This seems like a good statement.
Varieties in playing even feature the famous "stop with left thumb", so...
A fellow guy from back in the day at musicology once told me that he
found evidence that people
didn't even play with the same temperament in consorts. I haven't heard
this live other than myself playing non-equal lute with an equally
fretted mandolin.
(which didn't sound so bad).
Ensembles were not all fretted string instruments. What about recorders?
Their pitches depend on how the holes were drilled and there is limited
control over temperament via air pressure, at least in faster passages.
And allow me to fork the discussion: since the soundboard must certainly
vibrate differently with different positions of the pinky, there should
be an ideal point where to put it to achieve maximum power and brightness.
Probably not the same on all instruments, depending on the shape and
placement of the bars inside. This should be measurable with modern
equipment.
On 21.07.19 12:16, tribioli wrote:
I know only one thing: for me 1/6 comma practically works. No slanted
frets nor tastini. I don't bear anymore to play early Renaissance music
in equal temperament which on the other hand I use on all the later
music as it allows to play in other keys than the "standard"
Renaissance keys.
I think there were not so many rules in the past. Galilei advocates
against tastini, so there were people using them and meantone
temperament. How many we don't know. Piccinini advocates playing with
nails, others say not. Besard says to stretch the thumb out, some
others say to do so if your hand allows it (for instance, I have a
short thumb, one falanx shorter than usual). In any case, Besard (if I
remember correctly) blames those who play shaking their hand, so there
were some musicians that still played thumb under at his time. How many
we don't know. Lately, some, many?, people played with the pinky very
close or behind the bridge, so they probably had lower string tensions,
which is probably good for instruments with many strings, and a
completely different sound of what now people think is nice. Even our
instruments are biased by our ideal, sweet, sound, which BTW is
different from what was considered a good sound thirty years ago, but
if one reproduces exactly the thickness and bar dimensions of the
surviving boards, the sound that comes out is much brighter. Ok, it
depends on the board stiffness too, but that's it.
It is a modern, romantic, idea that everything in music must be
written, the thecnique must be absolutely that etc. The old masters,
simply did what they liked more and worked better for them, of course
to the degree the instrument allowed. They wrote their own music or
freely adapted what was composed by others, simplifying or adding
diminutions as they thought was fit and their thecnique allowed. As in
the case of the lute there is no continuity because no one have played
it for a couple of centuries, we can only guess and try to stay close
to what they "probably" did. If we like to do so, because at the end no
one wrote a law so the lutenists have to play only old music! Freedom
(in art, at least)!
Happy plucking
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Matthew Daillie <[email protected]>
Data: 21/07/19 11:23 (GMT+01:00)
A: "[email protected] list" <[email protected]>
Oggetto: [LUTE] Re: Wishful thinking on lute temparaments was Re: Lute
Temperaments
OK, I stand corrected, you know best. Have a nice day.
Matthew
Le 21 juil. 2019 Ã 11:15, Martyn Hodgson
<[email protected]> a écrit :
> Dear Matthew,
> Thank you for his - though I really do not know why you suggest a
> 'slanging match'!. My intention is merely to put some historical
and
> practical perspective on the matter rather than simple personal
> assertion. To repeat: you are making the common mistake of
discussing
> theoretical temperaments (mainly, in practice, only employable on
> keyboard instruments) with practical temperaments appropriate for
> fretted instruments such as the lute.
> Whether or not some modern players might adopt this manner
('meantone')
> of fretting is not, of course, the point - perhaps they might
> themselves engage in a degree of wishful thinking. Certainly,
modern
> fashions come and go as fast as fads, and in other areas of lute
> performance practice some modern players (even a few professionals
who
> might be expected to know better) still insist on, for example,
> employing thumb-under for repertoire other than the sixteenth
century.
> In short, such anecdotal reports, even from 'professionals, are not
> reliable evidence of historic practice.
> regards
> MH
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
