Something to keep in mind, in regard to the need of mending the instrument Leonard is referring to, is how far (or near) is the luthier who build it... Even if it doesn't break, wood "lives", and therefore a lute must be periodically adjusted. Cheers, Manolo
El 08/04/2012, a las 15:46, Leonard Williams escribió: > Aside from the essential question of acoustics, and the aesthetics of > physical appearance, how about lasting quality? It may sound good "right > out of the box", but what's it like after it been under tension for a > year? Where's the action? Is the rose bulging up to the strings? Do the > pegs work? Bars intact? Bridge still on? In my limited lute-owning > experience, I've not had any of those problems, but I have heard of them > occurring with lutes and other stringed instruments. When you pay big > bucks, those issues are as important as the fine inlay and rare woods. > > My 2 cents US, > Leonard Williams > > /[ ] > / \ > | * | > \_=_/ > > > > > > On 4/7/12 1:56 PM, "William Samson" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > >
