I play the lute, archlute and vihuela with nails for the same reason that I play the classical guitar with nails: because it sounds better! Of course, by that I mean it sounds better to me. Nails give the attack a precision that flesh does not. It also comes closer, IMHO to the sound usually described in historical sources as desirable on lute - silvery, tinkling, etc. Many sources tell us not to use nails - which they wouldn't have bothered to do if people were not doing it that way. I don't play with flesh, I don't ride my horse to the gig, and I don't attend any bear-bating.
My $.02 Joseph mayes On 12/10/13 11:05 AM, "Bruno Correia" <bruno.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here we go again with the nails issue. There are many sources > describing the use of flesh as the best way to sound upon the lute, > however, the use of nails was certainly a possibility. But only because > three cats used it doesn't mean it was the general taste of those > times. Just because Jimi Hendrix played with his teeth doesn't > mean that everyone does it today. I could only justify the nails if I > still played the classical guitar, otherwise what benefit would it > bring? > 2013/12/10 Martin Shepherd <[1]mar...@luteshop.co.uk> > > Well, there's Piccinini, who recommends playing with nails, and > Mace, who says that some people do it and think it's the best way, > but he says it might be OK in an ensemble but doesn't like it for > solo playing. There may be others - Weiss? Vihuela references? I'm > sure others can help. > Martin > > -- > > References > > 1. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
