Dear Nigel, Big ditto.
I have a theory that we are all tuning our baroque lutes at too high a pitch standard. If a 10c "renaissance" lute with 70-73cm string length would be an E lute, *which is A=370*, why should a baroque lute with this string length be tuned an *entire TONE* higher at 415? And yet, this is the common practice today. It makes much more sense when thinking about what Michael Lowe calls the "false dichotomy" of renaissance and baroque lutes to keep all the numerous diapasons at the same pitch in the two categories of lute, and to just change the handful of the top courses that need changing. I think we have been making a mistake in considering pitch from the point of view of the single top string, instead of from the point of view of the numerous diapasons, an approach which would actually make much more sense in this situation - especially so because we are tuning the strings that need tinkering down, and not up (i.e., the chanterelle of an E lute would go from E down to D to become a baroque lute). Why have numerous diapasons set a whole tone too high, instead of just keeping them the same and lowering the chanterelle? My baroque lute is set up thus, and works far better now than it did at 415. My chanterelle is way down at D, which by common "top down" thinking today would be considered to be A=330; but when thought of from the bottom up, as it were, it's really at A=370. Besides, lower pitch means a one can get away with slightly thicker chanterelle, which allows you to dig in more, get more out of the melody, and have better balance with the diapasons - a BIG consideration with swan necks. Just my thoughts on this issue.... As ever, Benjamin p.s. Also, lower pitch means easier tuning, since one can get away a bit easier at lower frequencies than at higher frequencies. 2008/6/29 Nigel Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I recently tuned my 72cm 13-course down to a tone below 415 (with strings > intended for 392, so half a tone lower than that) and it really came to > life. Could it be the lower tension strings (now around 3.5 on the top > course, basses around 2.5, octaves 2.3or 2.4) or the fact that the pitch > suits the lute better? Does anybody else play baroque lute at such a low > pitch (and get away with it?) Pitch I know is a very debated subject, but if > you are playing alone (usually but not always the case with baroque lute) > surely you are less confined to what the Pyramid or Kurschner or Savarez > string chart says you should be using? > > Nigel > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- Benjamin Narvey Luthiste: http://www.luthiste.com --
