On Fri, Aug 28, 2009, Mark Probert <[email protected]> said: > You are right about the pavan and its purpose, though I wonder how that > relates to the playing of same on a lute. > > Practically, your average lute is not a loud instrument
All too well appreciated by this player. Much depends on the setting. An orchestra of strings is nicely complemented by a lute or two, the attacking pluck _is_ heard thru the bowed notes. Lute alone only works when playing for a few couples in a hard acoustic such as a small chapel or what might have been a goodly-sized hall in 1550, but would be thought a small parlor today. Sunday afternoon at home entertaining a few neighbors perhaps. Shalms and Sacbuts; Viols/Violins, flute, dulcian, large harp; Snarly Regals; even a set of pipes are what one needs for larger halls with gentles socializing as they will. Put the musicians up over the entranceway to keep the dance floor unencumbered and the musicians kit safe from accident. > All in all, it is not the best instrument for playing dances, > aside from very intimate ones. agreed, sadly, for many its a choice of guitars and recorders or the dreaded machine. > The implication is that once the > tactus is set, you stay at that tempo. even that is arguable from contemporary sources, I am certain there is some notion of flexible tempo in the name of art; perhaps as a madrigalism (assuming text). I have played dances which have moments that demand pauses (at section closes where dancers embrace, such as in the candlestick bransle, or madam sosilias allemande). Then there are certain fast dances that become a challenge to the dancers and the band - who shall be the first to concede as the tempo gradually increases, the fingers of the players, or the exhausted feet of the dancers? -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
