Anthony Hind
Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:09:54 -0800
Robert
I looked at the photos again, and noticed another variation apart
from the one you mentionned which was as follows:
> "Only the first is really close to the bridge. (1 and 3 are
> relatively close):
> 1) The first is the Hans Frei in Bologna; Matthias Fux/R=C3=B6m 1683'
> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster1.JPG
> 3) The third has no label
> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster3.JPG
>
> 2 and 4 really not close to the bridge :
>
> 2) The second is a 'Magno dieffopruchar a venetia/1604 Matthias Fux/
> R=C3=B6m. Kays. May- / Hoff-Lautenmacher in Wien 1685/
> zuegericht'
> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster2.JPG
>
> 4) The fourth is 'Jakob Wei=CE'/Lauthen-und Gei-/17 genmacher in
> Saltzburg'. 13 course lute with broken bass rider
> http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster4.JPG
>
> But no sign of on the bridge or behind as one sees on many
> portraits and instruments." RB
First, I wonder whether this variation above is sufficient to
consider it as relating to two different techniques: thumb completely
out, thumb not completely out (but perhaps not in). other
explanations seem possible.
However, what surprises me, is that the last two (3 & 4) seem to
have a very precise fixed finger position:
3) The third has no label
http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster3.JPG
4) The fourth is 'Jakob Wei=CE'/Lauthen-und Gei-/17 genmacher in
Saltzburg'. 13 course lute with broken bass rider
http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster4.JPG
This would seem to imply that any sound variation would be obtained
by swivelling the hand, but keeping the little finger firmly placed;
while the first two show a longish patch showing a more variable
little finger position:
1) The first is the Hans Frei in Bologna; Matthias Fux/R=C3=B6m 1683'
http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster1.JPG
2) The second is a 'Magno dieffopruchar a venetia/1604 Matthias Fux/
R=C3=B6m. Kays. May- / Hoff-Lautenmacher in Wien 1685/ zuegericht'
http://www.aquilacorde.com/kremsmuenster2.JPG
This could show that sound variation was obtained by a movement on
the soundboard, the finger not fixed.
However, this interpretation implies that the lute was played by only
one person. Can we be sure about that? Might the lutes 1 & 2 have
been played by more than one person, but the lutes 3 and 4 by only one?
The fact that there is no break in the moveable position could
indicate that it WAS the same player.
If the two positions: close to the bridge (1 and 3), but not so close
to the bridge (2 and 4), could perhaps be explained by a player
adapting to string type or tension or because of hand size, or
perhaps thumb out (1 & 3), not so far out (2 & 4); however, the fixed
finger (3 & 4), moveable finger (1&2) difference, can't be given such
an explanation, and must surely imply two different playing techniques.
The problem is that the little finger swivel, or glide techniques do
not correspond to the "close to the bridge less close to the bridge
position".
It would have been easier to fathom had there been a coincidence
between the two. Then we would clearly have two globally different
techniques.
Anthony
Le 16 dec. 07 =E0 21:55, Robert Barto a ecrit :
> Anthony,
>
> Thank you very much for these pictures.
>
> What's actually interesting about them is how two are close to the
> bridge
> and two are not. Only the first is really close to the bridge. (1
> and 3 are
> relatively close, 2 and 4 really not.) But no sign of on the bridge or
> behind as one sees on many portraits and instruments.
>
> So what does this tell us?
>
> Robert
>
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
