Andrew,
I tend to agree with what the tutors recommend.
(I don't know if I would use the words "sharp" or
"pungent" to describe it, however.) There is also
such circumstantial evidence as Capirola's advice to
set your frets so that they actually buzz against the
strings and the description of Francesco playing with
thimbles into which were set little quills. Some have
suggested that the thimbles/quills idea was just a
poetic hyperbole. Possibly. But why would a listener
from that time have thought to place such an invention
in the hands of Francesco - things that would
presumably produce a very, very bright sound - if
brightness wasn't a desirable trait in the first
place?
I get the feeling that for many, playing so far
over the rose is a relic of converts to the lute
subconciously trying to re-create a warm tonal ideal
remembered from their previous days of playing
(modern) classical guitar. Personally I like playing
fairly close to the bridge - there's more volume and I
feel much more control over articulation and shading.
You can still warm things up by moving closer to the
rose if you want or brighten things by putting your
pinky behind the bridge.
Chris
--- Andrew Gibbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The original lute tutors consistently recommend
> playing close to the
> bridge - with the pinkie very close to the bridge -
> or even on or
> behind the bridge. Taking into account the possible
> differences
> between modern and historical strings, this still
> seems to indicate
> 16th c taste (early 16th c at least) was for a much
> sharper, more
> pungent sound than most modern lutenists are
> playing. The close-to-
> the-bridge sound is certainly surprising - I keep
> trying it but my
> hand keeps creeping towards the rose...
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2008, at 02:00, Stephen Fryer wrote:
>
> > What sort of sound were they trying for in e.g.
> the 16th century?
> > Do we have any evidence on this?
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
