Dear lute friends, this has been very entertaining and also very useful discussion. This is one example, why the list is so important to us! Thanks Wayne, thanks again and again, for giving us this list.
One thought I would like add, just to empower this enjoyable confusion: In case blaming "reverse engineering" means blaming the use of single strings in extended lutes that are not re-entrant, I would like to protest: I suppose our ancient colleagues would not mind in putting also higher octave strings in their 2nd and 1st string in their single strung instruments, if string length and available string material makes it possible, and if they found the setting useful. Also without doubt there were players, who at least tested their proper(?) archlutes in single string setting - if for not other reason, at least for economic reasons. How much do we really know about the single/double string history of extended lutes in the 17th and 18th century? Where and when and who took which alternative? I suppose we do not know very much! Yet? Experimenting perhaps helps? As far as I know in archeology they have learned a lot this way. best, Arto On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:10:17 +0100, Martin Shepherd <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I agree with Ron that you can invent new instruments if you like, but > it's not going to get you any closer to anything the old guys might have > used. It goes without saying that we cannot recreate historical > instruments, or sounds, or audiences (why would we want to?), but what > we can do is try to get a bit closer to the physical properties of the > instruments and strings that were used when the music was originally > being created. A modest goal, but quite difficult enough. You might > ask why would we want to do that, and I think different people would > give different answers. Personally, I think the attempts to recreate > historical instruments (not just lutes, but harpischords and everything > else) have often resulted in new insights which we would never have had > if we had simply continued playing modern instruments. > > On the subject of audiences, I agree that the primary function of a > musician is to entertain the audience, but the instincts and > intelligence of that audience should never be underestimated. I don't > think there are many audiences out there who are really interested in > exactly when a particular piece was first published (people who > introduce pieces from the platform please note), but there are hardly > any who can't sense condescension or a lack of genuine engagement. So > no Disneyfication for me, just the essence will do nicely. It has > always amazed me how the most "untutored" audiences can respond with > delight to some obscure piece of 16th century polyphony, partly because > they've never heard anything like it before, but partly (I hope) because > of the apparent commitment and genuineness of the performers. > > M > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
