Dear All,
Unlike many of the contributors to this thread, I don't have a problem with
8-course lutes. They suit Terzi and Molinaro, of course, but you can use
them to play earlier music like Capirola, and to some extent later music
where nine or ten courses are required. If you want to buy many instruments,
by all means buy a 6-course for Milano, a 7-course for (some) Dowland, an
8-course for Terzi, a 9-course for Francisque, a 10-course for Vallet, and
then splash out on an 11-course for Mouton, a 12-course for Wilson, and a
13-course for Weiss. Why stop there? Why not spend a few more thousand quid
on various sorts of theorbo and archlute, and throw in a mandora or two?
If, instead, you want to compromise, and not fill your house with lutes,
simply buy one 8-course lute, at least to start with. Having low F and D as
open strings is useful for Dowland, you don't have the complexities of a
lute with lots of strings, and you can happily play anything from the 16th
century. If a note is too low for one's instrument, either play it an octave
higher, or re-tune the lowest course down a tone (e.g. 8th-course D to C),
as Capirola did (from 6th-course G to F).
More significant than the number of strings, is the tuning of the strings,
i.e. whether or not to tune the 4th and 5th courses in octaves. That makes
far more difference to the sound than the number of courses.
If I might add to what Ron has written, the heart-shaped Pesaro manuscript
copied in the 15th century, contains music for a 7-course instrument; the
music in Osborn fb7 is for a 7-course lute, and dates from about 1630. Plus
ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Do we have any evidence of a 16th- or
17th-century lutenist refusing to play a piece, because his lute had one or
two courses more than necessary?
Best wishes,
Stewart McCoy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Andrico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "G. Crona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Bocchicchio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:42 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard?
Dear Michael, G=F6ran & all:
While G=F6ran gives an eloquent summary of our received notion of the
development multiple courses on lutes throughout the 16th century, there
is evidence that the matter was not quite so clearly defined. No
surprise.
H. Colin Slim, in his excellent article, 'Musicians on Parnassus,'
(Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 12 (1965), pp. 134-163) describes the
poem Monte Parnasso by Philippo Oriolo da Bassano. Bassano appears to
outdo Rabelais' Pantagruel in the art of name-dropping within the poem,
which Slim dates to circa 1519-1522.
Cantos XIX, XX and XXI name several theorists, composers and
instrumentalists, including Spinacino and Francesco da Milano,
Canto XX describes a contest between two lutenists playing lutes with 13
and 17 strings. Presumably, the poet was counting individual strings of
the courses. Slim notes that Sebastian Virdung also mentions lutes with
fourteen strings as early as 1511.
We seem to have a collective need to create neat categories and a
progression of events for historical music but the real story is always
less systematic and more complex.
Best wishes,
Ron Andrico
http://www.mignarda.com
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:48:43 +0100> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC:
lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c
really the standard?> > Hi Michael,> > when I got my first lute in the
early 80's, after playing lute music on> guitar since the early 60's, my
teacher recommended an 8-course, arguing in> favour of a versatile
instrument which could be used for a time span of> roughly the whole 16th
century. As you know, course development was roughly:> 6c - ca. 1500-ca.
1575; 7c - ca. 1565 - 1590; 8c - ca. 1585 - 1600; 9c - ca.> 1600 - 1615;
10c ca. 1615 - 1630; 11c - thereafter aso. (with slight> overlappings).>
> For me, the switch from 6 string guitar to 8 course lute was a _steep_>
learning curve, with the thumb under and all. Not so much for the left
as> for the right hand. After several years of unsatisfying trial, I
decided,> that my synapses were not coping and that I wasn't enjoying it
very much, in> spite of the "silvery sound", so I s!
old the instrument although it was a> very fine one.> > I've often held
the view on this list, that for a lute novice, or the> transition from
guitar should preferably be to a 6c (or a 7c with the 7th> removed) and
playing the 1500 to ca. 1570 repertory. After a year or two,> when the
hands have been properly trained, and are familiar with the> instrument,
one could progress to 7c for a year and then 8c for a year and> so on. In
this way the student will have a natural progression, and at the> same
time get familiar with the repertory and all its characteristics for> the
different epochs and regional differences. The 6c will be much easier to>
play on, and therefore give a higher feeling of mastering it all and>
consequently be more rewarding. The ground work will then be set, and I >
believe that further development will be quicker and more effective.> >
Others will perhaps argue, that you can remove the 7th and 8th course in
the> beginning and add them when progressing wh!
ich is certainly an option, but I> think that there are many o!
ther iss
ues when approaching the music, which> speak for playing on the right
instrument. (Right number of courses, right> width and breadth of neck
aso. although again, some will argue that there > never was any "right"
measures, and that lutists/lutenists in those days > differed as much then
as they do now.)> > But IMV all this talk about HIP somewhat looses its
meaning, if not played> on an instrument for which the music was intended.
I also think that much of> the virtuoso polyphonic music beginning around
ca. 1560 should be played on> a smaller, perhaps even descant lute, as the
stretches are sometimes> forbidding on an instrument with a long mensur,
however better the sound.> > So to answer your question plainly: Yes, the
eight course is best suited for> a short span of english and italian music
in the last decade of the 16th> century. The reasons for it becoming the
instrument par exellence for> beginners today might have something to do
with the lute-revival in the> early t!
o mid 20th c. starting mainly in England, (but I'm on thin ice> there),
and the traditional belief thereby to be getting a versatile > instrument
where the advantages excel the drawbacks.> > If the student plans to go
into lute playing seriously, and not just as a> "nice pastime", get a 6 -
or 7c first, and that will work much better and be> both more enjoyable
and lead to more effective learning in the long run.> > If you prefer
Baroque, (and this indeed seems to be the preference nowadays,> at least
with the posters on this list) I don't know if it would perhaps be> better
to get an 11 - course from the start and just learn to cope with all> the
extra courses, or spend a couple of years on a 6 course first, to get> the
bearings. As I've never played an 11 - 13 course lute, others will have>
to give feedback on that.> > IMV there is much to be gained from following
the epochs consequently,> starting with early Renaissance and progressing
from there. The pieces are> often m!
ore suited for a beginner but still musically rewarding. This !
way one>
will be able to understand the development as it occurred and probably>
become a more "compleat musitian".> > B.R.> > G.> > ----- Original
Message ----- > From: "Michael Bocchicchio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:24 AM>
Subject: [LUTE] Is 8c really the standard?> > > >> > People who have
purchased lutes from me in the past have all come to me> > with the common
wisdom that the 8c. is the standard. Why would this be?> > Is it true now?
Was it true in the past or something like that?> > Furthermore, for who? A
first time buyer? A graduate school student> > studying guitar , who will
only need one lute to complete the Masters> > program requirements? A
Renaissance Fair performer? I wonder if this> > notion is a holdover from
a time when historical or true> > lutes were hard to come by and players
had to chose instruments for their> > versatility rather than for their
appropriateness for a given period of> > music.> >!
In fact, it seems to me that the greater body of Renaissance lute music
is> > for 6 and 7c instruments. Eight course music seems limited to the
very> > end of the 16th century, and mostly English. French music seems to
jump> > from 7c to 10c beginning with Francisque c.1600. I'm not quite
sure about> > how the dates went for Italy, Netherlands, and Germany, but
it would> > seem that 8c music is a small body of music by comparison, no?
If I have> > made too gross a generalization or am just plain wrong,
please correct me.> > Even as an amateur player, I know that the
instrument needs to fit the> > music---why would you want the sympathetic
ring of an 8c when playing> > Milan? As a luthier, I fined that the
popular 58-62cm instruments do> > best as 6 and 7 courses as a large
bridge can choke a small sound board.> > I would think a 7c at 62-63cm is
a good way to go, but appear to be "going> > against the grain".> > If an
8c is "the standard", can someone explain this to me?> !
>> > --> >> > To get on or off this list see list information !
at> > ht
tp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html> >> >
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
