Dear Ed,
We have to be careful not to regard "Dowland's lute" as being one
instrument. Nearly all of what we regard as his solo lute music was
almost certainly written before 1600, about half of it for 6 courses
(and eight tied frets). His remarks in Varietie of Lute Lessons were
published in 1610, by which time he is talking about a 9c lute with ten
tied frets. He implies that wooden frets on the body were a relatively
recent invention and not adopted by all players. According to Dowland
the fashion for longer necks with ten frets started in France, and must
surely have resulted in longer string lengths. I think string lengths
around 67cm must have been quite common by this time.
You can find a bit more detail in my essay on Dowland at:
www.johndowland.co.uk/DowlandsLutes.htm
You might also be interested in my essay on his ornaments:
www.johndowland.co.uk/ornamentation.htm
Best wishes,
Martin
On 17/12/2010 22:42, Edward Mast wrote:
Martin-
If Dowland didn't have body frets on his instruments, does that mean he had
upward of 10 or 11 frets on the neck - even 12? Does this mean very long
necks? And would that mean a small body, or a larger body and perhaps a long
string length? How long a string length would be practical, in your opinion,
for him to have been able to play his more complex works (ones involving chords
requiring long stretches between fingers) ?
Many questions, I know, but other than the information that he went from 7
course instruments to 10 or more courses later in life, I've not seen any
detailed description of his instruments.
Thank you,
-Ned
On Dec 17, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Martin Shepherd wrote:
Dear All,
Sorry - another thought, perhaps less helpful than the first. The last
several of Dowland's frets were made from first-course material (.40-.45mm
gut?), so if he had had body frets (and it seems he didn't) they couldn't have
been exactly tree-trunk sized.
Best,
Martin
On 17/12/2010 16:17, Edward Mast wrote:
Stuart, I was thinking about your comments today as I worked on a Dowland piece
that has passages in the i,k,l fret area. On my lute these frets don't have
the resonance that the lower frets do, either. What I do find, though, is that
I get a better sound from the body frets when I play them with the fingers - no
matter where they fall in the measure - than with the thumb. Perhaps you've
noticed this, or perhaps your right hand technique is different from mine. . .
-Ned
On Dec 14, 2010, at 6:16 AM, Stuart Walsh wrote:
On 14/12/2010 00:02, sterling price wrote:
Most lutes have way too small body frets as they come from the maker. I always
make bigger more suitable frets on my lutes. This often means that they get
-taller- as they go up from fret K, especially if there is 14 frets. Of course
this all depends on the action of the lute.
--Sterling
14 frets? Is there music that calls for 14 frets?
On my lute the high g, fret n, sounds weak, very plinky an unfocused. I can't
imagine what a fourteenth fret would sound like!
Stuart
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
