I can't argue with the experience and ears of others, but I have to
admit I'm a bit surprised by many of the statements being made about
the huge differences between 6, 7 and 8 course instruments in terms
of playability and inherent sound. My first real lute was an old 10
course that Pat O'B lent me and then I bought a beautiful Nurse 8
course. It was much easier for me to play and had better sound, but
then it was a much better instrument. I have played some Ren music on
my new Archlute just to get accustomed to the spacing, and it is
obviously more difficult due to the tight spacing.
I guess I'm a little concerned for the beginners lurking on this list
who will read this thread with fear, dread and an empty pocketbook.
We are fortunate in the lute world that the finest instruments around
are cheep compared with other top notch classical instruments
($10,000 for the best lute around, $20,000 for a decent student cello
without the bow). Unfortunately for the beginner, our "entry level"
lutes are more expensive than beginner violins, cellos and guitars. I
can't argue that most Ren music is well playable on 6 course, but I
think that many guitarists, like me, come to the lute with dreams of
Dowland in which at least a 7th course is mighty handy. FWIW, I have
never enjoyed playing a 6 course and paradoxically have found them
harder to play than my 8 course, but I have never owned one so it may
be simply the learning curve. Like Chris, I would challenge anyone
here to a blind listening test to distinguish a competent player
playing the same 6 course music on a 7 or 8 course instrument of
comparable quality and stringing. McFarlane's Milano sounds just
fine to me, even on his 14 course. I've got a good day job and an
understanding wife, so I can afford an instrument for every half
century, but I suspect most lutenists are not so fortunate.
My personal belief is that skill at tone production and musical
interpretation is far more important than number of courses in the
final result. I'm willing to believe that when everything else is
equal, some may hear a benefit for 6 course music played on a 6
course, but whatever instrument you begin with, tone production is king.
DS
On Nov 29, 2007, at 4:25 AM, Luca Manassero wrote:
Dear all,
I have been following this thread with the greatest interest,
reminding that I made the same question to the French-speaking lute
list about 18 months ago. It's funny to read similar answers
popping up: I tend to believe that a certain "recent" period really
left a strong imprinting on many of us.
I have "restarted" learning the lute 4 years ago after too many
years of guitar and a short-lasting tentative 20 years ago. I went
shopping for a nice lute and bought an 8 course instrument from
Barber & Harris. A great instrument, but after a short time I
started questioning my choice. With most of my time spent
"bending" (I am a little short-sighted) on Italian fac-similes I
realized quickly that an 8 course lute was not the ideal one for
that repertoire. On Holborne and Dowland goes now a lot better: I
have to admit that I restarted enjoining it when I first started
reading Dowland.
I strongly believe that the difference between a 6 course and an 8
course is HUGE. The point is not in a dry academic discussion,
while an academic study on this point is still missing, as far as I
know. Music written for a 6 course sounds a lot DIFFERENT on an 8
course, even if you rework your stringing, I am afraid you'll never
really have the right feeling for Canova, Borrono, Capirola, etc
After one year just mumbling my feelings, I asked my teacher to try
his lute (a 6 course, of course!) on a Capirola "Spagna" and saw
the light.
I understand the economical reasons, I fully support them. But
you'll miss such an enormously important point when you go for an 8
course first lute, that as a teacher or a lutemaker (or both) one
should always question that choice.
And by the way, isn't the economical value (or the perception) of
an 8 course so good, only because there are so many "used" 8
course? Ever asked you why there are so many 8 course lutes for
sale? Isn't possibly because many people just made the same
experience?
All in all, I suggest the 8 course shoudl be a "later" instrument,
NOT the first one.
For what concerns ME, I'm not going to sell my 8 course for two
good reasons:
1. It is a BEAUTIFUL, sweet sounding instrument
2. Molinaro and Terzi (and others)
..but I am going to have a 6 or 7 course lute soon, setted up for
the Italian repertoire and possibly with a different sound
"colour". It'll take some time to find it, but I laready have an idea.
Not sure I want to live in a lute museum (nor my family...), but I
guess this is what happens when you get this particular sickness.
Thank you to absolutely ALL of you for your contributions to this
list: it's an amazing reading.
Ciao,
Luca
http://liuti.manassero.net
Martin Shepherd on 28-11-2007 10:13 wrote:
Dear All,
It seems I am not alone amongst lutemakers in questioning the
motives of my customers when they say they want an 8c lute. There
still seems to be an assumption that a 60cm 8c lute is what
everyone should have first, before they branch out into other types.
As has already been said, 6c lutes cover virtually the whole of
the "renaissance" lute repertoire, so a 6c lute is an obvious
first choice.
If you really want to play all those difficult 7c pieces (Forlone
Hope, etc.) you need 7 courses, not 8. A 7c lute can be OK for
earlier music too, especially since there is evidence of 7c lutes
going right back to the late 15th C. The style of the instrument
and the barring/thicknessing might become issues, though.
As has been said, there is not much music specifically for 8c -
two big collections which come to mind are Reymann and Molinaro,
and Terzi's second book. The main reason for having the extra
course is surely to have both the F and D available all the time,
but you pay a price in extra string tension, longer bridge, and
greater "stiffness" in sound, especially on a small lute.
9c lutes have been almost overlooked in modern times, but were
clearly very common around 1600. Francisque (1600), Besard
(1603), Dowland (1604), Dd.9.33, Fuhrmann (1615), Margaret Board -
it's a long list.
10c lutes have probably less repertoire than 9c, but maybe not if
you include all the "transitional tunings" stuff which is mostly
hidden away in manuscripts. Incidentally I wonder if Kapsberger
actually wrote for a liuto attiorbato, as he uses an 11th course
once and although the classic liuti attiorbati have 14 courses I'm
sure they existed with less. If I remember correctly, Piccinini's
only had 13 courses, with the 13th tuned to a high note to fill in
missing chromatics.
As for size of lute, the idea that lutes have to be "in G" still
seems to have a real stranglehold (remember all this stuff about
putting a capo on a guitar so it's at "lute pitch"?). We know
lutes existed in a variety of sizes, and now that we have started
to explore the bigger sizes we're beginning to learn that often
bigger is better. Anything which is difficult on a 60cm lute is
still difficult on a 67cm lute, but still possible. When I made a
76cm lute a while ago I discovered that I could play almost any
solo music on it, and it sounded wonderful. My conclusion is that
we should be much more flexible about what we consider normal.
And don't get me on to the sizes of theorboes, ebony veneers, or
unison vihuela stringing.....
Best wishes,
Martin
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
