David, Surely the lute can provide some color nuances to the songs (solos as well of course), but to talk about true dynamics as we find in modern instruments is nonsense. I have many recordings of lute songs, but I don't recall hearing the shades you mention (next time I'll hear them more carefully).
Generally, I hear very well the singer, his/her dynamics, the phrasing, delivery of the text and the blending with the lute. But the lute (sound) itself seems to be very far away, even if the singer is not operatic and is sitting on your side. With chords for example, I don't feel so bad because with more notes there is a feeling of fullness going on. But with polyphony, the lute lines are not at the same volume level of the singer. So, it seems that there is a main melody with the singer and other voices in a distance. With a piano that doesn't happen, because the voices are at the same level. We have to be carefull with recordings because anything is possible in terms of blending (just to remember classical guitar and orquestra!), but live is a different thing. This could even be extended to solo lute playing. To listen to a good lute recording is not the same as hearing it live, where there are very few ideal places to play and be heard clearly. On the contrary, the lute is an instrument with infinite nuances in dynamics, granted it's from from ppp to mf, > but the subtlety in shading makes up for the lack in absolute volume. A > clear attack makes it heard in the piano, given a sensitive singer. And I > think that is the important thing, teach the singer to listen to the lute so > that his/her voice can blend. That will save us from battling against a full > blast opera voice (done that, been there). Bob Spencer always advocated for > the singer to sit next to the lute, singing slightly in the instrument, so > that the sounds would really mix. > > -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
