Anthony,
--- Anthony Hind anthony.h...@noos.fr wrote:
Miguel can't believe that harpsichordists used
damping and sustain,
but that lutists completely ignored this practice.
I'd never argue for this. Its part of intelligent
music making.
As to whether the use of wirewound and pure gut
Chris
I entirely agree with all your remarks. I don't know how
scientific the measurements were.
I know that Charles Besnaiou makes measurement of string behaviour on
a special resonance box.
However , this is not a lute. Yet if you use an actual lute the
measure is even less
On Jan 3, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Anthony Hind wrote:
I agree with you, being able to damp strings does not mean that
you have to damp them all the time.
It is something to be kept in the panoply of the lute player. If
you don't know how to do so, however,
you have no choice.
I add that I would
Howard
I would love to be as new and innocent as you would like to
imagine me (Is that your wish to me for the new year?, I gratefully
accept, see below). I hope I do come over as young to the lute, but
if that is so that is probably because I have a mad strain of
enthusiam and
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 5:05 PM, chriswi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quite right. I once brought a recording of a famous
lutenist to a recording engineer to give him an idea
of the type of sound I admired. After a few moments
of listening he said, Yuck, turn that horrible stuff
off! It sounds so
Mersenne gives 20 seconds as the ring length, which is longer than
the Pyramid strings ring on my lutes.
Obviously, they had some strings we don't have, one candidate would
be the brass core overspun with gut or silk which you see on some
Asian instruments.
I'm sure they had other types as
I don't know whether its a modern practice. Absence
of written evidence may mean that it was done so often
that it didn't need mentioning.
Even with modern strings, I'm becoming convinced that
we fixate on it a little too much. It is much more
obvious for the player than for the listener.
There is an ornament mentioned with Radolt IIRC, called etoufement,
which actually is dampening. Mind you, it's an ornament, not dampening
in order to avoid unintended fusion of voices.
Mathias
chriswi...@yahoo.com schrieb:
I don't know whether its a modern practice. Absence
of written
Sorry, to the wrong list. I answered automatically without checking to
which list. So here's goes again, apologies if you receive it twice.
Thanks to all for their quotes from historical sources. My immediate
question is answered, but I welcome an ongoing discussion, of course.
there is one
Sorry like David, replied to the wrong list
Dear Chris and All,
According to Miguel Serdoura (p111-123) in his Baroque lute
method, there is one explicit mention of damping in Mace (1676). He
indicates the damping of a note with two small dots before it., and
calls this effect Tut.
I believe it is a modern practice, to utilize the damping effect. I though
here actually is a mention in the Gallot instructions about damping basses,
but (I believe we discussed this on this list 10 years ago) I had read this
in a modern translation, and others pointed out that the
Dear Chris and All,
According to Miguel Serdoura (p111-123) in his Baroque lute
method, there is one explicit mention of damping in Mace (1676). He
indicates the damping of a note with two small dots before it., and
calls this effect Tut.
The tut is a Grace always with the Right
Thanks to all for their quotes from historical sources. My immediate
question is answered, but I welcome an ongoing discussion, of course.
there is one explicit mention of damping in Mace (1676). He indicates the
damping of a note with two small dots before it., and calls this effect
Tut.
The
David, Miguel Serdoura's pages are 122-124, and not the ones I just
gave.
I am only forwarding the point of view expressed there. It would be
interesting to record a passage on a gut strung lute, following the
Miguel's dampling indications, testing how this sounds when the
basses are
14 matches
Mail list logo
