David, Or, perhaps, it isn't dead; merely resting awaiting a reawakening. If you had heard Chris Wilke play the 1987 suite by Carlo Domeniconi you would certainly not think it dead. Chris, you gotta record that!!
No resurrection is needed, only use. Even at my pitiful playing level I've never had anyone for whom I've played look at a baroque lute and say, "Why bother?" The visual and tonal impact of the instrument is enthralling to any musician. Best, Rob Dorsey http://RobDorsey.com -----Original Message----- From: David Rastall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Too soft to live Okay, here's what we have so far in a nutshell to account for the demise of the lute: The lute died: 1. Because it wasn't able to maintain its primary function as an accompaniment instrument due to the decline of continuo 2. Because it wasn't loud enough to fill a concert hall 3. Because it was too hard to play, and was consequently ignored during the great dumbing-down which followed the decline of the patronage system 4. Because of something Linda Sayce said about the mandora 5. Because it was not able to move beyond the single-affect system characteristic of the Baroque period 6. Because it not able to handle the wider tonal palette required by the new music 7. Because it became unfashionable Any other ideas? David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rastallmusic.com -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
