Dear Martin,
The question of the heritage of the Gerle lute is very interesting. I can't
help feeling that Robert Lundberg rather muddied the waters by stating
in his book that it was built in 1580 and that 'it is thought to illustrate
what they felt the earlier instruments looked like' without offering any
evidence or argument to support that idea. I don't profess to know the
definitive answer myself, but I note that Stephen Barber& Sandi Harris
consider it to be a genuine 6 course lute:
http://www.lutesandguitars.co.uk/htm/cat01.htm
And by way of analogy, Gibson still build reissues of their 1930's
flat top guitars, and still know exactly how they were made because
plenty of the now treasured originals are still around. It seems plausible
that similar considerations would apply to 16c lutes. The oldest lute in my
own collection was built in 1978 and is showing no signs of failing in any
way
just yet. Hopefully it's good for at least another 30 years...
So I would be interested to know whether there is any other evidence
that supports Lundberg's view on the Gerle, or if it was just an opinion
of his that has transmuted itself into a fact.
Best wishes,
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Martin Shepherd
Sent: 22 April 2012 19:35
To: Lute List
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Why no active historical lutes?
Thanks for your vote of confidence, Martyn, but it worries me that we
modern makers are too slavish in our adherence to a few (perhaps rather
atypical) historical lutes. Obviously I think it's important to study
the evidence we do have, but as I'm making a Gerle at the moment I'm
acutely aware of the fact that it's not really a "proper" 6c lute
because of the circumstances of its commission for a "cabinet of
curiousities". There was nothing exotic or curious about a lute in
1580, so perhaps the motivation for its inclusion was that it was made
of ivory (as I think were other objects in the cabinet). One could even
argue that it was not made to be played!
Difficult business, lutemaking....
Best wishes,
Martin
On 22/04/2012 15:44, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Hi Bill,
There are many difficulties with bringing early ('historical') lutes
back into use: some of the very real aspects of fragility have been
touched on. But it also depends on what we mean by an 'historical'
instrument since leaving aside one class of lute (more later), almost
all the earliest lutes have been converted to later forms (with a few
exceptions such as the Gerle) with many more courses and it's pretty
clear that even at the time these had limited shelf life if kept at
tension and regularly played (eg Mace's advice to take off and repair
the belly as being something that one might expect to have to do - or
have done). Indeed, it may be that, counter -intuitively, the more
ornamental instruments may be better candidates for modern playing (eg
the more ornate Tielke lutes) since they may have endured only light
use and been kept safe as decorative objects - but one doubts if any
collection would allow them to be strung up and played since a premium
is placed on such objects by museum curators as ornate artistic
artefacts (look at how the V&A treated their instrument collection all
for the sake of few frocks) and these are protected like the crown
jewels.
So what we are left with is a sort of self-selected group of
instruments, often in a very poor state and very much changed, to
attempt to bring back to some sort of playing condition. Personally,
because so much of such a re-incarnation is highly speculative, I
would far prefer to see these instruments conserved in their present
state for research and future generations.
However, on the bright side, I'm not so sure that there are no active
'historical' (ie old) lutes. Leaving aside the old instruments which
have been rebirthed (such as Bailes's probable original gallichon
converted to an 11 course lute or even Lindberg's re-invention of a
Rauwolf lute) there are in fact some lutes which are in playable
condition: some 18th century mandoras! I've had the privilege of
playing a couple (a Stautinger and Anon) but, for safety, strung at
lower tension than I use on a modern reconstruction. Both instruments
were playable and, indeed, I think would have been able to take
significantly higher tensions. In both cases the only significant
'restoration' which would be necessary to put them back into everyday
practical use would be to reset the neck which had lifted a little.
However even this modest move I would nowadays resist - far preferring
to see old lutes conserved (there are so very few compared with
fiddles) and allowed to be copied.
Some of the reasons for violin survival have also been mentioned but
one is, I believe, that the domed construction is enormously strong
and, like the the arched bridge, is able to withstand much larger
forces before major distortion. Nevertheless, some flat belied
instruments can be succesfully restored to playing condition:
witness the harpsichord. But even with these, although the
soundboards
are often horribly distorted, the heavy framing on all but the
lightest
of Italian instruments allows such restringing. Indeed, when I first
played in ensemble with Peter Holman I remember with amazement how he
used to cart his original Kirkman (unrestored - with treble cheek
lifted to boot) around in a van. But in truth the renasissance of the
modern harpsichord probably owes more to makers who eschewed the
Pleyels, Gobles, etc and sought to copy historic models than to
restringing a few old instruments.
So all power to modern makers like Martin who seek out original
specimens from which to base their instruments - and shame on those
collections and collectors who do not allow open access to their
historic instruments for this purpose.....
regards
Martyn
--- On Sun, 22/4/12, William Samson<[email protected]> wrote:
From: William Samson<[email protected]>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Why no active historical lutes?
To: "Christopher Stetson"<[email protected]>
Cc: "Lute List"<[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, 22 April, 2012, 8:09
I agree with most of the comments you make, Chris.
I have a couple of lutes that are between 30 and 40 years old - one
of
them (with a Sitka spruce soundboard) sounded better when new and
now
sounds quite harsh in comparison to its earlier state. The other
one
(Swiss pine soundboard) has improved with age and although the
bridge
had to be glued back on a few years ago, I find it is easier now to
produce a nice tone from it than when it was new. The caveat is,
of
course, that all this is quite subjective and my technique has
changed
radically over the past 40 years - from guitar technique with
nails,
guitar technique without nails, pinky-down-thumb-inside technique,
and
nowadays the thumb creeping outside and also playing closer to the
bridge to emulate how I think the old ones played their lutes in
the
17th century.
Where I take issue, though, is that as far as I can tell Mace
doesn't
advocate regular replacement of the soundboard. He does, however,
give
instructions on how to carefully remove the soundboard, repair
loose
bars, cracks etc, and glue it back down satisfactorily once repairs
are
done.
I keep hearing stories of lutes, just a decade or two old, having
their
soundboards replaced with brand new ones. I can't understand the
motivation behind this unless the old soundboard was made of very
poor
wood or very badly made. Generally speaking, though, I find that
the
older soundboards are made from better wood, with a tighter grain,
than
is generally available nowadays. My gut feeling is that the tone
and
response of the instrument is dominated by the soundboard, so
replacing
a soundboard with a new one could radically alter the way the
instrument sounds. I wonder what seemingly irreparable soundboard
faults cause players to throw away the whole soundboard in exchange
for
a new one?
Anyway, if you are thinking of replacing your soundboard, I'll
happily
pay postage and packing expenses if you'll send your old one to me
:)
Bill
From: Christopher Stetson<[1][email protected]>
To: [2][email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 22 April 2012, 2:59
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Why no active historical lutes?
Hi, everyone,
I've been waiting for one of the luthiers on the list to reply,
but
since they haven't, I'll toss in that it's my understanding that
the
physical forces of strings pulling on the glued-down bridges of
lutes,
which then torque the bridge against the very thin soundboard,
are
quite different from those of strings pushing down on violin
bridges,
which transmit the force downward onto the more robust, carved
soundboards, all of which results in lutes tending to come apart
more
quickly than violins do. Also, I believe that in the opinion of
some,
at least, because of these different structures and forces, while
violins tend to sound better as they age, the sound quality of
lutes
(and guitars with glued-down bridges) tends to deteriorate over
time.
Perhaps some luthier list-members could confirm, deny, or nuance?
Doesn't Mace talk of having his soundboards replaced on a regular
basis?
Best to all, and keep playing.
Chris.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Edward Mast
<[1][1][3][email protected]>
wrote:
I think one or two may have survived un-modified (perhaps the
"Messiah"?). Also, Yo Yo Ma 'de-modified' one of his strad
cellos
(I believe I've read this), reconfiguring it as a Baroque
instrument. (How much of a shame the modifications are depends
upon
who you're talking with, of course).
-Ned
On Apr 21, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Sam Chapman wrote:
> Just for the record, I don't think any of those Stradivarius
violins
> are in anything like their original condition. Which is a real
shame.
>
> All the best,
>
> Sam
>
> On 20 April 2012 20:23, Herbert Ward
<[2][2][4][email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>> According to Wikipedia, there are many Strativarius violins
>> in active use today:
>>
[3][3][5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stradivarius_instrumen
ts
>>
>> But I never hear of anyone playing a historical lute
routinely.
>> In fact, it seems rare for anyone to even handle one.
>>
>> Is this because the thin soundboard becomes fragile with age?
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>
[4][4][6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
>
> --
> Sam Chapman
> Oetlingerstrasse 65
> 4057 Basel
> (0041) 79 530 39 91
>
>
--
References
1. mailto:[5][7][email protected]
2. mailto:[6][8][email protected]
3.
[7][9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stradivarius_instruments
4. [8][10]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:[11][email protected]
2. mailto:[12][email protected]
3.
[13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stradivarius_instruments
4. [14]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
5. mailto:[15][email protected]
6. mailto:[16][email protected]
7.
[17]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stradivarius_instruments
8. [18]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1.
http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
2. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
3. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
4.
http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stradivarius_instruments
6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
7. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
8.
http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stradivarius_instruments
10. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
11. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
12.
http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stradivarius_instruments
14. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
15. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
16.
http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stradivarius_instruments
18. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
