Ed
I keep my 7c at D, and then stop it down for F. Of course this means
the7c is no longer open, which no doubt does effect the way the
string resonates. So there is a compromise, involved.
I would agree that in gut, the additional 8c is not so much of a
problem, for 6c or 7c music. However, how many beginners keep their
lutes in gut?
Probably more important than choosing between 8c and 7c, is finding a
good lute, and then succeeding in stringing it well. It took me about
two years to find the best stringing for my lute.
Even now, I am still ready to experiment.
Initially, I found my Gerle a little bass heavy, as Jacob Heringman
told me I would, saying approximately that as the Gerle had a deeper
body, it would have a plummy bass, an explosive sound but with not so
much sustain. That is in contrast to the Venere that might be
brighter with a more sustained sound and possibly less rich bass.
Using Venice twine has helped balance that out a little better.
Presumably, in the case of the Venere, it might be too much of a good
thing, but I haven't tried.
Regards
Anthony
Le 27 nov. 07 =E0 01:26, Edward Martin a ecrit :
> I agree fully with Stewart. Although there is more music for 7
> course and 9 course lutes as compared to 8 course lutes, an 8
> course is a good compromise. I have that very instrument, an 8
> course.
>
> A great majority of the music for which I use that instrument is
> for 7 course, but it is so very convenient to have both a low F
> _and_ D, so I do not have to re-tune the 7th course. I also
> sometimes put octaves on both the 4th and 5th course, so I can play
> Continental 6 course music. In gut, it sound absolutely no
> different from other 6 course lutes in gut.
>
> ed
>
>
>
>
> At 11:54 PM 11/26/2007 +0000, Stewart McCoy wrote:
>> 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 =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database:
>> 269.16.7/1151 - Release Date: 11/25/2007 4:24 PM
>
>
>
> Edward Martin
> 2817 East 2nd Street
> Duluth, Minnesota 55812
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> voice: (218) 728-1202
>
>
>
--
