And if playing thumb under feels like torture, you are doing something wrong. Done properly, thumb-under places very little stress on your right hand.
Guy -----Original Message----- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of alexander Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:13 PM To: Michael Cc: Lute list Subject: [LUTE] Re: First lute advice There is an absolutely practical need for the "thumb-under" for the lutes with lighter strings, lighter tops, and lower tension then harp or guitar. On modern harp there is no chance of striking the string along its length, (as lute's thumb-under would encourage), exactly because of the string tension. Guitar has thicker strings and heavier top,then the lute, which makes it practical to pluck the string across. On the earlier lutes it is impossible to deeply agitate the string and the top in such a way. You need a longer and deeper contact between the finger and the string. The later lutes moved towards heavier set-up (not necessarily because of the string diameter, but rather the number and the need for a stronger top), so the perpendicular plucking direction (with its' clarity) becomes possible & favored. Thumb-under is by no means an arbitrary technique. On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:51:53 -0700 Michael <pdxl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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<ma...@rowan.edu> 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 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
