Dear Martyn
We seem to be talking about almost the same thing. There's a Dutch
saying I cannot quite translate that goes something like:
communicating is talking as closely as possible about the same
thing, meaning you don't talk about the same thing at all. Human
contact is difficult, each man his own universe in his own head, how
will we ever make contact?
I'm afraid you don't appear to grasp the essentials
<<
I'm sure your theory is better. When you talked about modulation I
assumed you meant a change of key, or tonal centre, within one
piece. Starting in a-minor, after five bars you find yourself
playing in C-major, cadenses and all. If you'd agree that an
MT-tuned organ can play these modulations, and if you'd agree that
the lute's notes matches those of the organ, you'd agree the lute
can play the modulation. But it appears I've lost you one step
before, as you don't seem to agree the lute can match the organ note
by note. Because of the straight frets:
the semitone fret intervals on each string do not follow precisely
the same sequence of diatonic and chromatic intervals as you move up
the fingerboard
<<
No, you're right, a lute with straight frets is not as perfect as an
organ, but it isn't quite bad either. My simple look on things is
purely practical. If meantone is used by other instruments, how do I
tune my lute to match these?
Let's assume 1/4 comma MT, deviations from ET in cents:
Eb = 21
Bb = 17
F = 14
C = 10
G = 7
D = 3
A = 0
E = -3
B = -7
F# = -10
C# = -14
G# = -17
D# = -21
Lute in g'
Fret = note = cents deviation
First course:
0 = G = 7
1 = G# = -24
2 = A = -7
3 = Bb = 10
4 = B = -14
5 = C = 3
Second course:
0 = D = 3
1 = Eb = 18
2 = E = -6
3 = F = 11
4 = F# = -13
5 = G = 4
Third course:
0 = A = 0
1 = Bb = 17
2 = B = -7
3 = C = 10
4 = C# = -14
5 = D = 3
Fourth course:
0 = F = 14
1 = F# = -24
2 = G = -7
3 = G# = -31
4 = A = -14
5 = Bb = 3
Fifth course:
0 = C = 10
1 = C# = -24
2 = D = -7
3 = Eb = 11
4 = E = -13
5 = F = 4
This gives the following ideal fret positions on all five courses:
First fret: -24, 18, 17, -24, -24
Two positions: high is in agreement, low equally so.
Second fret: -7, -6, -7, -7, -7
Perfect enough for me.
Third fret: 10, 11, 10, -31, 11
Ouch for the G# on the fourth course. Perfect Ab, but otherwise a
note to avoid. The high fret positions are in agreement, though.
Fourth fret: -14, -13, -14, -14, -13
Perfect enough for me.
Fifth fret: 3, 4, 3, 3, 4
Perfect enough for me.
Not too many typos, I hope, however, the math is simple enough to
correct these yourself. Calculating with more decimals will make the
figures agree more in theory, by the way, but is nonsense in
practice. Other varieties of meantone (1/6, 1/7, 1/8 comma) will
give less extreme fret positions, and might make the g# on the
fourth course acceptable, depending on your ears (or ensemble). This
leaves us with the problematic first fret. I, and others, have found
different practical ways of living with that, let it rest for now.
Fretting from 6th fret repeats basically what is done in the first five.
I think I have shown it is possible to tune a lute in meantone to
match all the notes on the organ, with the practical problems of g#
on fourth course and first fret to be solved in a practical way
(tastini, split fret or avoidance of wrong notes. Been there, done
that, it works).
I have no idea about historical evidence for this, but I would
assume that a lutenist of old, faced with an organ in meantone,
would come up with something similar to make his life workable. I
see modern viol, violone and lute players move their frets all the
time to match the organ, I see no reason why that would have been
different in olden times. I know that is not evidence, but
musicians' ears and their desires to solve problems cannot have
changed that much.
Additionally, I find, when tuned in meantone, a part of the lute and
notably theorbo solo repertoire to work very well. That's my liking
only, perhaps, but would a lutenist of old change his frets and
retune for his solo pieces, if these can be played with the frets in
ensemble setup? Purely speculation, no historical evidence, take it
or leave it, but do try it.
David
To Roman: last count was closer to 30 than 20, but I'm sure not
nearly as many as POD's, whose solo cds are perhaps the only ones
you've counted. Mine are all ensemble of some sort or other. No big
deal, then. Furthermore, quality is more important than quantity;
only for my late mother was I world-famous, for the rest of the
world I'm just another plucker trying to scrape together an income
from music. Not famous then, please.
****************************
David van Ooijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.davidvanooijen.nl
****************************
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
