Oops, I just realized my mistake - in the Waissel example, the first two
courses were covered by the second finger, not the first.
M
On 17/08/2011 21:49, Martin Shepherd wrote:
Hi Ned,
You can't tune a 67cm lute in g' at a'=440. The preferred pitch would
be in the region of a'=392, which is why we often talk of a "lute in
F". Life would be a whole lot simpler if the "modern standard early
music pitch" was a'=392 instead of a'=415. There is no such thing
historically, of course, but in our time it would simplify things
considerably, not least when mixing modern and "baroque" style
instruments (because a transposition of a tone is so much more
sensible than a semitone).
Waissel played the c1c2d3c6 chord using the second finger to cover the
first two courses, the third finger for the d3 and the first for the c6.
Best wishes,
Martin
On 17/08/2011 20:18, Edward Mast wrote:
Hello Martin,
Thank you for your observations on historical lute sizes and
string lengths. When you say that the 67cm size is perfect for us,
I'm not sure if you're talking about a g lute tuned to A=440, or a
lower tuning. (Since I play with ensemble players whose instruments
are at A=440, I'm rather tied to that pitch).
The examples of fingerings you give are interesting. I can
particularly see that the example from Waissel (c1c2d3c6, assuming he
used 2nd finger on c6) might result in more consistent clarity.
-Ned
On Aug 17, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote:
Hi All,
I don't think there was ever a "norm" for string length. Lutes were
always made in a variety of sizes, and if our focus today is on solo
lute music that is not necessarily typical of what happened in the
past. Many people sang to the lute, and the guiding principle
would have been whether the size (therefore pitch) of the lute was
suitable for your voice.
To the extent that there were some more or less standard sizes in
northern Italy in the the late 16th C, they are 44cm, about 59cm,
about 67cm, and about 78 cm (with a putative "bass" of about 88cm
rather lacking in historical examples). In terms of the fossil
record, the 67cm size is probably the commonest, but one could
debate whether or not that was the size most commonly used for solo
music. The 59cm and 67cm sizes are a tone apart, which suggests
they may be the sizes intended for tone apart duets, for instance,
and by implication, also suitable for solos (in the Matelart duets,
one part is a solo).
Modern lutenists have been unduly fixated on the idea that a lute
must be "in G" and at modern pitch and have therefore gravitated
towards the 59cm size, whereas historically things were obviously
much more varied. In fact the 67cm size is perfect for us, as we
tend to be a bit larger than our Renaissance forbears. Paul O'Dette
has very small hands and a marvellous technique, and I doubt that
"stretches" per se figure very largely in his calculations.
Just for the record, I have quite small hands (not as small as
Paul), and I can play that Ab chord (f1b2d4b6) on my 67cm lute quite
comfortably, so I reckon most people can manage that size of lute
reasonably well. I know people's hands vary not just in size, but
in stretch, and I agree with all the notes of caution about not
straining yourself.
One interesting thing about historical lute fingerings is how they
depart from modern "norms". Just to give a couple of examples,
there are times when it makes sense to use the first and second
finger "the wrong way round" when they are required on the same fret
(e.g. c1a4c5 can be played with the first finger on the first course
and the second on the fifth course, as documented by Newsidler); and
using one finger to cover two courses (e.g. a1b2b3d5, h1f3f4d6,
f1c2d3e4e5c6; and an interesting example from Waissel, c1c2d3c6,
where most of us would use a barré, but he preferred to cover the
first two courses with the first finger.
Best wishes,
Martin
On 10/08/2011 17:58, Edward Mast wrote:
The more I read about the lute during the 16th century, the more it
seems to me that the norm for string length then was closer to 65
cm than the 60 cm which seems more favored and common today. Are
we (myself included) - who choose the shorter mensur - wimps? If
classical guitarists of all shapes and sizes can manage a 64 cm
mensur, should we lutenists not be able to do likewise? Just
wondering . . .
-Ned
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
