Personally I would not underestimate the importance of appearance (of the lute) and reputation (of the maker) when buying an instrument. My idea of a good lute has changed so many times within the last couple of years: even when you think that you've found your dream instrument, the assurance that you will be able to sell it on for a good price in a couple of years when you don't like it anymore is comforting. This is doubly important when ordering unusual instruments!
Sam On 7 April 2012 18:58, Eugene Kurenko <[email protected]> wrote: > Someday I shall build one. I want to. I desire of one which looks like > after 1000 years of battles and sings as fallen angel in catharsis. But > for myself :) > > 2012/4/7 Roman Turovsky <[1][email protected]> > > That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a > deliberately ugly > lute, for several reasons: > 1. It could never be sold, because > 2. No one would want to be seen with one. > 3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand. > I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense > is similarly lacking. > It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes. > I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no > sound, > but that is another story. > RT > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene Kurenko" > <[2][email protected]> > To: "Jean-Marie Poirier" <[3][email protected]> > Cc: "Luca Manassero" <[4][email protected]>; "Lute List" > <[5][email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? > > Well I prefer to differ. > Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand > with > pretty look. > As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ > guitars > with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better. > The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more > expensive > wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's > weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for > 3000 I > want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$ > But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not > exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical > instrument > let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this > sound. > Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this > great > sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first > of > all. It's not a painting. So the lute must have the greatest sound > first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable > to > me. Brrrrrrrr :) > 2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier <[1][6][email protected]> > Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic > one...??? > Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a > little > bit more complex than that, isn't it? > Best, > Jean-Marie > ================================= > == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == > > I vote only for sound and playability! > > > > Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like > total > > horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to > play > > it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented > instruments > > with that flowers, hearts etc. > > IMHO theese nice "things" suits well on instruments for women > but > not > > for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks > more > > like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another > one > which > > looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) > > 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero <[1][2][7][email protected]> > > > > Hi, > > very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different > order: > > 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know > you > > found it) > > 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present > lutemakers > > dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by > arguments > > like > > "this respects the original instrument in the collection > ABC". > > Fine, > > what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old > girl?) > > 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes > it > > happens > > to see really ugly instruments. With all the research > involved > in > > XVI > > and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument > is > > "unauthentic" ;-) > > 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice > sound > out > > of a > > lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) > > 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to > be > very > > careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells > us > not > > much > > about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI > century > > players) > > 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and > have a > > good > > sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been > selected > > the > > right way...) > > I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an > investment, > > OK. > > If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first > point > > on my > > list either. > > Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other > opinions > > :-) > > Thanks! > > Luca > > > > William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote: > > I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've > been > > chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged > I'd > be > > interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the > various > > characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or > otherwise. > > The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular > order): > > * playability (action, string spacing etc) > > * sound (which I can't easily define) > > * authenticity of design/construction > > * materials used > > * quality of craftsmanship > > * reputation of maker > > Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be > > refined, > > clarified or broken down. > > Thoughts, please? > > Bill > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > > > [1][2][3][8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > References > > 1. > [3][4][9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > -- > > > >References > > > > 1. mailto:[5][10][email protected] > > 2. > [6][11]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > 3. > [7][12]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > ======================================== > -- > References > 1. mailto:[13][email protected] > 2. mailto:[14][email protected] > 3. [15]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 4. [16]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 5. mailto:[17][email protected] > 6. [18]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 7. [19]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > > References > > 1. mailto:[email protected] > 2. mailto:[email protected] > 3. mailto:[email protected] > 4. mailto:[email protected] > 5. mailto:[email protected] > 6. mailto:[email protected] > 7. mailto:[email protected] > 8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 10. mailto:[email protected] > 11. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 12. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 13. mailto:[email protected] > 14. mailto:[email protected] > 15. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 16. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 17. mailto:[email protected] > 18. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 19. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- Sam Chapman Oetlingerstrasse 65 4057 Basel (0041) 79 530 39 91
