[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Eh!? Of course pitch is relevant to instrument size: as pointed out earlier, it's precisely why the top one, or two, courses were obliged to be lowered an octave. The point, as previously (and tediously) pointed out, is that historically pitch was such that the highest course(s) were obliged to be lowered an octave (as the Old Ones tell us). However, for mysterious reasons, some modern players string small theorboes with low octaves on the second course even when wholly unnecessary at the pitch in which they play. If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' it is clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. MH --- On Mon, 16/2/09, howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com wrote: From: howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale To: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Monday, 16 February, 2009, 8:10 PM Now you know the joke. You can have hours of fun by guessing exactly what relatively small size makes a theorbo a toy under Martin's criteria, then changing the assumed pitch level and doing it again. Martin misses the fun because he doesn't acknowledge that pitch is relevant to the question of instrument size, which spares him a lot of work with the more advanced branches of mathematics, such as multiplication and division. The part about Martyn's view of what size theorbos I favor -- as if I actually had theorbo preferences based on size, and there were someone else on the planet who cared what those preferences were -- is new, I think, and is silly without being funny. As far as I can tell, if Martyn thought about such things, he would say my theorbo is a toy at A92, definitely not a toy at AD0, and probably not a toy at AA5, before realizing that there was something wrong with his categorical one-size-fits-all construct. But he doesn't think of such things. Hence the joke. The fact is, I was taught in early adolescence that size doesn't matter. On Feb 16, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: A small theorbo is called a 'toy' theorbo when, because of its relatively small size which only really requires the first course to be at the lower octave, the second is also unnecessarily lowered: it's all down to how the individual player strings it, not some inherent characteristic of the instrument itself. Why some players do it is a mystery; although, of course, the use of modern overwpound strings (if you like them) allows a fairly strong bass even with a small fingered string length. I believe Howard Posner favours these small instruments in such a tuning - hence his advocacy of them I presume. There is much more, with historical evidence etc, in the archives of this list. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
--- On Tue, 17/2/09, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: From: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale To: David Rastall dlu...@verizon.net Date: Tuesday, 17 February, 2009, 8:30 AM That it is not a historic definition is precisely why it appears in inverted commas (as in 'toy' theorbos) In fact not just me who uses 'toy': for example Lynda Sayce. Historically single re-entrant theorboes were not uncommon (eg England in the 17thC) and are no less theorboes for not requiring both top courses to be at the lower octave. MH --- On Mon, 16/2/09, David Rastall dlu...@verizon.net wrote: From: David Rastall dlu...@verizon.net Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale To: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Monday, 16 February, 2009, 8:27 PM On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: A small theorbo is called a 'toy' theorbo when, because of its relatively small size As I recall, toy is your own appellation, rather than some general historical definition. which only really requires the first course to be at the lower octave, the second is also unnecessarily lowered: it's all down to how the individual player strings it, not some inherent characteristic of the instrument itself. You're saying that size brings about the necessity to use double reentrant tuning. But that's not to say that people with smaller instruments do it unnecessarily. I'm sure many of us (myself included) do it because of the way double reentrant tuning sounds. My theorbo is small enough at 79cm on the fretboard to use single reentrant tuning, but I personally prefer the sound of double reentrant over single. With single reentrant there's too much second-string sound, at least in my mind anyway. Besides, double reentrant provides the characteristic uniqueness of the theorbo! It's what makes a theorbo a theorbo, regardless of size. I can tune my 10-course in double reentrant if I want to. That would truly be a toy theorbo! Davidr [1]dlu...@verizon.net -- References 1. mailto:dlu...@verizon.net To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:37 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' Do you think we're all being pretentious? it is clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. It's impossible to be 100% historical about anything. Besides, the great variety of historical lutes-like instruments, and the radical changes that occurred in lute history, tell me that people were just as daft back then. Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Pretension: justifiable claim (OED). --- On Tue, 17/2/09, David Rastall dlu...@verizon.net wrote: From: David Rastall dlu...@verizon.net Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale To: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Tuesday, 17 February, 2009, 2:55 PM On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:37 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' Do you think we're all being pretentious? it is clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. It's impossible to be 100% historical about anything. Besides, the great variety of historical lutes-like instruments, and the radical changes that occurred in lute history, tell me that people were just as daft back then. Davidr [1]dlu...@verizon.net -- References 1. mailto:dlu...@verizon.net To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: However, for mysterious reasons, some modern players string small theorboes with low octaves on the second course even when wholly unnecessary at the pitch in which they play. If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' it is clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. OK, guilty as charged, but. Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. ray To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, William Brohinsky wrote: Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. Daft old world, isn't it? And, according to Martyn's historical pretensions, daft new one too. ;-) Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. Mark Twain -Original Message- From: David Rastall [mailto:dlu...@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:10 AM To: William Brohinsky Cc: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; lutelist Net; howard posner Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, William Brohinsky wrote: Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. Daft old world, isn't it? And, according to Martyn's historical pretensions, daft new one too. ;-) Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Preferring my lute-alikes at ca. 33 cm without diapason, I certainly am daft. Daftly, Eugene -Original Message- From: William Brohinsky [mailto:tiorbin...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:33 AM To: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: lutelist Net; howard posner Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: However, for mysterious reasons, some modern players string small theorboes with low octaves on the second course even when wholly unnecessary at the pitch in which they play. If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' it is clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. OK, guilty as charged, but. Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. ray To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: Pretension: justifiable claim (OED). I'll take that as a no to my question. Martyn, I'm not entirely sure what your justification is for advocating large theorbos only. I realize that this has been discussed on the list before, but as I don't want to comb through the archives to find it, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think that those who play small theorbos, especially in double reentrant tuning, are all daft (perhaps you can also provide an appropriate OED definition of daft). We accept the existence of the smaller French solo theorbo, and we know that music designed for double reentrant tuning was written for that instrument. Doesn't that constitute a justifiable claim that it isn't daft to string a French solo theorbo in double reentrant? David R dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
those who dance are thought mad by those who don't hear the music Anon On 2/17/09 11:29 AM, Guy Smith guy_m_sm...@comcast.net wrote: When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. Mark Twain -Original Message- From: David Rastall [mailto:dlu...@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:10 AM To: William Brohinsky Cc: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; lutelist Net; howard posner Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, William Brohinsky wrote: Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. Daft old world, isn't it? And, according to Martyn's historical pretensions, daft new one too. ;-) Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
The difference between me and a mad man is that I am not mad. - Salvador Dali those who dance are thought mad by those who don't hear the music Anon When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. Mark Twain To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
To be fair to Martyn, he is merely using one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. So if you have one of those small theorboes then tune the highest string (the 3rd course) to e, the first to d. Or as Martyn says tune only the first course down an octave for the first course at a. This is what they did back then, before modern stringing possibilities. Not daft just practical. All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: David Rastall [mailto:dlu...@verizon.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009 17:10 An: William Brohinsky Cc: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; lutelist Net; howard posner Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, William Brohinsky wrote: Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. Daft old world, isn't it? And, according to Martyn's historical pretensions, daft new one too. ;-) Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Mark Wheeler wrote: To be fair to Martyn, he is merely using one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. Fair enough. When they started making the big theorbos, reentrant tuning became necessary. No problem so far. So if you have one of those small theorboes then tune the highest string (the 3rd course) to e, the first to d. You mean I should simulate on my small theorbo the conditions imposed upon the stringing by the big ones? I'm not so sure about that one... Or as Martyn says tune only the first course down an octave for the first course at a. And to be fair to Martyn, that would work perfectly well for bc. But how about the French solo repertoire, which is written for a smaller instrument yet calls for double reentrant? If I have a larger string that I can use for a second course an octave lower on my toy theorbo, is that daft or practical? I think it's practical. Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Alfonso; I didn't read Arto's remarks to mean that you're lute was overpriced, just that the cost had generally risen to the point of putting these instruments out of the reach of the majority of players. The same thing has happened to many instruments, double basses for example have increased in value so much that investors are buying them as investments and storing them in warehouses while their value increases. Gary - Original Message - From: Alfonso Marin luten...@gmail.com To: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:31 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale Dear Arto and all, After the brief discussion about theorbo prices, I looked around for of other makers prices to reevaluate the worth of my theorbo by Nico van der Waals I am currently offering for sale for 7900€ (original price was 8250€ back in 2002). I am now certain that my asking price is quite fair for such a reputable maker and for an exceptionally good sounding instrument in mint condition. These are examples of similarly decorated instruments taken from up to date prices of three good makers including a Kingham case. I do not have information about Paul Tomson and Michael Lowe but I know these are much more expensive and their waiting list is even not considerable if you need an instrument in the near future. Stephen Barber 7,777€ Stephen Gottlieb 9,105 € Grant Tomlinson 9800 US $ = 7,604 € + 390 Kingham case = 7994 € (last years price) I know that Arto did not want to suggest that my theorbo was too expensive but in an indirect way he actually did. For that reason I feel compelled to defend myself and demonstrate the fairness of my asking price. Greetings, Alfonso On Feb 14, 2009, at 12:20 AM, wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: On 2/13/2009, Alfonso Marin luten...@gmail.com wrote: I am offering my Theorbo by NIco van der Waals for sale. .. Selling price is 7900 . The instrument really looks very beautiful! But is this really the price level of today? 7800 euros for a quality theorbo? In that case I am a rich man! On the other hand we lutenists have been happy for years for the prices of our instruments - just take a look to all others, even to modern guitarists ordering hand made instruments... Happily I've bought my instruments in the times that were not so good to luthiers! ;-)Best wishes to Stephen B. and Sandy! ;-)) Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1950 - Release Date: 02/12/09 18:46:00
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
I think you should charge whatever you want for the Theorbo! I would add to the list you have: Quite a few professionals play Andreas von Holst's Theorbos, they run about 5000 Euro, And I don't know what Hassenfuss is charging but I often see his instruments at gigs and they used to reasonable. dt At 01:02 AM 2/16/2009, you wrote: Alfonso; I didn't read Arto's remarks to mean that you're lute was overpriced, just that the cost had generally risen to the point of putting these instruments out of the reach of the majority of players. The same thing has happened to many instruments, double basses for example have increased in value so much that investors are buying them as investments and storing them in warehouses while their value increases. Gary - Original Message - From: Alfonso Marin luten...@gmail.com To: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:31 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale Dear Arto and all, After the brief discussion about theorbo prices, I looked around for of other makers prices to reevaluate the worth of my theorbo by Nico van der Waals I am currently offering for sale for 7900 (original price was 8250 back in 2002). I am now certain that my asking price is quite fair for such a reputable maker and for an exceptionally good sounding instrument in mint condition. These are examples of similarly decorated instruments taken from up to date prices of three good makers including a Kingham case. I do not have information about Paul Tomson and Michael Lowe but I know these are much more expensive and their waiting list is even not considerable if you need an instrument in the near future. Stephen Barber 7,777 Stephen Gottlieb 9,105 Grant Tomlinson 9800 US $ = 7,604 + 390 Kingham case = 7994 (last years price) I know that Arto did not want to suggest that my theorbo was too expensive but in an indirect way he actually did. For that reason I feel compelled to defend myself and demonstrate the fairness of my asking price. Greetings, Alfonso On Feb 14, 2009, at 12:20 AM, wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: On 2/13/2009, Alfonso Marin luten...@gmail.com wrote: I am offering my Theorbo by NIco van der Waals for sale. .. Selling price is 7900 . The instrument really looks very beautiful! But is this really the price level of today? 7800 euros for a quality theorbo? In that case I am a rich man! On the other hand we lutenists have been happy for years for the prices of our instruments - just take a look to all others, even to modern guitarists ordering hand made instruments... Happily I've bought my instruments in the times that were not so good to luthiers! ;-)Best wishes to Stephen B. and Sandy! ;-)) Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1950 - Release Date: 02/12/09 18:46:00
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Dear Howard, What do you mean by TOY theorbo? Have you seen the pictures? Do you think Nico van der Waals will ever make a TOY instrument? Sorry. I don't get it. Greetings, Alfonso On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:18 PM, howard posner wrote: On Feb 15, 2009, at 4:31 AM, Alfonso Marin wrote: I know that Arto did not want to suggest that my theorbo was too expensive but in an indirect way he actually did. For that reason I feel compelled to defend myself and demonstrate the fairness of my asking price. That would depend... It ain't one of them TOY theorbos, is it? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Dear Alfonso, A small theorbo is called a 'toy' theorbo when, because of its relatively small size which only really requires the first course to be at the lower octave, the second is also unnecessarily lowered: it's all down to how the individual player strings it, not some inherent characteristic of the instrument itself. Why some players do it is a mystery; although, of course, the use of modern overwpound strings (if you like them) allows a fairly strong bass even with a small fingered string length. I believe Howard Posner favours these small instruments in such a tuning - hence his advocacy of them I presume. There is much more, with historical evidence etc, in the archives of this list. Good to see, incidentally, that all the double-rentrant theorbos Barber (amongst others) offers are large instruments (except for his own design!) which do, indeed, require both courses to be lowered the octave. MH --- On Mon, 16/2/09, howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com wrote: From: howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale To: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Monday, 16 February, 2009, 5:36 PM On Feb 16, 2009, at 6:35 AM, Alfonso Marin wrote: What do you mean by TOY theorbo? Have you seen the pictures? Do you think Nico van der Waals will ever make a TOY instrument? Sorry. I don't get it. Where have you been? You missed all the fun. The toy theorbo is a recurring topic around here, and something of a running joke. If you're curious, you can start with: http://www.lutesandguitars.co.uk/htm/cat10.htm and search inaccurate and then google toy theorbo or Buchenberg containing a shawm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Martyn, --- On Mon, 2/16/09, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Why some players do it is a mystery; although, of course, the use of modern overwpound strings (if you like them) allows a fairly strong bass even with a small fingered string length. I currently have plain gut on my A-tuned 76cm theorbo. Its quite loud down to the 6th course - just as loud as when I had an overspun on there and definitely comparable to any larger theorbo. (I've had other instruments not nearly as loud.) Works great for both solo and ensemble. Chris To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Feb 16, 2009, at 11:50 AM, chriswi...@yahoo.com wrote: I currently have plain gut on my A-tuned 76cm theorbo. Is that what you were using on the Hurel recording? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
The web gremlins made my equals sings into chutney. On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:10 PM, howard posner wrote: As far as I can tell, if Martyn thought about such things, he would say my theorbo is a toy at A92, definitely not a toy at AD0, and probably not a toy at AA5, before realizing that there was something wrong with his categorical one-size-fits-all construct. But he doesn't think of such things. Hence the joke. Try it this way: he would say my theorbo is a toy at A equals 392, definitely not a toy at A eqauls 440, and probably not a to at A equals 415... -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: A small theorbo is called a 'toy' theorbo when, because of its relatively small size As I recall, toy is your own appellation, rather than some general historical definition. which only really requires the first course to be at the lower octave, the second is also unnecessarily lowered: it's all down to how the individual player strings it, not some inherent characteristic of the instrument itself. You're saying that size brings about the necessity to use double reentrant tuning. But that's not to say that people with smaller instruments do it unnecessarily. I'm sure many of us (myself included) do it because of the way double reentrant tuning sounds. My theorbo is small enough at 79cm on the fretboard to use single reentrant tuning, but I personally prefer the sound of double reentrant over single. With single reentrant there's too much second- string sound, at least in my mind anyway. Besides, double reentrant provides the characteristic uniqueness of the theorbo! It's what makes a theorbo a theorbo, regardless of size. I can tune my 10- course in double reentrant if I want to. That would truly be a toy theorbo! Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Dear Arto and all, After the brief discussion about theorbo prices, I looked around for of other makers prices to reevaluate the worth of my theorbo by Nico van der Waals I am currently offering for sale for 7900€ (original price was 8250€ back in 2002). I am now certain that my asking price is quite fair for such a reputable maker and for an exceptionally good sounding instrument in mint condition. These are examples of similarly decorated instruments taken from up to date prices of three good makers including a Kingham case. I do not have information about Paul Tomson and Michael Lowe but I know these are much more expensive and their waiting list is even not considerable if you need an instrument in the near future. Stephen Barber 7,777€ Stephen Gottlieb 9,105 € Grant Tomlinson 9800 US $ = 7,604 € + 390 Kingham case = 7994 € (last years price) I know that Arto did not want to suggest that my theorbo was too expensive but in an indirect way he actually did. For that reason I feel compelled to defend myself and demonstrate the fairness of my asking price. Greetings, Alfonso On Feb 14, 2009, at 12:20 AM, wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: On 2/13/2009, Alfonso Marin luten...@gmail.com wrote: I am offering my Theorbo by NIco van der Waals for sale. .. Selling price is 7900 . The instrument really looks very beautiful! But is this really the price level of today? 7800 euros for a quality theorbo? In that case I am a rich man! On the other hand we lutenists have been happy for years for the prices of our instruments - just take a look to all others, even to modern guitarists ordering hand made instruments... Happily I've bought my instruments in the times that were not so good to luthiers! ;-)Best wishes to Stephen B. and Sandy! ;-)) Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Seems fair to me, Alfonso. Everything is expensive, but your asking price is fair. Rob 2009/2/15 Alfonso Marin [1]luten...@gmail.com Dear Arto and all, After the brief discussion about theorbo prices, I looked around for of other makers prices to reevaluate the worth of my theorbo by Nico van der Waals I am currently offering for sale for 7900 (original price was 8250 back in 2002). I am now certain that my asking price is quite fair for such a reputable maker and for an exceptionally good sounding instrument in mint condition. These are examples of similarly decorated instruments taken from up to date prices of three good makers including a Kingham case. I do not have information about Paul Tomson and Michael Lowe but I know these are much more expensive and their waiting list is even not considerable if you need an instrument in the near future. Stephen Barber 7,777 Stephen Gottlieb 9,105 Grant Tomlinson 9800 US $ = 7,604 + 390 Kingham case = 7994 (last years price) I know that Arto did not want to suggest that my theorbo was too expensive but in an indirect way he actually did. For that reason I feel compelled to defend myself and demonstrate the fairness of my asking price. Greetings, Alfonso On Feb 14, 2009, at 12:20 AM, [2]wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: On 2/13/2009, Alfonso Marin [3]luten...@gmail.com wrote: I am offering my Theorbo by NIco van der Waals for sale. .. Selling price is 7900 . The instrument really looks very beautiful! But is this really the price level of today? 7800 euros for a quality theorbo? In that case I am a rich man! On the other hand we lutenists have been happy for years for the prices of our instruments - just take a look to all others, even to modern guitarists ordering hand made instruments... Happily I've bought my instruments in the times that were not so good to luthiers! ;-)Best wishes to Stephen B. and Sandy! ;-)) Arto To get on or off this list see list information at [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:luten...@gmail.com 2. mailto:wi...@cs.helsinki.fi 3. mailto:luten...@gmail.com 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Dear Alonso et al. On 2/15/2009, Alfonso Marin luten...@gmail.com wrote: [...] I know that Arto did not want to suggest that my theorbo was too expensive but in an indirect way he actually did. For that reason I feel compelled to defend myself and demonstrate the fairness of my asking price. Yes, I did not try to make any harm. Sorry if I did! My main message was that lutes have long been cheaper than many other instruments: On the other hand we lutenists have been happy for years for the prices of our instruments - just take a look to all others, even to modern guitarists ordering hand made instruments... All the best, Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:04 AM, sterling price spiffys84...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi-I have often wondered about van der Waals, like is he still building and where? Does he still take orders? Nico is still going strong, moved to Germany recently and is still taking orders. A pupil of mine just received her theorbo from him. David -- *** David van Ooijen davidvanooi...@gmail.com www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On 2/13/2009, Alfonso Marin luten...@gmail.com wrote: I am offering my Theorbo by NIco van der Waals for sale. .. Selling price is 7900 . The instrument really looks very beautiful! But is this really the price level of today? 7800 euros for a quality theorbo? In that case I am a rich man! On the other hand we lutenists have been happy for years for the prices of our instruments - just take a look to all others, even to modern guitarists ordering hand made instruments... Happily I've bought my instruments in the times that were not so good to luthiers! ;-)Best wishes to Stephen B. and Sandy! ;-)) Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Dear Arto, Nico van der Waals is an emblematic maker with a reputation as solid as Michael Lowe. I payed 8250 Euro for this theorbo back in 2002. You certainly can get cheaper instruments but if you are really interested on playing something really special by one of the pioneers of lute making with decades of experience, you will have to pay a price for it. Nico takes months to build a lute and he is never happy until he gets the sound he wants out of a given project. As a consequence he is only able to produce a small amount of instruments per year compared to other makers. Just to clarify things, I give you a link to a scanned receipt of the theorbo were you can see that I indeed payed 8250 Euros for it: http://tinyurl.com/brlgv2 or: http://www.theorbo.lutevoice.com/Site/Theorbo_for_sale_files/Media/Factura%20Nico%20Tiorba/Factura%20Nico%20Tiorba.jpg?disposition=download Greetings, Alfonso On Feb 14, 2009, at 12:20 AM, wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: On 2/13/2009, Alfonso Marin luten...@gmail.com wrote: I am offering my Theorbo by NIco van der Waals for sale. .. Selling price is 7900 . The instrument really looks very beautiful! But is this really the price level of today? 7800 euros for a quality theorbo? In that case I am a rich man! On the other hand we lutenists have been happy for years for the prices of our instruments - just take a look to all others, even to modern guitarists ordering hand made instruments... Happily I've bought my instruments in the times that were not so good to luthiers! ;-)Best wishes to Stephen B. and Sandy! ;-)) Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
