Dear Anthony,
The Buchenberg lute may not be quite as it seems. It appears to be
intact, but I have seen photographs (taken, if I remember correctly, by
Martin Bowers) which show the body broken off at the block. The repair
was probably done by one of these devilishly clever violin restorers who
can made the most impossible-seeming repairs invisible. Incidentally,
the museum drawing of this lute shows the soundboard to be totally flat:
I've no idea whether that reflects the current state of the instrument,
but we can be sure it doesn't reflect a historical state. I suspect
this lute has been subject to very heavy restoration, so I would
interpret any grease marks or whatever on the soundboard with some
suspicion.
Can anyone out there shed more light on the provenance/restoration of
this instrument?
Best wishes,
Martin
Anthony Hind wrote:
Dear Martin and all
In relation to 9c lutes, I would like to raise a very basic
question: to what extent are the RH little finger positions Bridge/
Rose, and the thumb positions TO/TI, closely related? Is it possible
to play TO at the rose? I suppose it is. On the other hand, I
suppose it is very difficult to play TI at the bridge.
I ask this because, on Mimmo Peruffo's web page, we see many examples
of Baroque lutes with RH little-finger marks, near or behind the
bridge (therefore TO). On the other hand, the marks on the Matheus
Buchenberg/ Rome/early 17th century, in Edinburgh, show this :
"The sound-board is stained with finger grease along the lower side
of the rose and at the upper end of the upper side of the rose,
indicating the right hand playing position most often used.".
http://tinyurl.com/yojeds
I would admit that the photo is not conclusive, but the museum is
categoric about this.
This lute is a 9 course lute and dates from c1620 (according to the
University page). This would mean that the owner would have been
playing it as late as 1640. Could he have been playing TI? If so, it
is very difficult to consider that the number of courses was and
stretch was the automatic reason for TO.
I really don't know what to think about this lute. Perhaps it was a
very conservative amateur, but nevertheless he did play near the
rose, if we judge from the remarks above, and possibly TI around 1640.
Regards
Anthony
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
