Rob ( and Ed) and all
Although this is slightly a side issue to your question, this
could nevertheless be helpful; I asked Jacob Heringman whether a
Gerle or Venere 7c could be used to cover some Italian and later
Elizabethan music, I wondered whether the smaller number of ribs of
the Bologna style Gerle might be historically incorrect for Dowland
and Co, and also what sound difference there might be. Jacob said
(very approximately) that the dates were not an issue. The two were
just very different in the way they responded. The Gerle having a
deeper body has a plummy bass, and usually an explosive sound but
that does not sustain very long, although the sound can be wonderful.
With the Venere the sound might be brighter with more sustain, but
with less bass, possibly. I am quoting Jacob from memory, so he is
not to be held responsible for these words. The point is, that shape,
related in part to the number of ribs, and the wood used, does play a
part.
The problem is that when I asked David Van Edwards, I think I almost
got the opposite answer. This does not mean that either is wrong or
the shape and structure plays no role, but rather that it is very
difficult to describe such differences, and perhaps the way "pluck"
the strings might also bring about quite a different effect. Clearly
the best way to judge is to to play the two lute types,from the
several makers of your preference.
On the other hand, it is true that you can often hear the
craftsmanship of a particular lute maker across varying models. I
have a Gerle made by Martin Haycock, and Benjamin Narvey has a
Warwick Frei 10/11c lute by the same maker. There is definitely
something in common between these two very different sized lutes,
although pin-pointing exactly what it is would be difficult. I would
say they both project very well, they are focussed and yet the top
end remains sweet. Having said that, the Gerle and the Warwick do
have the number of ribs in common (11 ribs), and the wood used for
the back, bird's-eye maple is also similar.
Nevertheless, I would not be at all surprised either, if some of us
could distinguish a Gerle from a Venere across a number of different
lute makers. This is my experience with wine tasting. Many of us
could recognize a particular cepage across several winemaker's
products, but at the same time a few of us could notice something in
common throughout the range of a particular winemaker, especially, if
he is a very good one. In general, I would prefer a lesser wine from
a good winemaker, than just to go for a cèpage or a terroir.
In that I agree with you Ed, but you yourself, on a number of
occasions, have compared the sound of the Burkholtzer and the
Hoffman lute type, and you always say you prefer the Burkholtzer,
because of its shape, I think, rather than because of the number of
ribs. However, the geometry, is at least partly determined by the rib
structure:
" I very much enjoy the sound of the Burkholtzer, as in my opinion,
it has a very rich, warm sound, not in any way nasal. In contrast,
I find the Hoffman sound brighter, and having more reverberation or
echo like characteristics, due to the deep bowl.b
In addition to the 2 shapes, there is a great deal of variance in
modern makers. A Burkholtzer of Hoffman from one builder will sound
different from the identical models from different builders." Ed
When i think of it, Benjamin's Warwick is about 66,5 or 67cm and for
a time I think he did use it as a G lute in its 10c form, but with
synthetic strings. I think that was before he acquired a 60cm G lute.
You might ask him what the problems might have been, if indeed he had
any problems with this set-up. Of course, as Ed says, in gut, that
just would not be feasible at all.
Regards
Anthony
Le 2 avr. 08 à 08:32, Rob MacKillop a écrit :
Thanks Ed and David (and other comments too). Refining my comments
a little,
I would say that for the solo work I would be happy with a lower
pitch, so
tuning to F would be no big deal. I was worried about asking a
soprano or
tenor to sing a tone lower, especially those who have already
learned some
of these songs at 440. In this regard, I find David's comments very
interesting. I will not, however, be able to afford two lutes (why
not use a
capo? - much cheaper!). I will give it much thought. But Ed, I totally
understand, agree with and appreciate what you are saying.
Rob
On 02/04/2008, David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
64 is a bit long in the tooth for 440.
You can get the gut up to pitch barely but it is a stretch.
But if you want it for Dowland, F is very good both singer and
solo wise.
The tessatura of the songs is such that a significant number phonate
better at 392,
although some of the nice ones lie low, eg Can she excuse, In
Darkness
I usually use two lutes for the songs a tone apart, so as to include
Flow not so fast, Weep you no more, and a few of the low ones,
Shepherd in a shade, etc.For a soprano you can go 392/440
For a mezzo or alto/countertenor 370/415
dt
At 12:38 PM 4/1/2008, you wrote:
I'm thinking of getting a 7c in G at 440 - is 64cms the longest
length
possible? I have big hands and find small lutes uncomfortable. I'm
thinking
of it principally for Dowland's chromatic fantasies but also
accompanying
a
singer in songs from Dowland's first three books (all for seven-
course),
and
need to be at 440. How stable will be the pitch at 440? Gut
strings would
be
preferable, but might well opt for nylgut for the first course if it
keeps
breaking. What diameters and tensions would you suggest?
Also on relatively small lutes (not baroque) such as a 7c, what
difference
in tone might one expect from a multi-ribbed back as opposed to wide
ribs?
Rob MacKillop
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
