Dear Herbert,
2012/7/23 Herbert Ward <[1]wa...@physics.utexas.edu>
I have heard that the high cost of the lute and its strings
ensured that the lute historically was limited to the upper classes.
Perhaps not only but mostly to the upperclass.
How can we know this?
The high cost of instruments, strings and editions might be a good
indicative. The printed sources of lute music are not only very
demanding to play but in many cases are also dificult to understand if
you didn't have enough music culture (exposure to vocal polyphony). I
imagine that the lower class had little time to study such pieces and
perhaps not enough taste to appreciate it.
Do we know how many loaves of bread cost the
same as a set of strings in Renaissance Europe?
We don't. Just remember, breads were made at home (cheaper), strings by
the string maker (expensive).
Are surviving documents or iconography definitive on this issue?
I don't think so. They may be misleading as well.
Were all the composers either patronized by the upper
class or upper class themselves?
In fact many were. Kapsperger for instance, inherited a noble title but
was't wealthy, he was patronized by Italian academies and did get a
job during the Barberini papacy.
What instruments did the lower classes
have?
The guitar!!
Best wishes.
To get on or off this list see list information at
[2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
Bruno Correia
Pesquisador autonomo da pratica e interpretac,ao
historicamente informada no alaude e teorba.
Doutor em Praticas Interpretativas pela
Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.
--
References
1. mailto:wa...@physics.utexas.edu
2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
