T. Diehl-Peshkur
Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:36:58 -0800
Hello Anthony et al, I am very interested in this topic that is presently being discussed, but it reminds me a lot of the so-called =8Ccanals' on Mars that everyone insisted they saw, even though there was nothing there. Looking at the pictures here coldly and without any prejudice one way or another, I see nothing of the clarity in the points you mention. In fact all have vast areas of wear for various distances from the bridge, not particularized to just one small area. The newly discovered lute you show has so many scrapings along the soundboard from repairs and bridge adjustments that I could never say from the pictures anything about what is going on there. It is highly laudable to discuss these issues, please don't get me wrong. But I think we are going too far in assumptions. For me anyway, much more evidence comes from a more general standpoint: Playing nearer the bridge with the 11 course instruments: yes- that's clear in a general way by the pictorial evidence, and I think all using gut will agree to that unequivocally in terms of the kind of sound one can produce. However it only works when you don't need/require the ring finger. Once the ring finger is needed for arpeggios or special situations, the pinky near the bridge placement simply doesn't work. Even then, however, just moving a little bit away from the bridge is enough for a useful sound from the ring finger (for me: 1-2 cm). And in later music there are enough examples where you have to- or otherwise stated, where the top players probably just did it anyway. As devil's advocate: We also have no idea if these lutes could have been owned by rank amateurs, who played three or four ditties on them constantly, or had poor techniques. Not every old instrument is useful or beautiful or informative just because it is old. I often suspect that the very best instruments, played by the top players disappeared first- played to shreds during their lifetime of performances and travel across Europe. I think going further than these =8Ctypes' of general statements, based solely on pics (and not the actual thicknesses of the worn out areas on the soundboard) is just too conjectural. Just my 2 cents of course, and positively meant! Cheers, Theo From: Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:08:34 +0100 To: Robert Barto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: RH on the bridge? 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 --
