Yes you're right, sharp and pungent is overstating it - brightness is a good way of putting it. Or perhaps pluckier? as in the old lute- stop-on-harpsichords argument.
But to argue against myself there's lots of iconographical evidence for lutenists not playing close to the bridge... On 25 Sep 2008, at 18:57, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
