Could you please name the tutors telling to play so close to the bridge ?
and the iconographical evidence (yes there is some but not so much...)
And the other evidence (speak with some luthiers) is to try to play the
strings in different places and hear where sound is the best (objectively,
not just as an idea of your ideal sound) Of couse it depends on the lute,
strings and soundboard, but I'm quite sure it is not by playing close to the
bridge you get the better "objective" sound from our instrument.
Do you also think people listening to songs like Janequin wrote, Lassus and
others, listeining to viols and flûtes, could like buzzing strings on frets
? I'm really not sure of this idea. (I believe Da Milano's silver nails is a
poetic hyperbole, so many poetic hyperboles in this time poetry, paintings
and writings....)
My two cents...
Valéry
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Andrew Gibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute List"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 7:57 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound
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
