For accompanying singers, also, the answer, unfortunately, is to have a number of different sized lutes. Anthony
----- Mail original ----- De : William Samson <willsam...@yahoo.co.uk> À : Anthony Hind <agno3ph...@yahoo.com>; sterling price <spiffys84...@yahoo.com> Cc : "baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" <baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Envoyé le : Mardi 29 Novembre 2011 10h27 Objet : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392 As far as I can see the only show-stopper for a lute tuned to 392Hz is ensemble work, when the other musicians are tuned to a higher pitch standard - usually 415Hz. That's where a 66cm baroque lute would be useful. Having said that, not many lutes that small have survived. Of course, the old guys (unlike me) might have been able to transpose a semitone up without any trouble. Bill From: Anthony Hind <agno3ph...@yahoo.com> To: sterling price <spiffys84...@yahoo.com> Cc: "baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" <baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2011, 9:06 Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392 My 70 cm Warwick works well at 392Hz. While going from 407Hz to 392Hz, I wanted to raise the tension of the basses slightly, so I just shifted them along one increment (C1 to D2 etc). However, I changed most of the mid and top strings. The basses were two years old, but still seem good. A smaller lute, as Ed suggests, might be better at 415. Anthony PS My intuition might be that certain pieces are better played at 392, but perhaps not all. __________________________________________________________________ De : sterling price <[1]spiffys84...@yahoo.com> A : howard posner <[2]howardpos...@ca.rr.com>; baroque lute list <[3]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Envoye le : Mardi 29 Novembre 2011 5h18 Objet : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392 Hi-After just playing it now, I like the basses but the 1st and 2nd courses could be higher tension of course so I think I will go that way. Just curious--how many of you are playing baroque lutes at A=392? I think it works quite well on a larger lute, but I'm not convinced it should be done on a smaller lute(ie below 69cm). My 70.5cm Burkholzer will stay at 415. -Sterling From: howard posner <[1][4]howardpos...@ca.rr.com> To: baroque lute list <[2][5]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 7:15 PM Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392 On Nov 28, 2011, at 5:15 PM, sterling price wrote: > My question is: should I > just tune the same 415 strings down or get a new set of strings for > 392? Yes. Those are pretty much the only two options. > Right now it is at 392 but I'm wondering if it might sound better > with new strings. Any thoughts? Do you like it at 392 now? -- To get on or off this list see list information at [3][6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- -- References 1. mailto:[7]howardpos...@ca.rr.com 2. mailto:[8]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 3. [9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:spiffys84...@yahoo.com 2. mailto:howardpos...@ca.rr.com 3. mailto:baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 4. mailto:howardpos...@ca.rr.com 5. mailto:baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 7. mailto:howardpos...@ca.rr.com 8. mailto:baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
