Dear Caroline; I've attended concerts sponsored by the San Francisco Early Music Society which has a large number of season ticket holders who get preferred seating at their concerts and fill their concerts with audiences of 2-300 people. After attending two lute concerts, one featuring David Tayler and one solo concert performed by Hopkinson Smith, I resolved never to attend another lute concert sponsored by Sfems because the lute simply could not be heard from more the 6 or 7 rows back where all the lute players (who cannot afford season tickets) were forced to sit. I refuse to pay $40 for a ticket to watch someone play a lute I cannot also hear.
I've also attended Julian Bream concerts in which he played guitar and lute. Bream's guitar could be heard fine throughout the hall, but when he picked up the lute, even his "heavy" lute, no one passed the 6th row could hear it. There were many complaints. So, the idea that volume is not an issue with the lute in these situations is wishful thinking, in my opinion. I did not mean to imply that volume was the only issue leading to the disappearance of the "soft-voiced" instruments, but I think it was a very significant factor. The reason one increases the string tension on an instrument is to get more bang for the buck, i.e. more volume out of the instrument. And that's the reason, I believe, for the changes that led from the baroque guitar to the modern guitar. These changes had to be made so the guitar could handle the increased string tension. And, why increase string tension? Volume, volume, volume. The Torres guitar is significantly louder than either the lute or the baroque guitar. I don't think it is simplistic to argue that the appearance of the concert hall was a significant element motivating these changes. I also don't believe these changes occurred because of the "unhistorical early music principles" of lutenists, gambists and keyboardists. All the Best, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Caroline Usher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "gary digman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Too soft to live, was The last word goes to Sting > At 05:37 AM 10/11/2006, you wrote: > >The guitar of the 19th century was not the same instrument as the guitar of > >the 17th: increased tension, larger body, single strings, sturdier > >construction. All of which contributed to its survival by increasing its > >volume. > > Obviously, I'm not terribly well-informed about 19th-century guitar. My impression from a very few concert experiences was that it was not significantly louder than a lute. Also, the point that is often made by the pros is that it's not just volume that counts, it's projection, and the lute can project well (in a good acoustic environment, i.e. without acoustic tile and other sorts of things that didn't exist in 1810.) > > >Also the lute was not the only small voice extinguished at this > >time. How to account for the fact that the plucked keyboards and violas da > >gamba died out at about the same time. > > To me it's not the volume issue that is most striking but the change of timbre. I also think that someone's point about technical differences such as number of frets on the neck vis a vis stylistic demands of the new music is very well taken. > > Fashions change. Knee breeches and powdered wigs are out, long pants and natural hair are in. Neoclassicism - out, Romanticism - in. And so on. > > But mostly, I'm tired of simplistic canards about how the lute is so soft you can only play for an audience in single digits. ;-) > Caroline > > **************************************** > Caroline Usher > DCMB Administrative Coordinator > 613-8155, Room B343 LSRC > Mailing address: Box 91000, Duke University, Durham NC 27708 > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/472 - Release Date: 10/11/2006 > > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
