Just to play devil's advocate, so please consider this commentary with an appropriately metered grain of salt. Some aspects, like tuning (as necessitated by chord forms on a necked chordophone) and range, will need a good fit of instrument to music and vice versa, but those very general construction concepts are pretty well established in many cases. Whatever inspiration for the finer details of instrument design and construction to come of analyzing thousands of pages of music, without period precedent in extant instruments, luthiers' patterns, explicitly written descriptions of construction features, or iconography deliberately depicting construction details, aren't any reverse-engineered construction features applied to lutes speculation and not necessarily related to historic instruments or the sound they may have generated? If so, is there anything wrong with so speculating if so named?
Of course, David, the example you've chosen, BWV 999, seems likely to have been conceived on keyboard: staff notation designated "Prelude pour la luth .o cembal." Even if it was intended to be first heard as lute music, I don't think many would try to argue that Bach was a specialist composer of music for the lute with substantial insight to lute technique. Carrying any inspiration for instrument construction to come from this rather abstract music to its extreme conclusion, couldn't one be as likely to come to design a modern piano or guitar as something like the lutes popular during the late baroque, with most of its courses in paired strings, some courses in octaves, a couple single, and a weird open-chord tuning with sub-bass diapasons in scale steps and none of this necessarily conveyed by staff notation? Whatever perfection you feel in your performances of BWV 999 on your lute, couldn't the same feeling come to modern pianists or guitarists playing this piece on well-built examples of their own respective instruments? Obviously, you've tempered the bulk of your design with what is known of lutes of the period, but what does the music itself--any given piece or taken in toto--really have to offer about the finer details of construction, especially if there is not known precedent in any instruments of the time? Personally, I'm fine with everybody playing whatever music they'd like on any instrument on hand, so long as any performance is presented as what it is. The only justification required is that the player wants to do so. If an audience likes it, they can buy into it; if not, they need not. In spite of the good intentions of the HIP-sters, the perceived need to clamber for artistic justification via some pretense of perceived authenticity still seems to drive too many. Best, Eugene PS: I've really enjoyed this thread to date and the good humor with which so many have approached it. Next pint is on me. Cheers! > -----Original Message----- > From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On > Behalf Of David Tayler > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:16 PM > To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu > Subject: [LUTE] Re: What's the point to 'historical sound' > > Since I brought up the reverse engineering thingy, I would simply say > that the process can be historical or non historical, just like any > other aspect of early music performance. It isn't just a series of > specs to solve a musical problem > My instrument was based on research into the music as well as the > organology. It is not a freely invented instrument. I looked at > iconography, bridge holes, lute originals, and so on, and then I > looked at a lot of music. I mean, thousands of pages of music. > The music is historical, and it is important. I'm completely happy > with the result, but I was prepared to be disappointed. If it was a > disaster, I could at least say, well, I tried. > Now that I have played the C Minor Prelude BWV 999 on it, I feel like > I really learned something. It plays perfect. I've tried it on double > strung archlute, I've tried it on baroque lute, and on this > instrument it just seems right. Maybe that is a delusion. On to late > baroque continuo. > > This instrument would work perfectly at 370 or even 392, but that > isn't the pitch that people play nowadays. I can't change that, maybe > someday, with unlimited funding. > Most of my work is with modern baroque orchestras. > But I can play this instrument at a higher pitch for professional > work, and then, when I have time, I can restring it at a seriously > low pitch and enjoy the sound. > > One thing that this instrument does, is it plays perfectly in F Sharp > minor as well as B Flat major. C sharp Major sounds great, as a V chord. > So I solved this problem that has been bothering me for the last 40 years. > Now I can move on to the next experiment. > dt > > > > Now that I have played At 11:08 AM 7/4/2011, you wrote: > >On 4 July 2011 19:49, wikla <wi...@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > > > > > "reverse engineering" > > > >Reverse engineering an instrument, that is creating a lute with specs > >that you think will solve your problems, might give the answers you > >were looking for. How convenient. It will most likely not give any > >answers about historical instruments and why they didn't work for what > >you were trying to do with them. So it will not teach you something > >new, surprise you or puzzle you. How boring. Ultimately then, a lute > >along your own specs will not help you to get closer to historical > >lute playing. But it is convenient. I have a smallish archlute to my > >own specs, tailored for 440 jobs and easy transport. Very convenient. > > > >David > > > >-- > >******************************* > >David van Ooijen > >davidvanooi...@gmail.com > >www.davidvanooijen.nl > >******************************* > > > > > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at > >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
