I play on 67cm and it's tuned in "g" A=440. It's possible to tune it even in "a" A=440.
2011/8/17 Edward Mast <[1][email protected]> 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 barre, 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 >> [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- References 1. mailto:[email protected] 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
