Hi all, I find it really amazing what a long thread of meandering discussion developed out of the mere question whether a dot in a 500 year old manuscript is a dot or just flyspeck. ;-) [1]http://bogulamedia.de/aa/capi1.jpg Thanks for your answers. Although I have read the Capirola lutebook foreword in the translation of F. Marincola and did not find anything about it, for me it seems quite obvious, that the dot on the top means "play with the thumb" and the double dot in bar 13 of Rch primo means "play with the middlefinger". Which loosens the strict alternation scheme of thumb-index towards a more economical way of playing. (without being unhistorical) we Andreas Schlegel schrieb:
Dear Gary That's partially correct. BUT: Modern string material allows other (modern and in history never possible or needed) techniques as historic ones. F.ex. dampening is first of all a problem of modern bass strings. If we wish to understand the acoustic of a historic instrument and use modern strings, that's so intelligent as to discuss on the performance of a Ford T with modern F1 tyres. We have to search the unity between instrument, strings and player. If somebody says: I like the sound of Pyramid and nylon top strings, he will play in a different way on a acousticly different instrument from a lutenist who like to understand the unity between historical "exact" understood and built instrument and the "historical" made strings (we know not so much as we think on the string fabrication...) - and who likes to adapt his technique to this feeled and heard unity. But you're right in the sense that the most important is the music: Interesting played music in a historically impossible manner is also for me "better" as a boring played "well informed" performance... And I think there are very good reasons to search and search on the way to this unity - and with the "correct" string material we will find the REASONS FOR THE TECHNIQUES we can see on pictures or read from in letters etc.! Andreas Am 26.07.2007 um 07:48 schrieb gary digman: As far as technique is concerned, I wonder if there ever was an historical concensus on how the lute should be played. Sometimes it seems there are as many approaches to technique as there are lutenists and everybody's complaining about how the other guy plays. Kind of like today. So, I guess my question is, "Is there an "Historical Lute" that can be contrasted to a "Modern Lute" as far as technique is concerned?" Does not every modern approach have a precedent in history, i.e. thumb under v. thumb out, nails v. flesh, hand extended v. hand near bridge, etc? Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tayler" [2]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" [3]<[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:11 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Capirola question, now lute & classical guitar Stephan hat geschrieben: As far as I can see, lute and guitar are as separated in the conservatories and so on as cembalo and piano, probably even more, because you still have some pianists who occasionaly try to accompany someone on the cembalo. While we usually think that the HIP movement has resulted in a gap between lute and classical guitar, it's interesting to see that it still can be reasonable to play lute instruments with guitar technique (with only minor adjustments). DT writes: I think these are very interesting and important points, but it is perhaps not an either/or scenario. Of course it is reasonable to play any way you wish. Obviously, there is no real authenticity police, and that's a good thing. On the other hand, the rise of the professional class has for better or for worse created a situation in which historical performance per se is in the minority at the orchestra level, yet still persists in lute circles and other circles as well. One of the beauties of the movement is that it embraces such a wide field of diverse & interesting viewpoints. If we consider for a moment that HP (setting aside HIP as it has no real antonym) represents a broad spectrum of possibilities, we see at one end the "As Historical as Possible" (must be AHAP) and at the other end, modern techniques, literature and materials. Many players fall somewhere in between--thumb under, modern strings. Some players go the historical limit, including raising their own sheep. Others like the convenience and sound of modern developments. But this is the strength of the instrument. In this respect, it may be, and this is a point of debate, that the parallel is not harpsicord and piano at all, but modern recorder vs historical recorder, modern cello vs historical cello, and, of course modern lute and historical lute. Most "baroque" orchestral string players play hybrid instruments: heavier bows, half modern strings, etc. The extension of the professional movement results in the disappearance of the AHAP instruments. For example, almost all recorders have modern windways and fingerings because the originals are too soft for modern use. The may look like old instruments, but they are a fusion of old and new. A famous recorder builder once told me he had not made a narrow windway recorder in twenty years. The lute is one of the few instruments where you still see a very few historical style instruments and players, but this is mostly for solo repertory, songs & duets. The old style theorbos with gut strings, often with double courses (though not always), have been replaced by high tension, single strung instruments, mostly strummed, where the loud instrument gets the gig, ironically in a way similar to the way Stradivarius usurped Steiner. I think the conservatory is really the only institution that keeps the historical side alive, and so the separation is good, others may feel differently; in the US if I spent $40,000 at a conservatory I would want a job when I got out. It may ultimately be a sign of progress if the lute & ren/baroque/ec guitar takes the stance that there is modern lute and historical lute, and things in between. Why shouldn't someone be able to really study modern lute (including Hindemith's Concerto, although I suppose there would be those who would play it on a Hauser), and seriously include contemporary music? At the Hague, it is expected that people play both modern and historical recorder, and the juxtaposition in style & sound throws the differences in the instruments into relief. Not to mention that the most progressive of the modern lutes is far more suited to play in a modern orchestra. I know there is some work being done in this area, but it could be widely formalized. This would then free the modern lute to explore extended techniques, as is done with all other instruments, recorder, harpsichord, etc. Certainly the result has been for the recorder that the historical end is, if anything, now more developed. So I think it is good that there is a refuge from professionalism of sorts in Conservatory, and it not only reasonable but practical to explore other options. I think we need a formal modern lute (which I would argue we already have), and that such an idea would be good for all aspects of the lute/guitar. Others may feel it is all one lute. I do think we have to get away from any idea that one style is better, or more "authentic", that is the undercurrent that prevents us from exploring all the possibilities of the instrument, limiting us somewhat to Historically Blurry Performances. To get on or off this list see list information at [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.10.11/909 - Release Date: 7/20/2007 4:39 PM References 1. http://bogulamedia.de/aa/capi1.jpg 2. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. mailto:[email protected] 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
