Hi Ned,
Yes, it is true what Martin is saying, in that
the iconographical sources of existing lutes, do
seem to call for larger instruments. Yes, in out
times, we have used shorter, but i think the use
of larger instruments was the norm.
It is not easy to get 63 or 64 cm lengths to a in
440, especially for gut strings. For 63 or 64 cm, one should go to F#, or F.
ed
At 05:07 PM 8/17/2011, Edward Mast wrote:
Hi Martin,
I see. I assume then that the 60 cm string
length has become common because many players
are using g tuning with a=440, though I also
assume a bit longer mensur - 63 or 64 cm - might
still work with that tuning(?).
And, of course, the Waissel fingering you
mention is more sensible than what I first thought he might use.
With thanks,
Ned
On Aug 17, 2011, at 4:49 PM, 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
e-mail: [email protected]
voice: (218) 728-1202
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
http://www.myspace.com/edslute
http://magnatune.com/artists/edward_martin
