Hi Mathias, see my comments in context below ... --- "Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Christopher Schaub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > I haven't heard anyone play > > thumb-under faster than top rate classical or flamenco guitarists whose > > technique is not that different from thumb-out, especially in regards to > imim. > > that may be so, but I'm an _average_ lutenist, you see, and I can > comfortably reach top speed. Thumb-in allows average lute players to > keep up with the others' speed. > Good point. I have a feeling we're all pretty average compared with lutenists of the past. :?) > > I do notice that preparing the bass with the thumb before beginning a run > gives > > quite a bit of leverage to allow for some more speed and power with imim. > Many > > flamenco players do this for power and speed. > > which has nothing to do with thumb-in/thumb-out, right? > Well, preparing bass notes is a pretty big part of Baroque lute technique and can be quite helpful on lutes of greater than 8 courses. > > I've also heard many say that > > thumb-under is more fluid. Again, I'm not sure if that's really true. > > to be sure, it's a matter of practicing :) > Yeah, it always comes down to this. I wonder if there is a lute equivalent of selling your soul or magic to get better, like the blues guitar player Robert Johnson (I think it was him)? > > It just requires more attention to playing legato with the left hand using > thumb-out. > > would you mind to elaborate? > Well, I feel the legato comes from playing with a very connected left hand, from note to note. The right hand is the attack, the left is the expression of the line. Both hands are involved, but I feel the left hand has a greater role or harder role with thumb-out. > > The only area where I think thumb-under has an advantage is to achieve that > > "swing" affect with dance pieces. (...) > > I think it's safe to say that thumb-under was generally used for the first > 1/3 > > of the lute era and thumb-out for the last 2/3. So which is really the > dominant > > technique -- or even the technique to be taught? > > I didn't mean to discuss which technique is preferable but whether or > not there are certain technical demands that require thumb-in, or > thumb-out, respectively, notwithstanding the well known fact that the > shift from one to the other technique did take place. > of course > > What would Dowland do with his > > students? I think he makes it clear his intentions that he recommends thumb > > out. > > I'd love to find out what made him do so. > You and the rest of us. Maybe it was just changing times. Thumb-out does generally produce a brighter sound which, to my ears, cuts through an ensemble better. Maybe it was just keeping up with the young hot shot players? > > It seems that an emphasis on thumb-out with the ability to thumb-under > > when really necessary is the most versatile strategy for playing the entire > > repertoire. > > or vice versa, if you don't mind. No problem. I actually also play runs with PIPI using thumb-out. The index finger crosses under the thumb. I think Dowland describes this technique -- somebody does because I remember reading it. It's funny, but it works really well when you get the thumb really stretched out as Dowland describes. It doesn't seem to work as well for me when the hand is too high though. I actually think it's about the same as runs with thumb-under in terms of ease. > > I can't see how you can really play Baroque music with thumb under > > -- jumping from the trebles to the basses could disrupt the flow and also > > interfere with preparing the bass notes. > > nevertheless, it's required quite often. Have a look into Gaultier's > prints, Mouton, Gallot et al. In French baroque lute music, the thumb > must be most versatile. > I agree. Thanks for the comments and dose of moderation! :?) > Cheers, > > Mathias > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
