Valery,
There is no such thing as a best sound or playing
position. No idea of a "best" way to get a sound from
a lute existed back then:
"the Italians, and especially the Venetians, have
in all times excelled ...in the Consorts of grave,
solemn music, sometimes running so sweetly with soft
touching of the strings as may seem to ravish the
hearer's spirit from his body..." Whereas the
Germans, "as they delight most in loud music, so still
music of lutes and like instruments, they like them
better who strike hard upon the strings than those who
with a gentle touch make sweeter melody, which they
think fitter for chambers to invite sleep..." the
Itinerary of Fynes Moryson c.1590
So, should we emulate the Italians or the Germans
today? Which is better? (Both, I think.) While we
might like to imagine the Italians caressing the
strings by the rose and the Germans lustily whacking
down by the bridge, we really don't know how they were
doing what they were doing. From this description,
one might also more easily imagine a buzzing lute in
the hands of a German, but of course Capirola was
Italian.
So much of this is subjective. Vincenzo Galilei
says in Fronimo that lutes are superior to keyboard
instruments because keyboard instruments "have not
been able, cannot, and never will be able to express
the harmonies for affetti like hardness, softness,
harshness, sweetness, consequently the cries, laments,
shrieks, tears, and finally quietude and rage with so
much grace and skill as excellent players do on the
lute..." Wow. Cries, laments, shrieks, tears...
Powerful stuff. (Both of the above quotes, courtesy
Paul O'Dette.)
Obviously a variety of playing positions and
sounds existed. I wholeheartedly try to embrace this.
(Still working on it.) For me, however, the norm of
playing closer to the bridge most of the time works
better because it gives more control of articulation
and dynamics. One would presume this to be an
important aspect of expressing the affects. That
_doesn't_ mean "sempre sul ponticello e fortissimo."
One last thing that many forget - the sound that
comes out of a lute is quite different for the
listener than for the player.
Chris
--- Sauvage Valéry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
