Michael,
Play with whatever technique you like. An examination of the
historical sources usually uncovers that practice back in the day was
nowhere nearly as clear-cut as we would like to have it. When I
started lute I played with a slightly adapted classical guitar
technique. I soon became aware, however, that my lute was a different
animal and a radically different technique based upon historical
sources unleashed possibilities of tone color, articulation and
phrasing that was difficult or impossible to achieve with technique
designed to bring about the potential of another instrument.
Be aware, too, that there is no such thing a single lute. "Lute"
is really a catch-all term to describe a series of instruments with
separate strengths and uses. Accordingly, these all have their own
idiosyncratic technical quirks. You're quite right that the right hand
technique in later lute playing is something closer to modern guitar
practice. (In fact, most post-1600 paintings show lute players' right
hands in positions that are much, much closer to guitar style than
almost any modern lutenist utilizes.) Still, things don't transfer
quite that easily...
Chris
--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Michael <[email protected]>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: First lute advice
To: "Mayes, Joseph" <[email protected]>, "Lute list"
<[email protected]>
Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 7:51 PM
Thank you, Joseph, for sticking your neck out.
I've been a bit confused about the technique issue and how it might
relate to a guitar player's technique for some time now. I've played
the guitar for 30 years and the thumb-under technique looks to me to
be a tortured anachronism, but I've spoken with people who wouldn't
dream of playing a lute any other way. But Douglas Alton Smith
mentions thumb-under as falling out of dominance in the late 1500s...
I can see how thumb-under might be appropriate for some music (the
Capirola lute book specifically mentions the technique), but for later
music I'm not so sure. And for any music I'm inclined to think that
whatever technique lets the player comfortably play is "good enough",
but that doesn't seem to be the majority opinion.
I'm never sure where these discussions lie on the line between
'academic' and 'practical'. I'd hate to think that someone might be
turned away from lute playing not for lack of appreciating the music
but for simply not wanting (or being able) to execute the currently
fashionable playing technique. I imagine I'll be hung for such
heresies eventually. But I have lived a rich full life and I regret
nothing. :)
- m
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Mayes, Joseph<[1][email protected]>
wrote:
> I know I am sticking my neck way out here, but I thought I'd throw in
my 2
> cents - let the flames begin!
>
> As I see it, in the early days of both lute and guitar, the technique
was
> largely the same: thumb-under, pinky on the soundboard, etc. As time
passed,
> and both music and the technique to play that music evolved, lute
technique
> moved toward what "purists" consider "Guitar technique" that is,
thumb-out,
> alternating between index and middle, etc. The guitar continued in an
almost
> unbroken chain of development to the present day, while the lute, its
> players and its music went away. Ergo, one can think of modern guitar
> technique as evolved lute technique. There is no difference in lute
set-up
> to use guitar technique. I have never heard of a luthier being asked
to
> accommodate a different style of play in the string spacing at the
bridge
--
References
1. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
