> 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?
When I bought my first lute in 1983 from Budget Instruments (8c after Hieber) it was commonly understood that the soundboard would be dead within 20 or so years. As a matter of fact, it's still sounding resonant, and everything is just fine with it. Certainly a good lute. Mathias > 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 > > > >
