Let's assume that 30 percent of these old instruments are fakes, which is a reasonable assumption. Maybe the number is higher, maybe it is lower. But a good percentage of them are fakes, of course. Then it is possible to make an exact replica, because it has already been done. dt
At 09:15 AM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >There is no such thing as 'exact replicas' for neither a lute, a >viol, a violin or any other instrument of the kind ... unless you >talk about cloning ;) So whether it's 20 - 30 years ago, today or in >the years to come it can only be more or less similarly looking (to >the original that is) 'replicas' based on, as you say, 'several principles'. > >Alexander > >On 2009-02-02, at 17:35, Jerzy Zak wrote: >>OK, then live music is always (?) fresh and ''currant'' (instead of >>''modern''), whatever you'd say about its origin or background. >> >>Now, concerning the ''replication of the past'' versus >>''continuation of the school'', don't you think that since long -- >>perhaps 20 or 30 years -- lutemakers basically stopped making exact >>replicas and are rather making new lutes, however of course, based >>on several principals what they think is ''a good lute'' or ''a >>good theorbo'' &ct... >> >>But is there now any luteplayer, virtuoso and composer, who is able >>to continue, too, the tradition of creating and performing his new >>(or at least processed old) ricercars, sonatas, allemades, waltzes, >>tangos, sambas... as idiomatic lute compositions?, and people are >>buying his CD like their newly ordered lutes based on... >> >>J > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
