be worth and manageable
to learn thumb under technique. It is. Take a good lute teacher, put
some initial effort into it and you will be surprised how quickl
Dear Individual and Collective Wisdom,
I am an amateur guitarist of about 25 years. I play fingerstyle
acoustic, electric, and classical guitar. Because of my other hobbies,
such as gardening, I gave up playing with nails some years ago and
strictly play with my fingertips.
I am a great fan of the Skeptic Society. A recent article to touch
(peripherally) on the digital vs. analog debate:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06
> -Original Message-
> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
> Behalf Of nedma...@aol.com
> Sent:
Anthony,
The digital vs. analogue battle will never be resolved, I think. I
still have a library full of records, in addition to a sizable
collection of CDs. I think my best vinyl still sounds more natural
than my best CDs, but the CDs are more consistent in quality. Certainly
Ned
I can't be more in agreement, particularly about the Astree LP
recordings of POD versus HM CDs.
My thoughts are that the Astree were a CNRS research project, and the
strings seemed to be part of that project.
No doubt the sound engineers wanted us to be able to hear the diff
As far as recording rock guitar, simply putting a micro right on the amp is not
the way used by many (perhaps most) rock guitarists in studio, it is usually a
combination of various mikes in different positions, including mikes quite some
way away from the amp. The latest trend (not exactly new
Not to be argumentative, but...
A) you will also rarely listen to any performer with your ear pressed up
against the strings. The very nature of recording subtracts ambience, what they
call "room" and gives you a rather unrealistic notion of what's going on
Personally, aside from all talk of recordings, I'd much rather have a
professional give me a private performance in my living room than the shared
concert experience. If I could sit three feet away from Robert Barto, Nigel,
Ronn, Hoppy, POD, etc, and listen to them play, I'd be in heaven becaus
Joe,
A few reasons:
A) Because you'll rarely listen to a recording with your ear stuck up
against the speakers. The very nature of speakers adds an additional
acoustical environment. (Headphones are the exception.)
B) Because even the best microphone does not "listen" like a hu
I'm using the zoom H2, and add no reverb or anything, just the sound as it
came out the box (but sometimes I think I should try a little bit of
reverb... Or record in a church, even not HIP, but I'm not really HIP
myself
;-))
Roman, one day you sent me a file where you added reverb (3 different
Not a professional recording artist, so weigh my opinion for what it's
worth: so much fish. I'm torn on the issue of close mic'ing acoustic music.
Electric instruments and ensembles depend entirely upon some kind of
processing for sounding like they do, so close mic'ing and processing the
sound ho
Hi Chris
Your points are well-taken, however why should the mike hear what the live
listener can not?
Joseph Mayes
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of
chriswi...@yahoo.com [chriswi...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, Marc
About pro recording what I would like to hear is the same as in a concert
when I'm at the first row (what I try to do when I go listen to lute
music...)
I don't want to have my ears too close to the lute (as if I was myself
playing because in this case I'm not...) Too often we hear lute as if we
(Back to commercial recordings, not folks' 'tube submissions)
In my view, if you notice the reverb, its too much.
I'm also a big advocate of close miking. This is another thing that is
especially appropriate for a soft instrument like the lute, but is rarely done.
Its funny, I've done a fair
I'm using the zoom H2, and add no reverb or anything, just the sound as it
came out the box (but sometimes I think I should try a little bit of
reverb... Or record in a church, even not HIP, but I'm not really HIP myself
;-))
Roman, one day you send me a file were you add reverb (3 different halls
28 matches
Mail list logo
