Matt, got to this one second - already answered your direct email. Thanks for the historical references, they are interesting and informative.
You properly say that the p/i "thumb under" technique derives from the use of the quill pick in the early music. As do others in this thread (including myself). But what seems to be left out of the thread is the stroke. Damiano (current) makes a distinction between the finger articulation of polyphony and the forearm stroke of the p/i "thumb under". The latter duplicates the stroke on the quill pick, using the entire forearm to make the sound. When one adds additional notes to the stroke one must use more RH fingers (obviously). The modern mandolin player in a country band uses a wrist action with his little plastic pick, but I doubt that could have been done with the more unwieldy quill pick. So it seems likely that the stroke was full forearm (weaker on the upbeat). It is consistant that the change to thumb out would come with the advent of using the instrument for a polyphonic line. One would want the strong sound in the bass to hold through the divisions in the treble. The instrument became "two voiced". The lower voice being a line to play off of. Sometimes contrapuntal and sometimes harmonic, but always needing to carry against the divisions. Thumb over or thumb under, the thumb can make a nice legato in the bass, but I see little difference. The difference seems to be in the use of the fingers as the impetus. Are they "articulated" to produce the stroke, or are they "riding on the forearm stroke". That is why I call "thumb under/in" a misnomer. It isn't the position of the thumb and fingers relative to the strings, it is the way they are used to make the "pluck". A full chord can be made with a thumb stroke down with the full forearm, or up with a finger. But an open chord requires articulation of thumb and fingers since the forearm can't move in two directions at once. Please pardon an analysis from an amateur, but I think there is logic here. In my humble opinion the change over around 1600 matched the change in the music to two voices on the single instrument. The m/i articulation would have been used when the thumb was needed to provide the bass voice, and the p/i forearm stroke when making a fast run in the treble against a held bass note (which requires either an open string bass, or a bass note that can be held with a finger on the fret while playing the upper run). OK, so I'm full of Molson's and writing a lot of BS, I tend to do that - and am always willing to be corrected. Somerset annual Harp Festival this weekend. Got to switch gears. Best, Jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Lute net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:43 AM Subject: Re: Neceffarie obferuations > Hi Jon, > > the aside remark *notwithstanding HIP* was actually supposed to help > make it out of the academic ghetto. I'm wondering which technical demand > leads to changing the right hand posture. You may call *thumb in* a > misnomer, but I use this name to make sure you can recognize what I'm > talking about. > > Thumb in is the earlier playing technique on the renaissance lute, > dating from medieval times. Around 1600 it came to be generally dropped > in favour of *thumb out*. The change was mentioned and discussed by > teachers like Besard, Dowland et al (even someone as late as Reusner). > > Thumb-in has been explained as having developed from playing with > quills, with the quill dropped but the posture kept, shortly before 1500 > (cf. Joe Baldassare on medieval lute playing). It's good for playing > runs with a steady interchange of heavy and light strokes > (thumb--index). > > Then came a change, thumb out became more popular. This has been > explained with expanded bass-registers which can be more easily reached > that way. Runs were to be played with interchanging forefinger and > middle finger. > > It is undisputed, I assume, that runs can be done much easier and > quicker with thumb-in-technique than with i-m. Vice versa, you'll have > to practice a lot more to achieve the same speed and fluency in playing > runs with thumb out. Moreover, bass courses can be reached with thumb-in > just as easily as with thumb-out (at least, that's my experience). > > To put it short, thumb-out cannot necessarily be called an improvement > in terms of comfortability. Nevertheless, players around 1600 are > generally depicted as dropping old fashioned thumb-in, replacing it by > cute thumb-out-playing. Why was it that they did so? What was the big > deal with that new fashion? Perhaps a new taste in strong, or > preponderant, bass notes? Maybe a new sound ideal? (Thumb-in in the > middle between rose and bridge vs. thumb-out as near the bridge as > possible?) Just guessing... > > Best, > > Mathias > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
