I think it is different for different people, but in the keyboard world I have been part of a decades long debate about Italian harpsichords--the one size fits all debate. And a very wise player said, it doesn't matter that you just are not playing those extra notes for the earlier repertory, you react differently when you play the instrument.
At first I thought that was something that one could "block out", but the more I thought about it, the more I thought that it was true. Another experience, seeing as how I come from the era of the great "panzer" lutes from factories in Germany, the first time I picked up a real six course, I was amazed that it was a totally different instrument. Everthing about it was different, the spacing, the technique, the feel, the sound, the fingerboard--and the sooner I started in on that instrument, the more I felt like I was learning a good technique. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that I needed the right instrument to go to the next level (in this case, back a few levels at first). Still at square one, dt At 07:07 PM 11/28/2007, you wrote: >I'm not sure just how an eight course instrument is going to slow >you down? Is it not a matter of not playing the strings you do not >use or need at the time? In theory, if not fact, it is possible to >play many Lute pieces on a six course instrument and never play the >sixth or even the fifth course for that matter and this does not >seem to be an issue. > >So if you or anyone else could explain to me how an eight course >instrument can slow you down I would be most appreciative. It seems >to me that a six course instrument would have the same effect in its >limiting access to a large and significant portion of the >literature. This might not slow you down physically but musically >is another question. > >The Lute is what it is, and as such it is an instrument possessing >many strings. If anyone is going to progress beyond the first part >of the Sixteenth Century they are going to have to deal with "many strings". > >I want to add something here: I am not challenging anyone to a >flame war. I know it is hard to tell tone of voice from an email and >depending on the passion one has for a certain subject words are >often taken as challenges when they are not meant to be such. So >all due respects to all who have contributed to this discussion, I >respect both you and your opinions. > >VW > >----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tayler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:06 PM >Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? > > >>As a musicologist, I think Martin has such a lucid description that >>I'm totally persuaded.. And rereading all the insights I can tell >>that ppl have really thought this through. >> >>The only thing I would add, purely subjective, is that as a >>performer, a question: >>Will the 8 course slow you down in the long run? >>And my experience is that it does, if that is your main lute. >> >>Again, everyone is different. >>But I think it changes the idea of practicality versus authenticity >>to practicality versus deveolping skill. >> >>I'm not saying that you can't be a great artist on an 8c, I think it >>just isn't the best tool for the job. >>Having said that, if you have a really nice 8c, don't trade it in for >>an Aria. And there are some pieces that it is great on. >> >>dt >> >> >> >>At 03:04 PM 11/28/2007, you wrote: >>>I agree to a point David, I think a six course instrument strung in >>>the Continental style will probably be a better choice for F. >>>DaMilano's music. But; try playing Molinaro's music on that >>>instrument and you miss a lot of the music played in the base >>>registers. My point is that in an ideal world we would all have >>>every Lute configuration possible so that we could do justice to >>>every piece of music we encounter. >>> >>>Knowing that most of us do not have the financial resource with >>>which to explore such an approach we have to find what is within our >>>means and go with that until fate or fortune provides us with better >>>options. For me that option is in making my own instruments---but >>>not everyone can do that either. By the way I did not say they were >>>any good they simply suit my needs for now. >>> >>>VW >>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Rastall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>To: "vance wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Cc: "Lute List" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >>>Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:46 PM >>>Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? >>> >>> >>>>On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:37 PM, vance wood wrote: >>>> >>>>>The "We" we are discussing happen to be a group of Historically >>>>>Correct Mavens that look at the issues of historical correctness >>>>>more closely than we look at the practicality of the things at hand >>>> >>>>Hi Vance, >>>> >>>>Certainly we've all been known to do that at times. But it seems to >>>>me (the Great Disclaimer) that generally speaking (another Great >>>>Disclaimer) most HIP afficionados will take historical purism as far >>>>as it takes to satisfy their intellectual curiosity, and beyond that >>>>will do exactly what musicians have always done: whatever's >>>>necessary to make good music. In other words, every musician starts >>>>with the specifics of his or her chosen instrument, and will sooner >>>>or later move on to the general considerations of "good music" in >>>>whatever guise they choose to play it in. That's my belief anyway. >>>>This whole discussion about 8-c lutes seems to be two-pronged: our >>>>sense of historical correctness vs. our personal musical >>>>preferences. I guess my point is that I don't see those two things >>>>as incompatible. >>>> >>>>David Rastall >>>> >>>>>; like the number of strings on our respective Lutes. If I could >>>>>get a decent sound out of a wooden cigar box strung with rubber >>>>>bands I might be tempted to play the thing, lacking anything more >>>>>musical to accomplish the task of playing a tune thought not >>>>>suitable for the instrument at hand. >>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Rastall" >>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>Cc: "Lute Net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:37 AM >>>>>Subject: [LUTE] Re: Is 8c really the standard? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Nov 26, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Stewart McCoy wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>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? >>>>>> >>>>>>I would say yes, we do. The evidence being that we ourselves do it >>>>>>today. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>> >>>>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: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: >>>>11/28/2007 12:29 PM >> >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: >>11/28/2007 12:29 PM >> >
