Ren lute is absolutely fine. When I played in the Collegium at Eastman,
Paul (O'Dette) occasionally sat in with us continuo players. He always
used his 8 course because he said it was easier to conduct without the
long neck. In addition to this, the instrument handles modulations
easily and can tackle a wider range of figures with greater potential
for "proper" voice leading. (Although period players weren't overly
concerned with the latter.) True, on the whole overall volume will be
minimized, but what it lacks in body can be made up for in punch. As
always, playing this lute thumb out, close to the bridge, is a good
idea that is supported in period iconography.
There is plenty of historical precedent for using the Renaissance lute
in this manner. Agazzari called the lute the King of the Instruments
because in an ensemble it could play both lead lines and chordal
accompaniment. In fact, he goes so far as to say that all other
instruments should model their continuo playing after what lutenists
did. Iconography shows a huge variety of lutes being played in all
manner of ensembles. The concept that the "Renaissance" lute should be
confined to pre-1600 and that the large Roman theorbo is the most
correct instrument to use in baroque plucked continuo is a thoroughly
modern one that didn't exist during the actual period.
Chris
[1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
At Nov 2, 2014, 21:35:42, Herbert
Ward<'[2][email protected]'> wrote:
I saw a production of Monteverdi's "Return of Ulysses" last night.
In the orchestra was a theorbo. At least I think it was a theorbo.
It has a prominent place in the production, serving as the sole
accompaniment for approximately six of the songs.
Would it be feasible to replace the theorbo with a Renaissance
lute in this opera?
To get on or off this list see list information at
[3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS
2. mailto:[email protected]
3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
