> My teacher told me that you don't choose a lute, it chooses you. Maybe > that is true.
That is true, you know it when you feel it, but it may take years of playing experience on many instruments to finally recognize that "right" and perfect match up when it happens. My once-in-a-lifetime lute didn't show up until 2010- and I have been playing lutes for about 40 years, and I wasn't even looking for a new R-lute anymore. Sometimes one never finds a "perfect" instrument and does the best one can- and IF it's a fabulous sounding instrument it is well worth the effort. That describes my vihuela- my one instrument that has been built scrupulously faithful to a specific, original model; except for the spacing/set-up meeting my hands- but only 90% of the way. Size 10-1/2 "shoe" for my size 11 "foot". With some instruments you just don't get the full range of shoe sizes. Modern classical guitars are always going to be 64 or 65 cm. or close- radically change that, and you no longer have a proper "E" instrument. Or not one that sounds good. Of course one can get a terz guiitar- size and pitch of an alto/high tenor lute. There was a New Yorker article some years ago about a woman- concert level trained pianist- whose sole job for the Steinway company was matching prospective buyers to the instrument of their dreams. Players would try dozens, scores, of pianos until they found the "right" one- out of seemingly identical instruments, all built to identical specs, to a level of standardization that lutenists, luthiers, (and even guitarists for that matter) can't even dream of. To my knowledge, only one great historical pianist had an instrument built to his specs. Joseph Hoffman; early 20th century. He had all the keys shave a little & more closely spaced to match his smaller-than-Rachmaninoff"s hands. And of course Glenn Gould personally obsessed his instruments to incredible degrees. Sometimes the instrument can be set up to meet your hands, sometimes you train your hands to meet the instrument. Sometimes it's a bit of both. The shoe analogy breaks down at this point, and of course we haven't even touched on that "historical" thing. Anyway, an Edlinger Burkholtzer is no longer a Burkholtzer Burkholtzer. Dan On Apr 9, 2012, at 2:27 PM, David Tayler wrote: > Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the > wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change > anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either > keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. > So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my > experience that the player will have to go through a very long > retraining period > after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? > Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. > Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers, the > size of the hand (and fingers) and the rules which govern the span and > spacing of strings. Without these two numbers in balance, it is > impossible, or very difficult to make a good sound. > When these numbers are in balance, it is easy to make a good sound; in > fact, it is difficult to make a bad sound. No one would wear size 4 or > size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what > happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though the > lute is from the age of "custom made". Equally sadly, most people do > not understand the basic physics of twang, thwack and pluck, which > involves some simple experiments with a special bridge and nut that are > universally adjustable. Generally speaking, and I mean VERY generally, > the plucking-point spacing is wrong, that is, the place where you > actually pluck the string, and it is almost always too narrow. However, > it is the ratio of the bridge to nut, factoring the string length, and > figured at YOUR plucking point that gives numbers for the "thou shalt > not buzz" dimensions. Empirically, anyone can see that the spacing is > different at any point on the string. > A player with years of experience can give you some advice, after > watching you play, about the setup. You may have to compromise somewhat > on the overall span, or use a sliding scale so that the treble has more > room. > After these two biggies, there is a seemingly endless list of features, > all of which are important. And here you will need some experience to > guide you. > However, I would add that most lutes made nowadays are not copies of > originals. They are rescaled, resized, rebarred, rebridged, reglued, > revarnished. > Available is everything: everything-except-original. > Now, you may want that. Personally, I think everyone needs a reality > check instrument that is a copy of an original. Otherwise, it is just a > guitar, basically, with wonky pegs. > Since you asked about sound in your list, it is no fun playing a > monochromatic instrument of any kind, but that is just a personal > preference. I would say most lutes made today lean towards > monochromatic. > Main thing is to make a good sound. If you aren't making a beautiful > sound, it isn't you: your lute is set up wrong, is the wrong size, or > both. > Lute players may think that their feet are the wrong size, but when you > think about it, this cannot be the case. Everyone is different, and the > instrument must fit. > My teacher told me that you don't choose a lute, it chooses you. Maybe > that is true. > dt > __________________________________________________________________ > > From: William Samson <willsam...@yahoo.co.uk> > To: Lute List <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Sat, April 7, 2012 6:25:47 AM > Subject: [LUTE] What makes a good lute? > 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]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > > References > > 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >
