You are quite right - your email attached one of Jospeh Mayes to whom I should have directed that particular observation. I'm pleased you agree the little finger resting on the belly is a necessary part of historical lute technique.
MH --- On Fri, 1/4/11, alexander <[email protected]> wrote: From: alexander <[email protected]> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast. To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[email protected]> Cc: "JosephMayes" <[email protected]>, "Herbert Ward" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 11:04 Oh, yes, another thing, how did you come to a conclusion that i am arguing against the little finger support while i am arguing that only such a support allows to produce a decent sound on a lute?.. al ray On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0100 (BST) Martyn Hodgson <[1][email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Alexander, > > What evidence do you have that early lutes (I presume you're referring > to 16th century instruments) were strung at a lower tension than > similar size later lutes? > > And what evidence do you have that the tension of a guitar around 1800 > was 7 Newtons? > > Early evidence on the use of placing the little finger on the belly is > unequivocal - if we wish to attempt to reproduce what the Old Ones > themselves heard it is clearly necessary to adopt the same techniques. > > MH > To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
