> I hear you loud and clear with regard to renaissance lute being a good > prep. for baroque. Having played 10-courses, my thumb is pretty > comfortable all over. I use thumb-under, even on the 10-course,
That's what you can see with many players, that much is true. When you look at paintings of people playing the 10c lute (and the more so baroque lute players), however, you will see nothing else but thumb-out. And Vallet wrote in his 1615 preface (Secret des Muses), that although some non-versatile players in his days would still use thumb-in technique (thumb-under), he considered it ridiculous (sic!) and strongly recommended his students to use thumb-out technique. Post your RH little finger close to the bridge, set your fingers into a right angle with the strings, and stretch your thumb toward the rose. The resulting sound will be silvery with the upper voices, kinda resembling a tiny harpsichord, and soft with the basses. It distinctly differs from the "classical" renaissance lute. The reason why many players of 10c lutes and baroque lutes do not use this technique is, or so I guess, that it resembles classical guitar technique much too closely (except for the position of the RH very close to the bridge). We do want to get as far as possible from our dark past, don't we ;^) > I think what I was trying to say is that the ornamentation on baroque > lute seems to be more detailed, or refined, or whatever one would call > it (at a loss for the right word?). Yes. George Torres offered a detailed analysis of French baroque ornaments in a recent Lute Society publication. I think that ornaments in the 17th and 18th centuries were much less subject to personal taste than one would possibly reckon today, as they were integral to the music, not additional adornment. Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
