May be you are not expressing your pursuit clearly? May be you are looking for a clearly defined counterpoint, where voices do sound not unlike the vocal ensemble, in clarity and projection? If this is the case, then it is not the "power" as such we are speaking about. Not to go into much detail, but the earlier hand positions, where you see (in iconography) the palm of the hand being closer to the strings (and sometimes slightly turned more parallel to the instrument top), is more akin to such playing. As you raise the thumb joint away from the strings, the sound produced by the thumb becomes mellower, fluffier, may be deeper, but looses the definition. It is much better suited for the later music, then. With the thumb joint being closer, the other three fingers are put in some disadvantage, while the thumb is more likely to strike the string with a narrower surface near the nail (as it is raised, the striking surface becomes larger). This combination of thumb gaining and other fingers loosing - might bring the ensemble closer together. On the other hand, a total opposite is true as well. If you raise the wrist almost ridiculously high and pluck the basses with the very tip of the thumb, while the other fingers, again will have to work hard just to get a good grip on strings (this might be a total failure on slippery plastic strings, while the unpolished gut might be surprisingly good: you will have to always remember in your experiments the difference in surface and resistance between what "they" had and what you use), you will get a very similar results. This sort of the right hand position can be seen in some paintings as well, as well as in oriental Oud playing. These two opposites could help to find an equal blend of the voices. As always, looking carefully at the iconographic evidence might be helpful. Hope it helps. alexander
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:43:56 -0700 Peter Ruskoff <[email protected]> wrote: > I am on a quest to extract more power out of my lute in the 5th or > more courses of my lute (in other words, the typical fundamental + > octave courses). > > My lute is an 8c Renaissance made by Larry Brown in 1977, 62cm length. > I currently have it strung in Nylgut for the top four courses (as > well as all the octaves), and Savarez silver overwounds for the > basses. I realize this is not the best lute in the world, but it > sounds very nice. I just cant get the bass courses to sound out when > I want them to (especially the fretted 6th course in first position). > This is important when, for example, playing more polyphonic > Reconnaissance music like de Rippe's and Dowland's fantasies. (I > know, of course, that no other string on the lute will equal the > chantarelle's power. This impossibility is not what I'm after. I > just want more PRESENCE in the lower courses when I need it.) > > I come from playing the piano and a little bit of classical guitar. I > know, I know. You're thinking: This guy's nuts, wanting piano-like > power out of a lute. Well, of course that can't ever happen. I am > many things, but a moron is not one of them. > > On those instruments, when you want more bass power you simply...play > harder. Not so easy on a lute. So why do I play a lute? Because I > think they are one of the most beautiful and perfect of instruments. > I don't even play my guitar anymore. (NOTE: I am NOT playing my lute > with nails. I use "proper" thumb under technique.) > > I realize that getting more power from the lower courses is a > combination of: 1) technique 2) string type 3) instrument type. > > I don't have access to other lutes, and I've tried nearly every string > under the sun money can buy (I've settled on the Savarez wounds). In > most recordings I hear of the Renn. lute, obviously by players far > superior to myself, the basses do not have the quality I prefer. They > sound dead and soft--perfect for simple chordal accompaniment, but > rather useless for polyphonic playing. There are some exceptions > (mainly by Paul O'dette), and these players always use synthetic > strings. > > My question is, without another five pages of explanation of > techniques that I've explored, what would you all recommend I try? > I'm sure it has to do with a combination of rest stroke and how close > one plays to the bridge and angle of attack... Or maybe I'm just > asking too much from a 62cm instrument? Do I "need" to get a larger > instrument for greater string length? > > Oh, and telling me to just go play an archlute or a theorbo if I want > powerful basses won't cut it :) The 8c, 9c, or 10c Renn. lute is > where my heart is. > > Thanks to all in advance. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
