As Ed says, not with gut strings.
M
On 18/08/2011 07:41, Eugene Kurenko wrote:
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
