Excellent discussion- as to modern classical guitar "vs" renaissance lute; some exchanges work, some don't. I've been testing these waters very intensely since getting a new 8 course from Dan Larson. Unbelievably resonant instrument, depth of response beyond anything I've ever owned or played previously. The Villa-Lobos Etude #1 is a great arpeggio study for thumb-index alternation, either thumb out or in; but I would never play it on the lute in concert. A surprising number of Villa-Lobos' other guitar works do sound good on this particular lute (differences in individual instruments can affect what works/doesn't work almost as much as different species of instrument) -and of course, as Martin notes, you run right off the rails technically with many pieces. But it's good training to dance one's way right up to the sound hole playing the works that test & extend the lute's limits, but don't quite exceed it.
All technical stumbling blocks resolved, it seems to still be a "cultural" thing; the European lute family is and no doubt will always be- for the most part- a back-from-the-dead, loving retrieval of our nearly lost instrumental musical heritage, redolent of particular times and places, not mention musical-social associations. In our minds, at least. One violates- or just pushes- these important values/associations very carefully. Again, for my own amusement, I have found that five of the dozen or so guitar arrangements of Astor Piazzolla sound brilliant on the lute; actually even better in some ways. (Lute sound- even with all gut stringing- cuts like an arrow vs. guitar sound- smashes through like a bullet. Perfect for Tango) -but I may never perform them in concert. A relevant and important point; none of these works by Piazzolla were actually written for guitar- they have been played on everything from solo bandoneon, guitar, or piano, to quintets and full orchestrations. Music of a certain universal plasticity (like so much of Bach's suites & partitas) is fair game for many different modes of presentation. But what "should" be the lute's cultural range- technical/sonic range being easily quantifiable- is a delicate, thorny aspect of this discussion. Dan >Hi All, > >A few thoughts off the top of my head (not as far up as it was): > >I would say to a composer - listen carefully to the sound of a >proper lute strung with gut strings. You will hear the difference >between that and the modern guitar. > >Also, bear in mind that although pushing boundaries can be >interesting, the lute is historically quite limited in range - in >terms of the fingerboard, there are only eight tied frets, after >that you're up in the gods. Unless you're writing for baroque lute >of course, in which case you've got a couple of extra frets. > >Think about octaves. They were usually ignored by the intabulators >of old, but they were there - so when composing, you really have to >think about what kind of octave doubling (however subtle) is >acceptable. > >Temperament is another issue. The old guys mave have used some >approximation to equal temperament, but that doesn't necessarily >equate to total freedom in terms of modulation, or the way the open >strings of the instrument resonate. Some notes are more equal than >others. > >Special effects (harmonics, tapping the soundboard, etc) are not, as >far as we know, part of historical lute technique. It is therefore >a matter of taste whether to extend the "normal" technique of the >instrument in various ways, but there is always a danger of making >it sound like something it isn't. > >Historically most lutenists were obsessed by trying to reproduce >vocal polyphony. Perhaps the organ has more in common with the lute >than the guitar.... > >Best wishes, > >Martin > -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
