Dear Sterling, It is understandable that you should find the renaissance lute difficult to play, if you hold it on your shoulder. Pascale Boquet refers to this in her lute tutor, _Approche du Luth Renaissance_ (1987), p. 30, as "tr�s mauvaise position".
I think you are right that the lute in the 18th century was perceived as a bit recherch� and difficult to play. Thomas Mace, writing in 1675, says so, but he argues against this, making a virtue out of the large number of strings on the baroque instrument: "That the Lute was a Hard or very Difficult Instrument to Play well upon, is confessed; And the Reasons why, shall here be given: But that it is Now Easie, and very Familiar, is as Certainly True; And the Reasons shall likewise be given. The First and Chief Reason that it was Hard in former Times, was, Because they had to their Lutes but Few Strings; viz. to some 10, some 12, and some 14 Strings, which in the beginning of my Time were almost altogether in Use ... But soon after, they began to adde more Strings unto Their Lutes, so that we had Lutes of 16, 18, and 20 Strings; which they finding to be so Great a Convenience, stayed not long till they added more, to the number of 24, where we now rest satisfied ... You must know, that he who undertakes the Lute, will meet with things becoming the Lute, viz. Composures of Parts, with much variety of Trebles, Basses, and Inner Parts. All which upon the old Lutes, by reason of the Fewness of Strings, was (really) extreme Hard to perform ... Whereas Now, (on the contrary) as Really as it was Then Hard, so Truly is it become Easie, and very Familiarly Pleasant to the Learner, by reason of the Increase of Strings." Had Mace been alive today, he would no doubt have concurred with your view about wheelbarrows. :-) Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "sterling price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 4:59 AM Subject: Re: Vihuela vs guitar > I think a big factor in the 18th century decline of > the lute is its -implied- difficulty. Admit it-lute > players like to promote the idea that the lute is > difficult and only playable by the elite. This > attitude is still strong today especially with the > baroque lute. The fact is it is no more difficult than > any other instrument. Having 13 courses of strings > does not make it difficult-if that were true the > piano, harp, organ and many other instruments would be > humanly impossible to play(how many strings does a > piano have?) I tend to agree with EG Baron's statement > that the lute in the 1720s had reached a high state of > refinement and that a child could play it well. I > cringe when I hear people today talk about the > impossibility of playing the baroque lute because it > has 24 strings. I say it is a logical result of > centuries of refinement. If the baroque lute is ever > to prosper and shed its image of rediculous > impossibility people have got to stop thinking in that > way. Now, I have a certain profficiency on the baroque > lute and find the music flowing easily from me at > times, but I have trouble playing the earlier 6-7 > course music which never seems to flow from my > fingers. I think of it like carrying a heavy load: > with a baroque lute I have a wheel barrow, with the > ren lute I am carrying the load on my shoulders. > Sterling Price To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
