I had heard similar remarks; but I was told that the contrast was between flat soundboards and curved ones (rather than thin ones). However, when, in London at the UK lute meeting, I heard Lindberg's ancient Rauwolf that has a soundboard dating from the 17th century or so, it seemed this might not be so.
On the spot, I asked various lutemakers that question, and they told me that it was true for some guitars that had been turned-out almost pre-run-in, because guitarists wouldn't wait for the instrument to improve with age. As a result they claimed these instruments aged badly. I was told that this was not necessarily true for lutes. I have no proof either way, but I would be worried about buying a 20 year-old lute. Perhaps this is quite mistaken and they should be sought out. At the same time, I also imagine that lutemakers progress in their knowledge of the instrument and their skills may develop over time; so that might be another argument for looking for a recent instrument by a particular maker, rather than one of his or her early ones. again this may be quite wrong, and is very unfair to lutemakers young in their careers, but I think it may well be the way many lutists consider a purchase of a lute. Clearly, this is not necessarily the way violinists think when purchasing their instruments. Anthony Le 16 mars 07 à 22:56, Herbert Ward a écrit : > > I've heard that lutes, due to the thinness of the wood > in their soundboard, do not improve with age like > violins, and that, in fact, an old lute will have an > OK bass and treble, but be weak in the middle courses. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
