Dear John, Many people on this list (myself included) have come to the lute via the classical guitar. Because I had a friend who had made the same transition before me, I knew that when I started the lute I was going to change my RH technique completely, and that helped - I wasn't constantly comparing it to what I already knew. I made a few notes on my pages about "thumb-under" technique, which you might find useful (www.luteshop.co.uk/rhtech.htm).
"Thumb-under" is simply the technique used by 16th C lute players, as documented in many paintings. It works extremely well for the music in question, but not so well for later music. Once the lute started sprouting extra bass strings in the late 16th C, the thumb kept more to the basses. It is also a question of the angle of the lute: with the neck held almost parallel with the ground, and the arm coming around the end of the lute, the "thumb-under" position comes naturally. With the neck held up at a steeper angle, the arm approaches the strings from above, more like a guitarist: then "thumb-out" position is more natural. Once modern lute players discovered thumb-under, it was such a revelation they adopted it as a universal technique. Now, thirty-odd years later, it is widely acknowledged that it is just as anachronistic to play baroque lute thumb-under as it had been to play renaissance lute thumb-out. Thumb-out is more difficult, and I think we have some way to go before we really master it (though Nigel North seems to have sorted it out). It is further complicated by the "correct" position of the hand being so close to the bridge, a position which usually yields disappointing results, whatever kind of strings are used. But we're working on it..... Just to reiterate Sean's advice about the little finger - it should rest lightly, not being forced in any way, and I don't think it's such an issue whether it rests on the soundboard or not. It's almost a natural consequence of the hand/arm position in thumb-under technique. By the way, you might find the photos on Jacob Heringman's website (www.heringman.com) illuminating. Finally I would just like to emphasize that we're not talking about "improvements" of technique, just changes. Thumb-under is perfect for 16th C polyphony and allows more rapid passagework - it's not "inferior" or "more primitive". If it was, you can be sure that the great lutenists of the 16th C would have abandoned it pretty quickly in favour of something which worked better. When they *did* change their technique it was in response to the increased number of courses on the lute, changes in musical style, and other good reasons. Good luck, Martin To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
