I think that sums it up nicely, Eugene. The best lute is the next one, whether self-built or bought. Self building is great, but that's a whole other discussion . . .
Thank you, everyone, for your views, and please keep 'em coming! Bill From: Eugene Kurenko <[email protected]> To: Roman Turovsky <[email protected]> Cc: Jean-Marie Poirier <[email protected]>; Luca Manassero <[email protected]>; Lute List <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012, 17:58 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? 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][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][2][email protected]> To: "Jean-Marie Poirier" <[3][3][email protected]> Cc: "Luca Manassero" <[4][4][email protected]>; "Lute List" <[5][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][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][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][8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > References > 1. [3][4][9][9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > >References > > 1. mailto:[5][10][10][email protected] > 2. [6][11][11]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 3. [7][12][12]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > ======================================== -- References 1. mailto:[13][13][email protected] 2. mailto:[14][14][email protected] 3. [15][15]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 4. [16][16]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. mailto:[17][17][email protected] 6. [18][18]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 7. [19][19]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:[20][email protected] 2. mailto:[21][email protected] 3. mailto:[22][email protected] 4. mailto:[23][email protected] 5. mailto:[24][email protected] 6. mailto:[25][email protected] 7. mailto:[26][email protected] 8. [27]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 9. [28]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 10. mailto:[29][email protected] 11. [30]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 12. [31]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 13. mailto:[32][email protected] 14. mailto:[33][email protected] 15. [34]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 16. [35]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 17. mailto:[36][email protected] 18. [37]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 19. [38]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 20. mailto:[email protected] 21. mailto:[email protected] 22. mailto:[email protected] 23. mailto:[email protected] 24. mailto:[email protected] 25. mailto:[email protected] 26. mailto:[email protected] 27. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 28. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 29. mailto:[email protected] 30. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 31. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 32. mailto:[email protected] 33. mailto:[email protected] 34. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 35. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 36. mailto:[email protected] 37. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 38. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
