One more thing: I plan to talk to my teacher about this, but how does one incorporate music theory in lute instruction? I've played piano in the past, and the concepts (intervals especially) seem easier to comprehend using musical notation.
On 8/30/05, jim abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I'm a beginning student. My goal is to play renaissance and baroque lute > music, but owing to financial exigencies, I am using a classical guitar at > present. I have a respected lute teacher, and we are using lute technique as > far as possible on the guitar (e.g. pinky on belly, thumb out -- my > preference, not influenced by guitar technique, thumb/index alteration on > accented/unaccented beats, etc), in anticipation of the day when I can get a > lute. > > But I've been thinking. A lot is made about using the right lute for the > job: 8-10 course lute for Dowland, 11 for baroque, 13 for Bach and Weiss, > all requiring money, lots of time tuning, and lots of time learning the ins > and outs of each instrument. On the other hand, most of the music I enjoy > seems to have been quite successfully transcribed for CG: Dowland, Weiss, > Bach's cello and lute suites, etc. If you're playing the cello suites, it's > no more authentic to play them on the lute than the CG -- is it easier? Or, > in the long run, is it simply easier (though not as musically "pure") for > the amateur to learn just the one instrument which, though a compromise, > gives access to the whole repertoire? > > Jim > -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
