Le 8 déc. 07 à 10:20, Nigel Solomon a écrit :
Anthony Hind wrote:
Arto
If the Rauwolf is a key to the question, David is right, and
old wood seems to go on improving. I was told that flat
soundboard instruments can suddenly die, but the Rauwolf's
soundboard is a few hundred years old. They can also be resound-
boarded if there is a problem, of course, but it is not that
cheap, I think.
Then of course, there is the question of technology. Were lutes
from 1986 much heavier than today? (wasn't the technological cut-
off a little earleir than that?)
Have you compared two instruments by the same maker side by side
( I mean one from 1986 and one from 2000, for example). The
problem, I am told, is that there could sometimes be a big
difference between two lutes with even one year or less
difference coming from the same atellier. Apparently lutes are
never identical, although some lute makers are more consistent
than others. Neverteheless, if you like your lute, as much or
more, than one that is more recent, why change?
Anthony
Nigel Solomon wrote:
If anything lutes in the early 80s were lighter than today's lutes,
the fashion nowadays (perhaps for sustain) is to build them
slightly heavier than 20 years ago. Builders at that time were, to
a certain extent, in reaction to the very heavy guitar-like
instruments of the 60s and 70s and therefore made feather-weight
instruments.
Nigel
The question is perhaps which ones are closest to the historical
models, those of the 80s, or those of today? Are lutemakers
responding to demands from lutists worried about problems of modern
concert hall acoustics and need for greater projection, or is this a
result of better understanding of the original models, or perhaps a
little of both?
Regards
Anthony
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
