[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Rob Sorry, I can't quite leave-off, you got me thinking too much. Of course, like everyone else, I can't help thinking about what lute I would like next, but also, how I wish I was a little more focussed and less dilettante (imore in the French use of this word (i.e. going where momentary pleasure takes me, rather than concentrating on one period and a few pieces at a time) which makes me the complete amateur that I am. Thus of course, my words for you, are for myself. Difficult for it to be otherwise. Le 2 avr. 08 =E0 20:21, Rob MacKillop a ecrit : Thanks to everyone for their input. I've decided instead to get a Fender Stratocaster - covers most things from Francesco to Jimi, and costs a lot less. Why not, I have recently been sorely tempted to take-up the Pipa or even the Guqin, silk-stringed of course. After a few minutes of the silk Guqin you start to float, and not an opium poppy in sight Mi'lud I even discussed string issues with one of the few remaining silk string makers, very enlightening actually, not unlike the synthetics/ gut debate on our lists. Jean-Marie - I used to have an 8c (seems like a thousand years ago) on which (at the advice of Jacob Lindberg) I swaped the bottom two courses around. I just never felt happy with it, and soon sold it. Everyone is different, thankfully. 9c - why play a 9 when a 10 opens up so much more? So, Anthony, I will not be phoning Matt Wadsworth who has a 9c Gottlieb for sale (I'm sure it will be a great buy for somebody). Oups I forgot your bad experience with the Buchenberg ... However, I was mainly thinking about your decision not to change to TI, and I wonder whether Dowland did not change to TO at the same time as he took up the 9c, as Martin claims he did (I mean take up the 9c, never adopting the 8c), In fact, I was really wondering about the option of a 10c that could double as a 9c with double top string. Thus a lute having all the potential of a 10c lute plus the more curious pleasure of delving into the 9c repertoire. The string length of that particular lute was, I think, too long for your purpose, although I wondered about the possibility (if it had a double top string) of transforming it the otherway, into a 9/10c lute. In short, I was wondering whether a 9/10c lute would not be an ineteresting possibility, for myself included (after all 10/11c lutes are common, my future lute will be one of those). I am already considering a future 10c lute, and I would probably still go for a 10/11c, but this time with more accent on the 10c. (about the top string arrangement on an 11c lute, presumably the top two single strings developed from transforming 10c lutes to 11c, and yet Frei and Maler lutes seem to have been transformed directly into 11c lutes. with this top string set-up. Were there any 10c lutes with this set- up transformed from 9c lutes? There was a brief discussion of this issue when I sent the message about the Julian Bream lute to the list. However, I don't quite remember the conclusions that were drawn.) It has been interesting thinking out loud on this list. Lots of good experience here to draw on. Much appreciated. I seem to be experiencing my own renaissance as a lute player. By the end of this year I'll have an 11c, a theorbo and a 7c (or 10c!). That should keep me busy enough! In your place (but of course, I am not) I would go for the lute that really pleased you in the first place, (the 10c from MP) and that, as you say, opens up more transitional music. You are engaged at present in the Baroque repertoire. Why not explore in detail the shifts from transitional to Renaissance (i am thinking you will be going in that direction) in a more systematic manner. It seems that is more where your interest lies. Are you sure you need to explore the Italian repertoire in TO, right now? If you want to carry on into earlier repertoire, then why not eventually get a 7c lute. You can find these fairly cheap second hand, if it is a secondary interest for you. I may be wrong, but a degree of specialization could be a good thing (not overextending one's repertoire). OK I am trying to persuade myself, but with some thoughts for you. Notice that Jacob was able to accompany Emma on his Rauwolf in 10c mode, in the Renaissance and transitional repertoire, although his lute was 69 cm. KIRKBY, Emma: Musique and Sweet Poetrie - Jewels from Europe around 1600 http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=BIS-SACD-1505 Jakob played Dowland solos and Robert Johnson, as well as Kapsberger, at a recent lute society meeting N=B082 p.7. Ok now I'll leave off Best regards Anthony Rob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Dear Anthony and All, I assume the Martin you refer to is me. I don't remember ever saying that I thought Dowland changed from 7c to 9c without ever using an 8c, or that any of these changes coincided with his change from TI to TO. We simply don't know the answer to any of these questions. I do think it likely that the change from TI to TO is related to the increase in number of courses, and also to the change in musical style from equal-voiced polyphony to a more treble-and-bass style. Best wishes, Martin P.S. A 10c can always be retuned to look like a 9c lute, but with a 10/11c lute you have to change the nut and all the strings - not something you want to do every week. Well, actually you could compromise on absolute pitch and leave the 5th to 10th courses as they are, putting thicker strings on the first four courses to allow them to be tuned down. Just to make this clear, imagine your 10c lute is in nominal A, so the 6th course is the same as in the Dm tuning 11c version: 10c 11c 1. a' f' (down a major third) 2. e' d' (down a tone) 3. b a (down a tone) 4. g f (down a tone) 5. d d 6. A A 7. G G 8. F F 9. E E 10.D D 11.C If you did this with a 67cm lute you would probably be tuning the top string to f' in the old tuning so in the new tuning it would be d' flat, a very low pitch for this string length. Anthony Hind wrote: However, I was mainly thinking about your decision not to change to TI, and I wonder whether Dowland did not change to TO at the same time as he took up the 9c, as Martin claims he did (I mean take up the 9c, never adopting the 8c), -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Anthony Hind wrote: Rob Sorry, I can't quite leave-off, you got me thinking too much. Of course, like everyone else, I can't help thinking about what lute I would like next, but also, how I wish I was a little more focussed and less dilettante (imore in the French use of this word (i.e. going where momentary pleasure takes me, rather than concentrating on one period and a few pieces at a time) which makes me the complete amateur that I am. I can really sympathize with this. I've concentrated on one period and one instrument for years, and the danger in that is, for the average listener, a lot of the music sounds the same, and stylistically, it is. I've been working on Renaissance cittern lately to add more variety to my concerts, and keeping the two techniques up to standard is a lot of work. I would have at least 6 different citterns if I could, but I seriously doubt whether I could keep the different techniques up to the necessary level. This is one of the reasons I play transcriptions - it's a compromise, but it seems to be a necessary one for the type of work I get, and to get more work - pleasing the general listener as well as the more educated one. Doc To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Jean-Marie, I am glad somebody agrees with me on this issue. Theis topic, 8 course lutes, was discussed some tome ago on this list. I also have an 8 course lute., and I like it ever so much more than a 7 course lute I once had. ed At 01:02 PM 4/3/2008 +0200, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: Martin, I totally agree with all of that, including your non-ostracizing the poor 8c ;-) ! So much music, Elizabethan and continental as well, is designed for 8c that it seems more than strange to reject this type of lute. If it's only a matter of personnal taste, then I can understand and accept it, but I can think of no music-ologic-al reasons to do so. Obviously, the 9c lived a very short life, a quarter of a century at best, but 7c and 8c lasted much longer, if the repertoire can be an indication af anything regarding instruments in use at the time... Another obvious thing is that lute players used several instruments simply because it was easier, and sort of cheaper, to get them then than now. Just my tupence (let's make it three pence ;-)) thought on that matter, Jean-Marie === 03-04-2008 12:29:04 === Dear Anthony and All, I assume the Martin you refer to is me. I don't remember ever saying that I thought Dowland changed from 7c to 9c without ever using an 8c, or that any of these changes coincided with his change from TI to TO. We simply don't know the answer to any of these questions. I do think it likely that the change from TI to TO is related to the increase in number of courses, and also to the change in musical style from equal-voiced polyphony to a more treble-and-bass style. Best wishes, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 03-04-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1356 - Release Date: 4/2/2008 4:14 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Should we make a Club of the 8 course proud users ? Val (is it an half penny idea ?) ;-))) - Original Message - From: Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jean-Marie Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:38 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms Jean-Marie, I am glad somebody agrees with me on this issue. Theis topic, 8 course lutes, was discussed some tome ago on this list. I also have an 8 course lute., and I like it ever so much more than a 7 course lute I once had. ed At 01:02 PM 4/3/2008 +0200, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: Martin, I totally agree with all of that, including your non-ostracizing the poor 8c ;-) ! So much music, Elizabethan and continental as well, is designed for 8c that it seems more than strange to reject this type of lute. If it's only a matter of personnal taste, then I can understand and accept it, but I can think of no music-ologic-al reasons to do so. Obviously, the 9c lived a very short life, a quarter of a century at best, but 7c and 8c lasted much longer, if the repertoire can be an indication af anything regarding instruments in use at the time... Another obvious thing is that lute players used several instruments simply because it was easier, and sort of cheaper, to get them then than now. Just my tupence (let's make it three pence ;-)) thought on that matter, Jean-Marie === 03-04-2008 12:29:04 === Dear Anthony and All, I assume the Martin you refer to is me. I don't remember ever saying that I thought Dowland changed from 7c to 9c without ever using an 8c, or that any of these changes coincided with his change from TI to TO. We simply don't know the answer to any of these questions. I do think it likely that the change from TI to TO is related to the increase in number of courses, and also to the change in musical style from equal-voiced polyphony to a more treble-and-bass style. Best wishes, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 03-04-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1356 - Release Date: 4/2/2008 4:14 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Martin I think quick and rather careless reading throughof this dialoque between yourself and Ed, brought me to the conclusion that you were suggesting Dowland might have gone from 7c to 9c. Nevertheless, i knew I had read something that gave me that idea: http://www.mail-archive.com/lute@cs.dartmouth.edu/msg18164.html Then again you underlined the importance of the 9c here: http://www.mail-archive.com/lute@cs.dartmouth.edu/msg10564.html I do tend to jump to conclusions, but that is because I always try to link up various remarks and ideas to draw conclusions, and occasionally, I wire them up the wrong way. Sorry for jumping to conclusions Anthony Le 3 avr. 08 =E0 12:29, Martin Shepherd a ecrit : Dear Anthony and All, I assume the Martin you refer to is me. I don't remember ever saying that I thought Dowland changed from 7c to 9c without ever using an 8c, or that any of these changes coincided with his change from TI to TO. We simply don't know the answer to any of these questions. I do think it likely that the change from TI to TO is related to the increase in number of courses, and also to the change in musical style from equal-voiced polyphony to a more treble-and-bass style. Best wishes, Martin P.S. A 10c can always be retuned to look like a 9c lute, but with a 10/11c lute you have to change the nut and all the strings - not something you want to do every week. Well, actually you could compromise on absolute pitch and leave the 5th to 10th courses as they are, putting thicker strings on the first four courses to allow them to be tuned down. Just to make this clear, imagine your 10c lute is in nominal A, so the 6th course is the same as in the Dm tuning 11c version: 10c 11c 1. a' f' (down a major third) 2. e' d' (down a tone) 3. b a (down a tone) 4. g f (down a tone) 5. d d 6. A A 7. G G 8. F F 9. E E 10.D D 11.C If you did this with a 67cm lute you would probably be tuning the top string to f' in the old tuning so in the new tuning it would be d' flat, a very low pitch for this string length. Anthony Hind wrote: However, I was mainly thinking about your decision not to change to TI, and I wonder whether Dowland did not change to TO at the same time as he took up the 9c, as Martin claims he did (I mean take up the 9c, never adopting the 8c), -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Jean-Marie and Ed, No derogatory remarks have come from me on the 8c. Again, I would just like to say that if someone is hoping to play Francesco and Dowland on the same lute, then 7c is surely the better choice, with the 7c in D, that covers much 8c music with the possibility of stopping the bass course. There are less additional sympathetic resonances to colour the sound. It is also historically plausible, while an 8c for Francesco probably is not; but perhaps I am wrong there. It has been so frequently of late. On the other hand, if a lutist wants to cover from Dowland to transitional, the 10c is a better compromise (as shown by JaKob's Rauwolf). The 8c does not really allow that, does it? I was taking account of what Rob said he was hoping to do. Also I will admit that I have usually heard 8c lute with wirewounds, and the problem of sympathetic resonances are even worse. I think you and Ed have your lutes gut strung, so the problem would be much less. I suppose for someone just specializing in later Elizabethan music and its close European equivalents, an 8c strung entirely in gut could be a good solution. This is what Jacob Heringman uses on his Jane Pickeringe's Lute book, on his 8 course Martin Haycock after Venere. see for example: Track 04-Almaine by francis Cuttinge (1:35) http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/heringman-pickering/04.m3u Now compare this with the 7c Gerle by the same maker, both are strung in gut, and with same lutist of course: http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/heringman-siena/07.m3u Do you think the 8c sound would function well with the Fantasia? It is a question of taste, no doubt, but the maker himself, Martin Haycock (while preferring a 6c lute) advised the 7c for this multipurpose, and he also said that he was less happy with 8c lutes in general, exactly for the reason mentioned above. Indeed he told me that the two ideal lutes he would like to own himself, would be the 11c and the 6c, both which he considered had acheived the ideal balance of poise and sound before having become over complexified. So no derogatory remarks implied, but some justification, only slightly musicological. Best regards Anthony PS Ed my mails rebounce, so you will receive this through the list Le 3 avr. 08 à 13:02, Jean-Marie Poirier a écrit : To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Ok Valéry, get your Lagavulin ready then !!! ;-) Jean-Marie === 03-04-2008 14:02:30 === Should we make a Club of the 8 course proud users ? Val (is it an half penny idea ?) ;-))) - Original Message - From: Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jean-Marie Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:38 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms Jean-Marie, I am glad somebody agrees with me on this issue. Theis topic, 8 course lutes, was discussed some tome ago on this list. I also have an 8 course lute., and I like it ever so much more than a 7 course lute I once had. ed At 01:02 PM 4/3/2008 +0200, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: Martin, I totally agree with all of that, including your non-ostracizing the poor 8c ;-) ! So much music, Elizabethan and continental as well, is designed for 8c that it seems more than strange to reject this type of lute. If it's only a matter of personnal taste, then I can understand and accept it, but I can think of no music-ologic-al reasons to do so. Obviously, the 9c lived a very short life, a quarter of a century at best, but 7c and 8c lasted much longer, if the repertoire can be an indication af anything regarding instruments in use at the time... Another obvious thing is that lute players used several instruments simply because it was easier, and sort of cheaper, to get them then than now. Just my tupence (let's make it three pence ;-)) thought on that matter, Jean-Marie === 03-04-2008 12:29:04 === Dear Anthony and All, I assume the Martin you refer to is me. I don't remember ever saying that I thought Dowland changed from 7c to 9c without ever using an 8c, or that any of these changes coincided with his change from TI to TO. We simply don't know the answer to any of these questions. I do think it likely that the change from TI to TO is related to the increase in number of courses, and also to the change in musical style from equal-voiced polyphony to a more treble-and-bass style. Best wishes, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 03-04-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1356 - Release Date: 4/2/2008 4:14 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 03-04-2008
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Yes and often using wire-wounds, However, Jacob Heringman, if we begin naming names, specializes in this repertoire. Anhtony Le 3 avr. 08 à 15:54, Nigel Solomon a écrit : Anthony Hind wrote: Jean-Marie and Ed, No derogatory remarks have come from me on the 8c. Again, I would just like to say that if someone is hoping to play Francesco and Dowland on the same lute, then 7c is surely the better choice, with the 7c in D, that covers much 8c music with the possibility of stopping the bass course. There are less additional sympathetic resonances to colour the sound. It is also historically plausible, while an 8c for Francesco probably is not; but perhaps I am wrong there. It has been so frequently of late. On the other hand, if a lutist wants to cover from Dowland to transitional, the 10c is a better compromise (as shown by JaKob's Rauwolf). The 8c does not really allow that, does it? I was taking account of what Rob said he was hoping to do. Also I will admit that I have usually heard 8c lute with wirewounds, and the problem of sympathetic resonances are even worse. I think you and Ed have your lutes gut strung, so the problem would be much less. I suppose for someone just specializing in later Elizabethan music and its close European equivalents, an 8c strung entirely in gut could be a good solution. This is what Jacob Heringman uses on his Jane Pickeringe's Lute book, on his 8 course Martin Haycock after Venere. see for example: Track 04-Almaine by francis Cuttinge (1:35) http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/heringman-pickering/04.m3u Now compare this with the 7c Gerle by the same maker, both are strung in gut, and with same lutist of course: http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/heringman-siena/07.m3u Do you think the 8c sound would function well with the Fantasia? It is a question of taste, no doubt, but the maker himself, Martin Haycock (while preferring a 6c lute) advised the 7c for this multipurpose, and he also said that he was less happy with 8c lutes in general, exactly for the reason mentioned above. Indeed he told me that the two ideal lutes he would like to own himself, would be the 11c and the 6c, both which he considered had acheived the ideal balance of poise and sound before having become over complexified. So no derogatory remarks implied, but some justification, only slightly musicological. Best regards Anthony PS Ed my mails rebounce, so you will receive this through the list Le 3 avr. 08 à 13:02, Jean-Marie Poirier a écrit : To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Sorry to stir things up, but most top lute players (POD, Jacob Lindberg, Hoppy Smith, Eugène Ferré, to name but a few) invariably choose 8 course rather than say 7 or 10 course lutes in concerts when they play a bit of everything (from dalza through to 17th century composers in a single concert. Surely there must be a reason? Most players cannot be bothered to bring along 3 or 4 lutes and if they are to play everything on one lute, 9 times out of 10 its an 8 course. I think therefore that if you only have 1 renaissance lute you should have an 8 course, even though I am fully aware you lose alot of the subtleties by not playing exactly the right instrument for all repertoires, you have to compromise. Nigel
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
No problem, Anthony. I did not feel fussed at all about this 8c business. I quite understand what you mean, but my conclusion will nevertheless be that a compromise will remain a compromise, i.e. something imperfect and by nature unsatisfying... So, after that, it's only a matter of how much you accept to give up, but what remains will necessarily be... a compromise ! (La Palisse was French, wasn't he? So was Descartes and Coluche g). Only one way out : the basic outfit should be something like one 6 c., one 7c., one 8c., one 10 c., one 11c. and more if you, and your banker, feel like it ! ;-) All the best, Jean-Marie === 03-04-2008 15:30:42 === Jean-Marie and Ed, No derogatory remarks have come from me on the 8c. Again, I would just like to say that if someone is hoping to play Francesco and Dowland on the same lute, then 7c is surely the better choice, with the 7c in D, that covers much 8c music with the possibility of stopping the bass course. There are less additional sympathetic resonances to colour the sound. It is also historically plausible, while an 8c for Francesco probably is not; but perhaps I am wrong there. It has been so frequently of late. On the other hand, if a lutist wants to cover from Dowland to transitional, the 10c is a better compromise (as shown by JaKob's Rauwolf). The 8c does not really allow that, does it? I was taking account of what Rob said he was hoping to do. Also I will admit that I have usually heard 8c lute with wirewounds, and the problem of sympathetic resonances are even worse. I think you and Ed have your lutes gut strung, so the problem would be much less. I suppose for someone just specializing in later Elizabethan music and its close European equivalents, an 8c strung entirely in gut could be a good solution. This is what Jacob Heringman uses on his Jane Pickeringe's Lute book, on his 8 course Martin Haycock after Venere. see for example: Track 04-Almaine by francis Cuttinge (1:35) http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/heringman-pickering/04.m3u Now compare this with the 7c Gerle by the same maker, both are strung in gut, and with same lutist of course: http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/heringman-siena/07.m3u Do you think the 8c sound would function well with the Fantasia? It is a question of taste, no doubt, but the maker himself, Martin Haycock (while preferring a 6c lute) advised the 7c for this multipurpose, and he also said that he was less happy with 8c lutes in general, exactly for the reason mentioned above. Indeed he told me that the two ideal lutes he would like to own himself, would be the 11c and the 6c, both which he considered had acheived the ideal balance of poise and sound before having become over complexified. So no derogatory remarks implied, but some justification, only slightly musicological. Best regards Anthony PS Ed my mails rebounce, so you will receive this through the list Le 3 avr. 08 à 13:02, Jean-Marie Poirier a écrit : = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 03-04-2008
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
I think we can agree on that, but probably not my Bank manager, who really turns out to be my good lady wife ... I am having trouble persuading her that a 10c might be an absolute necessity, without which life would become utter gloom and doom. And as you say, a compromise is always that, when Jacob came to Caen, bringing along only one lute for the Sienna music, he brought his 6c (and even then he brought the 60 cm, when he had told me that 64 cm was really a minimum for expressiveness, so he still made a compromise); but I doubt if he gave the 7c any consideration at all. All the best Anthony Le 3 avr. 08 à 17:10, Jean-Marie Poirier a écrit : No problem, Anthony. I did not feel fussed at all about this 8c business. I quite understand what you mean, but my conclusion will nevertheless be that a compromise will remain a compromise, i.e. something imperfect and by nature unsatisfying... So, after that, it's only a matter of how much you accept to give up, but what remains will necessarily be... a compromise ! (La Palisse was French, wasn't he? So was Descartes and Coluche g). Only one way out : the basic outfit should be something like one 6 c., one 7c., one 8c., one 10 c., one 11c. and more if you, and your banker, feel like it ! ;-) All the best, Jean-Marie === 03-04-2008 15:30:42 === Jean-Marie and Ed, No derogatory remarks have come from me on the 8c. Again, I would just like to say that if someone is hoping to play Francesco and Dowland on the same lute, then 7c is surely the better choice, with the 7c in D, that covers much 8c music with the possibility of stopping the bass course. There are less additional sympathetic resonances to colour the sound. It is also historically plausible, while an 8c for Francesco probably is not; but perhaps I am wrong there. It has been so frequently of late. On the other hand, if a lutist wants to cover from Dowland to transitional, the 10c is a better compromise (as shown by JaKob's Rauwolf). The 8c does not really allow that, does it? I was taking account of what Rob said he was hoping to do. Also I will admit that I have usually heard 8c lute with wirewounds, and the problem of sympathetic resonances are even worse. I think you and Ed have your lutes gut strung, so the problem would be much less. I suppose for someone just specializing in later Elizabethan music and its close European equivalents, an 8c strung entirely in gut could be a good solution. This is what Jacob Heringman uses on his Jane Pickeringe's Lute book, on his 8 course Martin Haycock after Venere. see for example: Track 04-Almaine by francis Cuttinge (1:35) http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/heringman-pickering/04.m3u Now compare this with the 7c Gerle by the same maker, both are strung in gut, and with same lutist of course: http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/heringman-siena/07.m3u Do you think the 8c sound would function well with the Fantasia? It is a question of taste, no doubt, but the maker himself, Martin Haycock (while preferring a 6c lute) advised the 7c for this multipurpose, and he also said that he was less happy with 8c lutes in general, exactly for the reason mentioned above. Indeed he told me that the two ideal lutes he would like to own himself, would be the 11c and the 6c, both which he considered had acheived the ideal balance of poise and sound before having become over complexified. So no derogatory remarks implied, but some justification, only slightly musicological. Best regards Anthony PS Ed my mails rebounce, so you will receive this through the list Le 3 avr. 08 à 13:02, Jean-Marie Poirier a écrit : = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 03-04-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Count me in, Val Kerry Valéry Sauvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should we make a Club of the 8 course proud users ? Val (is it an half penny idea ?) ;-))) - Original Message - From: Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jean-Marie Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:38 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms Jean-Marie, I am glad somebody agrees with me on this issue. Theis topic, 8 course lutes, was discussed some tome ago on this list. I also have an 8 course lute., and I like it ever so much more than a 7 course lute I once had. ed At 01:02 PM 4/3/2008 +0200, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: Martin, I totally agree with all of that, including your non-ostracizing the poor 8c ;-) ! So much music, Elizabethan and continental as well, is designed for 8c that it seems more than strange to reject this type of lute. If it's only a matter of personnal taste, then I can understand and accept it, but I can think of no music-ologic-al reasons to do so. Obviously, the 9c lived a very short life, a quarter of a century at best, but 7c and 8c lasted much longer, if the repertoire can be an indication af anything regarding instruments in use at the time... Another obvious thing is that lute players used several instruments simply because it was easier, and sort of cheaper, to get them then than now. Just my tupence (let's make it three pence ;-)) thought on that matter, Jean-Marie === 03-04-2008 12:29:04 === Dear Anthony and All, I assume the Martin you refer to is me. I don't remember ever saying that I thought Dowland changed from 7c to 9c without ever using an 8c, or that any of these changes coincided with his change from TI to TO. We simply don't know the answer to any of these questions. I do think it likely that the change from TI to TO is related to the increase in number of courses, and also to the change in musical style from equal-voiced polyphony to a more treble-and-bass style. Best wishes, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 03-04-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1356 - Release Date: 4/2/2008 4:14 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Thanks Ed and David (and other comments too). Refining my comments a little, I would say that for the solo work I would be happy with a lower pitch, so tuning to F would be no big deal. I was worried about asking a soprano or tenor to sing a tone lower, especially those who have already learned some of these songs at 440. In this regard, I find David's comments very interesting. I will not, however, be able to afford two lutes (why not use a capo? - much cheaper!). I will give it much thought. But Ed, I totally understand, agree with and appreciate what you are saying. Rob On 02/04/2008, David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 64 is a bit long in the tooth for 440. You can get the gut up to pitch barely but it is a stretch. But if you want it for Dowland, F is very good both singer and solo wise. The tessatura of the songs is such that a significant number phonate better at 392, although some of the nice ones lie low, eg Can she excuse, In Darkness I usually use two lutes for the songs a tone apart, so as to include Flow not so fast, Weep you no more, and a few of the low ones, Shepherd in a shade, etc.For a soprano you can go 392/440 For a mezzo or alto/countertenor 370/415 dt At 12:38 PM 4/1/2008, you wrote: I'm thinking of getting a 7c in G at 440 - is 64cms the longest length possible? I have big hands and find small lutes uncomfortable. I'm thinking of it principally for Dowland's chromatic fantasies but also accompanying a singer in songs from Dowland's first three books (all for seven-course), and need to be at 440. How stable will be the pitch at 440? Gut strings would be preferable, but might well opt for nylgut for the first course if it keeps breaking. What diameters and tensions would you suggest? Also on relatively small lutes (not baroque) such as a 7c, what difference in tone might one expect from a multi-ribbed back as opposed to wide ribs? Rob MacKillop -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
They have a very good resale value :) dt At 07:47 PM 4/1/2008, you wrote: Do you guys like Larry Brown's lutes? im looking at his Venere G Lute 8c. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Rob Although this is slightly at a side issue to your question, it could nevertheless be helpful; I asked Jacob Heringman whether a Gerle or Venere 7c could be used to cover some Italian and later Elizabethan music, I wondered whether the smaller number of ribs of the Bologna style Gerle might be historically incorrect for Dowland and Co, and also what sound difference there might be. Jacob said (very approximately) that the dates were not an issue. The two were just very different in the way they responded. The Gerle having a deeper body has a plummy bass, and usually an explosive sound but that does not sustain very long, although the sound can be wonderful. With the Venere the sound might be brighter with more sustain, but with less bass, possibly. I am quoting Jacob from memory, so he is not to be held responsible for these words. The point is, that shape, related in part to the number of ribs, and the wood used, does play a part. The problem is that when I asked David Van Edwards, I think I almost got the opposite answer. This does not mean that either is wrong or the shape and structure play no role, but rather that it is very difficult to describe such differences, and perhaps the way a particular player plucks the strings might also bring about quite a different effect. Clearly the best way to judge is to to play the two lute types, of the several makers of your preference. On the other hand, it is true that you can often hear the craftsmanship of a particular lute maker across varying models. I have a Gerle made by Martin Haycock, and Benjamin Narvey has a Warwick Frei 10/11c lute by the same maker. There is definitely something in common between these two very different sized lutes, although pin-pointing exactly what it is would be difficult. I would say they both project very well, they are focussed and yet the top end remains sweet. Having said that, the Gerle and the Warwick do have the number of ribs in common (11 ribs), and the wood used for the back, bird's-eye maple is also similar. Nevertheless, I would not be at all surprised if some of us could distinguish a Gerle from a Venere across a number of different lute makers. This is my experience with wine tasting. It is ofetn possible to recognize a particular cèpage across a number of different wines produced by various makers. At the same time it is often possible to recognize the hand of a particular winemaker over very different cèpages. In many cases I would prefer a lesser wine frem a great winemaker, rather than just go for a particular cèpage or terroir. Indeed, Ed Martin himself, on a number of occasions, has compared the sound of the Burkholtzer and the sound of the Hoffman lute types. Ed always says he prefers the Burkholtzer, because of its shape, rather than because of the number of ribs. However, the geometry, is at least partly determined by the rib structure: I very much enjoy the sound of the Burkholtzer, as in my opinion, it has a very rich, warm sound, not in any way nasal. In contrast, I find the Hoffman sound brighter, and having more reverberation or echo like characteristics, due to the deep bowl. In addition to the 2 shapes, there is a great deal of variance in modern makers. A Burkholtzer of Hoffman from one builder will sound different from the identical models from different builders. Ed When i think of it, Benjamin's Warwick is about 66,5 or 67cm and for a time I think he did use it as a G lute in its 10c form, but with synthetic strings. I think that was before he acquired a 60cm G lute. You might ask him what the problems might have been, if indeed he had any problems with this set-up. Of course, as Ed says, in gut, that just would not be feasible at all. Regards Anthony Le 1 avr. 08 à 21:38, Rob MacKillop a écrit : I'm thinking of getting a 7c in G at 440 - is 64cms the longest length possible? I have big hands and find small lutes uncomfortable. I'm thinking of it principally for Dowland's chromatic fantasies but also accompanying a singer in songs from Dowland's first three books (all for seven- course), and need to be at 440. How stable will be the pitch at 440? Gut strings would be preferable, but might well opt for nylgut for the first course if it keeps breaking. What diameters and tensions would you suggest? Also on relatively small lutes (not baroque) such as a 7c, what difference in tone might one expect from a multi-ribbed back as opposed to wide ribs? Rob MacKillop -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Rob ( and Ed) and all Although this is slightly a side issue to your question, this could nevertheless be helpful; I asked Jacob Heringman whether a Gerle or Venere 7c could be used to cover some Italian and later Elizabethan music, I wondered whether the smaller number of ribs of the Bologna style Gerle might be historically incorrect for Dowland and Co, and also what sound difference there might be. Jacob said (very approximately) that the dates were not an issue. The two were just very different in the way they responded. The Gerle having a deeper body has a plummy bass, and usually an explosive sound but that does not sustain very long, although the sound can be wonderful. With the Venere the sound might be brighter with more sustain, but with less bass, possibly. I am quoting Jacob from memory, so he is not to be held responsible for these words. The point is, that shape, related in part to the number of ribs, and the wood used, does play a part. The problem is that when I asked David Van Edwards, I think I almost got the opposite answer. This does not mean that either is wrong or the shape and structure plays no role, but rather that it is very difficult to describe such differences, and perhaps the way pluck the strings might also bring about quite a different effect. Clearly the best way to judge is to to play the two lute types,from the several makers of your preference. On the other hand, it is true that you can often hear the craftsmanship of a particular lute maker across varying models. I have a Gerle made by Martin Haycock, and Benjamin Narvey has a Warwick Frei 10/11c lute by the same maker. There is definitely something in common between these two very different sized lutes, although pin-pointing exactly what it is would be difficult. I would say they both project very well, they are focussed and yet the top end remains sweet. Having said that, the Gerle and the Warwick do have the number of ribs in common (11 ribs), and the wood used for the back, bird's-eye maple is also similar. Nevertheless, I would not be at all surprised either, if some of us could distinguish a Gerle from a Venere across a number of different lute makers. This is my experience with wine tasting. Many of us could recognize a particular cepage across several winemaker's products, but at the same time a few of us could notice something in common throughout the range of a particular winemaker, especially, if he is a very good one. In general, I would prefer a lesser wine from a good winemaker, than just to go for a cèpage or a terroir. In that I agree with you Ed, but you yourself, on a number of occasions, have compared the sound of the Burkholtzer and the Hoffman lute type, and you always say you prefer the Burkholtzer, because of its shape, I think, rather than because of the number of ribs. However, the geometry, is at least partly determined by the rib structure: I very much enjoy the sound of the Burkholtzer, as in my opinion, it has a very rich, warm sound, not in any way nasal. In contrast, I find the Hoffman sound brighter, and having more reverberation or echo like characteristics, due to the deep bowl.b In addition to the 2 shapes, there is a great deal of variance in modern makers. A Burkholtzer of Hoffman from one builder will sound different from the identical models from different builders. Ed When i think of it, Benjamin's Warwick is about 66,5 or 67cm and for a time I think he did use it as a G lute in its 10c form, but with synthetic strings. I think that was before he acquired a 60cm G lute. You might ask him what the problems might have been, if indeed he had any problems with this set-up. Of course, as Ed says, in gut, that just would not be feasible at all. Regards Anthony Le 2 avr. 08 à 08:32, Rob MacKillop a écrit : Thanks Ed and David (and other comments too). Refining my comments a little, I would say that for the solo work I would be happy with a lower pitch, so tuning to F would be no big deal. I was worried about asking a soprano or tenor to sing a tone lower, especially those who have already learned some of these songs at 440. In this regard, I find David's comments very interesting. I will not, however, be able to afford two lutes (why not use a capo? - much cheaper!). I will give it much thought. But Ed, I totally understand, agree with and appreciate what you are saying. Rob On 02/04/2008, David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 64 is a bit long in the tooth for 440. You can get the gut up to pitch barely but it is a stretch. But if you want it for Dowland, F is very good both singer and solo wise. The tessatura of the songs is such that a significant number phonate better at 392, although some of the nice ones lie low, eg Can she excuse, In Darkness I usually use two lutes for the songs a tone apart, so as to include Flow not so
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
On 02/04/2008, LGS-Europe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: the shoulder is not troubling you anymore, especially with the new theorbo? Thanks for asking, David. Oddly, or not, I have less trouble with the theorbo. Must be using the muscles in a different way. I now play about an hour a day, in two or three sessions, and have no problems...so far. Rob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Confession time: I was originally thinking of a 7c, then played Malcolm Prior's 10c (before it was shipped to Germany), and decided on one of those, at 64cms. Now I'm thinking 7c again...I drive myself and everyone around me crazy sometimes. So what do I want it for? I don't have a lute in Renaissance tuning. Repertoire I would like to explore: 1. Dowland songs, especially the first three books - 7c 2. Dowland solos, including the chromatic fantasies - 7c 3. Francesco da Milano - 6c 4. Airs de cour - 10c 5. Scottish - 10c All of the above could be played on a 10c, but not successfully. Likewise on a 7c, but again with debateable compromise. So I need a luthier with a 'three for the price of one' offer! The airs de cour could be played on the theorbo or 7c. The Scottish repertoire is OK on a 7c, though not ideal. Francesco on a 7c? I wouldn't be the first to do that. I could always take the seventh off and add an octave to the fifth course, but is it worth it? Dowland songs down a tone or tone and a half? Yes, I like a more spoken delivery - that might work if I could get a singer willing enough. So... Today, it looks like a 7c in E (440), all gut, 64cms. Tomorrow? Rob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
A couple of folks have written to me off-list suggesting an 8c. Sorry, not interested. Just don't like them. Neither one thing or another. I'll go either 7 or 10. Probably 7. Thanks for the suggestions, nonetheless! Cheers, Rob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Why is that so, Rob ? Did one of them bite you when you were a child ;-) ? Best, Jean-Marie === 02-04-2008 13:38:45 === A couple of folks have written to me off-list suggesting an 8c. Sorry, not interested. Just don't like them. Neither one thing or another. I'll go either 7 or 10. Probably 7. Thanks for the suggestions, nonetheless! Cheers, Rob = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 02-04-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Dear Anthony, Rob, et al., My 10c is indeed at 67cm, but it always lived between 392 415; of course with synthetics you could tune a lute like this up to 440 - this is why such a lute is a practical (if sometimes inauthentic and less than musically ideal) solution for those who have to accompany a host of different voice types with only 1 renaissance lute. Now that I have a 60cm 7c g lute at 440, life is faaar simpler. (; I think as a general rule, even if one uses synthetics, one shouldn't use a set up that *couldn't* work with gut. Of course, if one has only one lute - as was my case - this may not always be possible professionally. That said, if such gigs get you the money for another lute that allows for more authenticity pitch-wise, as was the case with my 7c, then perhaps there is an argument to be made! All best, Benjamin When i think of it, Benjamin's Warwick is about 66,5 or 67cm and for a time I think he did use it as a G lute in its 10c form, but with synthetic strings. I think that was before he acquired a 60cm G lute. You might ask him what the problems might have been, if indeed he had any problems with this set-up. Of course, as Ed says, in gut, that just would not be feasible at all. Regards Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Rob That is the second time a message has shot forth without me clicking on the send button. I don't know what is up. I had begun to say . I entirely agree with you. The 8c is not a good solution. I am just wondering whether, if you wanted more Dowland than Franceso, a 9/10 c lute might be a possibility. Martin is always telling us that Dowland switched to 9c probably from 7c, or 6c, so it might be a possibility, although I have never seen one. I think from seeing how my neighbour, who was in the same situation exactly as you, has done. He first bought a 10/11c at 66,5 or 67, and then found it didn't really work as a G lute, and so he bought a smaller 7C G lute, but now I think he feels he will neeed a 10c lute as well. That is how it goes, I fear. I think which ever solution you adopt, in a year or so you will be wanting the other one too. Sorry, I think compromises just whet your appetite for more. So I would choose the one you need the most straight away, and when you can no longer go without the other, well Regards Anthony A couple of folks have written to me off-list suggesting an 8c. Sorry, not interested. Just don't like them. Neither one thing or another. I'll go either 7 or 10. Probably 7. Thanks for the suggestions, nonetheless! Cheers, Rob To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Benjamin and Rob Oups, sorry Benjamin, I am afraid I got part of that wrong. I think this confusion came from what Martin Haycock said to me about using such a lute as a G lute at 440Hz. He was obviously talking in general. You may also have called it a G lute, but G at 392 presumably. Nevertheless, the issue is really the same for Rob. You could have your 11c lute transformed as a 10/11c lute, and then buy a 7c lute (as someone else suggested on the list); but probably in the not so distant future you will get tired of swapping from 11c to 10c. That is what I am sure will happen to me. Anthony Le 2 avr. 08 à 14:28, Benjamin Narvey a écrit : Dear Anthony, Rob, et al., My 10c is indeed at 67cm, but it always lived between 392 415; of course with synthetics you could tune a lute like this up to 440 - this is why such a lute is a practical (if sometimes inauthentic and less than musically ideal) solution for those who have to accompany a host of different voice types with only 1 renaissance lute. Now that I have a 60cm 7c g lute at 440, life is faaar simpler. (; I think as a general rule, even if one uses synthetics, one shouldn't use a set up that *couldn't* work with gut. Of course, if one has only one lute - as was my case - this may not always be possible professionally. That said, if such gigs get you the money for another lute that allows for more authenticity pitch-wise, as was the case with my 7c, then perhaps there is an argument to be made! All best, Benjamin When i think of it, Benjamin's Warwick is about 66,5 or 67cm and for a time I think he did use it as a G lute in its 10c form, but with synthetic strings. I think that was before he acquired a 60cm G lute. You might ask him what the problems might have been, if indeed he had any problems with this set-up. Of course, as Ed says, in gut, that just would not be feasible at all. Regards Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Jean-Marie Rob was wanting to find a compromise that would allow him to play 6c italian Renaissance music as well as late Dowland. A 7c can manage that repertoire, but I think the extra course of an 8c would give too confused a sound for 6c music. Just as Rob is doing now, I was looking for this sort of compromise, when I ordered my 7c lute. I knew that both Liz Kenny and Jacob Heringman had used this same 7C Gerle for this sort of compromise. Such 7c lutes did indeed exist at that the same time as 6c lutes for the Italian repertoire (but not 8c lutes, so far as i know). Jacob used this 7c Gerle, on his Siena recording for a Four part Fantasia from the Medici Lute Book, track 7. http://tinyurl.com/3bcaut , but also for the few Dance pieces, as for example: track 24. http://tinyurl.com/2nn9kz I figured that because of its Bologna form, it would do for the Italian repertoire, and because of its 7c status, it would be alright for most Elizabethan music, too, even if perhaps, by that period multi ribbed Paduan lutes might have become more popular. Indeed, I notice this Dowland concert in which Jacob used the very same lute to accompany Ellen Hargis both for Dowland songs and lute solos http://tinyurl.com/324kog I don't think an 8c would be really acceptable for the Francesco side of this compromise. If Rob wants to go for 64 cms then perhaps a Frei shape might be better than a Gerle, and probably better than, say a muti-ribbed for Francesco. However, if you begin accepting a wider compromise, then why stop at 8c, why not go for a large 10c multi ribbed lute (http://tinyurl.com/ 2xvc5j) and have the pleasure of sounding the depths of late Renaissance such as Bacheler, or transitional music such as Cuthbert Hely. I am sure this is the TO repertoire that would really draw Rob, unless I am very much mistaken. Best regards Anthony (*both were apparently acquaintances of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Hely might have been his lute tutor, and Lord Herbert may have been involved in negotiating Jacques's exile to England). According to my neighbour Miguel Serdoura this concert was excellent. A small part of it can be heard in the CD of the Lawes' songs in which, LK plays the Cuthbert Hely pieces, on a large multi-ribbed lute (by Andrew Rutherford, I believe) with a dark sound http://tinyurl.com/ypnlbk, and it seems just right for the sombre music of Cuthbert Hely, in the Vieil Ton. Le 2 avr. 08 =E0 15:27, Jean-Marie Poirier a ecrit : Anthony, Rob, Why such a disdain for 8 c. lutes ? I have one and will soon have a new one from David Van Edwards and I love the instrument : well- balanced, convenient for most of the repertoire from 1560 to 1620. It puzzles me to see you reject is as you do... Of course it doesn't deprive me from using a 10 c. when necessary. By the way, mine is not very long (61 cm, multiribs) and I usually play it tuned at A 415, which works beautifully for most of the repertoire, especially the accords nouveaux (you can hear it there http://poirierjm.free.fr in a Prelude by Mesangeau, 1638) and Ballard as well. I also play a 7 c. in A and two 6 c., in A and G, but I insist that my 8c. is a very handy companion indeed. My 11c. after Railich needs a replacement... Was not a very good choice really :-( I will soon order a new one after Frei (70 cm) from David VE. In the meanwhile I am very impatient to collect my little French mandore, 5 strings, 26 cm : next Friday ! and explore that fascinating repertoire (Chancy, Schermar ms etc...) Best, Jean-Marie === 02-04-2008 14:36:29 === Rob That is the second time a message has shot forth without me clicking on the send button. I don't know what is up. I had begun to say . I entirely agree with you. The 8c is not a good solution. I am just wondering whether, if you wanted more Dowland than Franceso, a 9/10 c lute might be a possibility. Martin is always telling us that Dowland switched to 9c probably from 7c, or 6c, so it might be a possibility, although I have never seen one. I think from seeing how my neighbour, who was in the same situation exactly as you, has done. He first bought a 10/11c at 66,5 or 67, and then found it didn't really work as a G lute, and so he bought a smaller 7C G lute, but now I think he feels he will neeed a 10c lute as well. That is how it goes, I fear. I think which ever solution you adopt, in a year or so you will be wanting the other one too. Sorry, I think compromises just whet your appetite for more. So I would choose the one you need the most straight away, and when you can no longer go without the other, well Regards Anthony A couple of folks have written to me off-list suggesting an 8c. Sorry, not interested. Just don't like them. Neither one thing or another. I'll go either 7 or 10. Probably 7. Thanks for the suggestions, nonetheless! Cheers, Rob
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Anthony and Rob, Why such a disdain for 8 c. lutes ? I have one and will soon have a new one from David Van Edwards and I love the instrument : well-balanced, convenient for most of the repertoire from 1560 to 1620. It puzzles me to see you reject is as you do... Of course it doesn't deprive me from using a 10 c. when necessary. By the way, mine is not very long (61 cm, multiribs) and I usually play it tuned at A 415, hich works beautifully for most of the repertoire, especially the accords nouveaux (you can hear it there http://poirierjm.free.fr in a Prelude by Mesangeau, 1638) and Ballard as well. I also play a 7 c. in A and two 6 c., in A and G, but I insist that my 8c. is a very handy companion indeed. My 11c. after Railich needs a replacement... Was not a very good choice really :-( I will soon order a new one after Frei (70 cm) from David VE. In the meanwhile I am very impatient to collect my little French mandore, 5 strings, 26 cm : next Friday ! and explore that fascinating repertoire (Chancy, Schermar ms etc...) Best, Jean-Marie === 02-04-2008 14:36:29 === Rob That is the second time a message has shot forth without me clicking on the send button. I don't know what is up. I had begun to say . I entirely agree with you. The 8c is not a good solution. I am just wondering whether, if you wanted more Dowland than Franceso, a 9/10 c lute might be a possibility. Martin is always telling us that Dowland switched to 9c probably from 7c, or 6c, so it might be a possibility, although I have never seen one. I think from seeing how my neighbour, who was in the same situation exactly as you, has done. He first bought a 10/11c at 66,5 or 67, and then found it didn't really work as a G lute, and so he bought a smaller 7C G lute, but now I think he feels he will neeed a 10c lute as well. That is how it goes, I fear. I think which ever solution you adopt, in a year or so you will be wanting the other one too. Sorry, I think compromises just whet your appetite for more. So I would choose the one you need the most straight away, and when you can no longer go without the other, well Regards Anthony A couple of folks have written to me off-list suggesting an 8c. Sorry, not interested. Just don't like them. Neither one thing or another. I'll go either 7 or 10. Probably 7. Thanks for the suggestions, nonetheless! Cheers, Rob To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 02-04-2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Jean-Marie Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02-04-2008
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Thanks Anthony for these precisions. My original message seems to have reached the list with some delay, which doesn't really matter anyway ;-) ! All the best, Jean-Marie === 02-04-2008 17:01:01 === Jean-Marie Rob was wanting to find a compromise that would allow him to play 6c italian Renaissance music as well as late Dowland. A 7c can manage that repertoire, but I think the extra course of an 8c would give too confused a sound for 6c music. Just as Rob is doing now, I was looking for this sort of compromise, when I ordered my 7c lute. I knew that both Liz Kenny and Jacob Heringman had used this same 7C Gerle for this sort of compromise. Such 7c lutes did indeed exist at that the same time as 6c lutes for the Italian repertoire (but not 8c lutes, so far as i know). Jacob used this 7c Gerle, on his Siena recording for a Four part Fantasia from the Medici Lute Book, track 7. http://tinyurl.com/3bcaut , but also for the few Dance pieces, as for example: track 24. http://tinyurl.com/2nn9kz I figured that because of its Bologna form, it would do for the Italian repertoire, and because of its 7c status, it would be alright for most Elizabethan music, too, even if perhaps, by that period multi ribbed Paduan lutes might have become more popular. Indeed, I notice this Dowland concert in which Jacob used the very same lute to accompany Ellen Hargis both for Dowland songs and lute solos http://tinyurl.com/324kog I don't think an 8c would be really acceptable for the Francesco side of this compromise. If Rob wants to go for 64 cms then perhaps a Frei shape might be better than a Gerle, and probably better than, say a muti-ribbed for Francesco. However, if you begin accepting a wider compromise, then why stop at 8c, why not go for a large 10c multi ribbed lute (http://tinyurl.com/ 2xvc5j) and have the pleasure of sounding the depths of late Renaissance such as Bacheler, or transitional music such as Cuthbert Hely. I am sure this is the TO repertoire that would really draw Rob, unless I am very much mistaken. Best regards Anthony (*both were apparently acquaintances of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Hely might have been his lute tutor, and Lord Herbert may have been involved in negotiating Jacques's exile to England). According to my neighbour Miguel Serdoura this concert was excellent. A small part of it can be heard in the CD of the Lawes' songs in which, LK plays the Cuthbert Hely pieces, on a large multi-ribbed lute (by Andrew Rutherford, I believe) with a dark sound http://tinyurl.com/ypnlbk, and it seems just right for the sombre music of Cuthbert Hely, in the Vieil Ton. Le 2 avr. 08 à 15:27, Jean-Marie Poirier a écrit : Anthony, Rob, Why such a disdain for 8 c. lutes ? I have one and will soon have a new one from David Van Edwards and I love the instrument : well- balanced, convenient for most of the repertoire from 1560 to 1620. It puzzles me to see you reject is as you do... Of course it doesn't deprive me from using a 10 c. when necessary. By the way, mine is not very long (61 cm, multiribs) and I usually play it tuned at A 415, which works beautifully for most of the repertoire, especially the accords nouveaux (you can hear it there http://poirierjm.free.fr in a Prelude by Mesangeau, 1638) and Ballard as well. I also play a 7 c. in A and two 6 c., in A and G, but I insist that my 8c. is a very handy companion indeed. My 11c. after Railich needs a replacement... Was not a very good choice really :-( I will soon order a new one after Frei (70 cm) from David VE. In the meanwhile I am very impatient to collect my little French mandore, 5 strings, 26 cm : next Friday ! and explore that fascinating repertoire (Chancy, Schermar ms etc...) Best, Jean-Marie === 02-04-2008 14:36:29 === Rob That is the second time a message has shot forth without me clicking on the send button. I don't know what is up. I had begun to say . I entirely agree with you. The 8c is not a good solution. I am just wondering whether, if you wanted more Dowland than Franceso, a 9/10 c lute might be a possibility. Martin is always telling us that Dowland switched to 9c probably from 7c, or 6c, so it might be a possibility, although I have never seen one. I think from seeing how my neighbour, who was in the same situation exactly as you, has done. He first bought a 10/11c at 66,5 or 67, and then found it didn't really work as a G lute, and so he bought a smaller 7C G lute, but now I think he feels he will neeed a 10c lute as well. That is how it goes, I fear. I think which ever solution you adopt, in a year or so you will be wanting the other one too. Sorry, I think compromises just whet your appetite for more. So I would choose the one you need the most straight away, and when you can no longer go without the other, well Regards Anthony A couple of folks have written
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
I don't recommend 8 courses 9 courses would be a good choice for Dowland 7 and 9 would cover almost all of the pieces you mention, and is better for the very early Dowland pieces, plus the chromatic pieces. Isn't there a Star Trek character named 7 of 9? Surely it is a sign. I think the 9 course is kind of cool. The 7c for Francesco will give you the low F without retuning. And it is clear that they used 7c early on. Some people get the 10c, play everything, then pick up a 6c or a 7c later on. But they are really different instruments. Everyone wrestles with this, the solution is to buy more lutes. dt At 03:59 AM 4/2/2008, you wrote: Confession time: I was originally thinking of a 7c, then played Malcolm Prior's 10c (before it was shipped to Germany), and decided on one of those, at 64cms. Now I'm thinking 7c again...I drive myself and everyone around me crazy sometimes. So what do I want it for? I don't have a lute in Renaissance tuning. Repertoire I would like to explore: 1. Dowland songs, especially the first three books - 7c 2. Dowland solos, including the chromatic fantasies - 7c 3. Francesco da Milano - 6c 4. Airs de cour - 10c 5. Scottish - 10c All of the above could be played on a 10c, but not successfully. Likewise on a 7c, but again with debateable compromise. So I need a luthier with a 'three for the price of one' offer! The airs de cour could be played on the theorbo or 7c. The Scottish repertoire is OK on a 7c, though not ideal. Francesco on a 7c? I wouldn't be the first to do that. I could always take the seventh off and add an octave to the fifth course, but is it worth it? Dowland songs down a tone or tone and a half? Yes, I like a more spoken delivery - that might work if I could get a singer willing enough. So... Today, it looks like a 7c in E (440), all gut, 64cms. Tomorrow? Rob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Thanks to everyone for their input. I've decided instead to get a Fender Stratocaster - covers most things from Francesco to Jimi, and costs a lot less. Jean-Marie - I used to have an 8c (seems like a thousand years ago) on which (at the advice of Jacob Lindberg) I swaped the bottom two courses around. I just never felt happy with it, and soon sold it. Everyone is different, thankfully. 9c - why play a 9 when a 10 opens up so much more? So, Anthony, I will not be phoning Matt Wadsworth who has a 9c Gottlieb for sale (I'm sure it will be a great buy for somebody). It has been interesting thinking out loud on this list. Lots of good experience here to draw on. Much appreciated. I seem to be experiencing my own renaissance as a lute player. By the end of this year I'll have an 11c, a theorbo and a 7c (or 10c!). That should keep me busy enough! Rob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Why play a single manual harpsichord, when two is more? It is a good question, is there more essential lutiness in a niner? I think so. but that is subjective. Historically, you can argue pretty persuasively for 9, but there sure were ten course instruments as well. Also, is a good 10c better than a bad 9c, if makers have more experience with 10? I think so. Joni Mitchell said something's lost but something's gained, which seems to be true for adding more courses, but which one is right for the music? For Dowland, I would want 7 or 9. But you can play capirola on ten. And most everything else. And there is something about a ten course So the answer is to buy more lutes. Just don't throw the small ones back. dt At 11:21 AM 4/2/2008, you wrote: Thanks to everyone for their input. I've decided instead to get a Fender Stratocaster - covers most things from Francesco to Jimi, and costs a lot less. Jean-Marie - I used to have an 8c (seems like a thousand years ago) on which (at the advice of Jacob Lindberg) I swaped the bottom two courses around. I just never felt happy with it, and soon sold it. Everyone is different, thankfully. 9c - why play a 9 when a 10 opens up so much more? So, Anthony, I will not be phoning Matt Wadsworth who has a 9c Gottlieb for sale (I'm sure it will be a great buy for somebody). It has been interesting thinking out loud on this list. Lots of good experience here to draw on. Much appreciated. I seem to be experiencing my own renaissance as a lute player. By the end of this year I'll have an 11c, a theorbo and a 7c (or 10c!). That should keep me busy enough! Rob To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
On Apr 2, 2008, at 2:27 PM, David Tayler wrote: ...Historically, you can argue pretty persuasively for 9, but there sure were ten course instruments as well. Also, is a good 10c better than a bad 9c, if makers have more experience with 10? ...which one is right for the music? For Dowland, I would want 7 or 9. But you can play capirola on ten. And most everything else. And there is something about a ten course So the answer is to buy more lutes. I have a suggestion that will solve all our problems. How about this: on odd-numbered years the 8- course will be proclaimed the best all-purpose renaissance lute, and on even-numbered years the lute of choice will be the 7-course. Let's call the 10-course the king of lutes for leap years, and if we want to play on 9 courses, let's just strip off the 10th course. Just don't throw the small ones back. Well, I suppose there are *some* things one can do with 6 courses, aren't there...? DR [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Fine with me, David. That's a deal ! ;-) Jean-Marie === 02-04-2008 21:05:30 === I have a suggestion that will solve all our problems. How about this: on odd-numbered years the 8- course will be proclaimed the best all-purpose renaissance lute, and on even-numbered years the lute of choice will be the 7-course. Let's call the 10-course the king of lutes for leap years, and if we want to play on 9 courses, let's just strip off the 10th course. Fine with me, David. That's a deal ! ;-) Just don't throw the small ones back. Well, I suppose there are *some* things one can do with 6 courses, aren't there...? Just almost everything in fact, only it's not as spectacular...! DR Best, Jean-Marie [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 02-04-2008
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Rob, If you want G at 440, 59 cm is the longest mensur you can have, or you will be upset with premature string breakage. If you want 64 cm, the treble should be at F. Of course, the limit can be pushed much higher for nylon or other synthetics. But for gut, in our modern times we seem to want a longer mensur at a higher pitch, and this just does not work, as it contradicts the properties of gut. I have a performance coming up this weekend, on 11 course lute, at 415, F. The mensur is short, at 67 cm. It works fine, and trebles have been lasting for about 2 months. If I used my longer baroque lute at 70 cm, I am lucky, very lucky indeed, to last 1 day. So, if you want a g-lute at 440 with gut, 59 is the upper limit. Otherwise, you must go nylon trebles if you want to go longer, or be willing to put a new treble on very, very frequently. My opinion is that in the old renaissance and baroque days, lutes were pitched much lower than we are doing today. Why are we trying to push the upper limits in terms of pitch? We seem to be so boxed in at 440 vs 415 vs 392. For instance, on my 70 cm lute, I have moved it from 415 to a = about 400. Now, since I lowered the pitch, a gut treble lasts for months, again. And, without regard to string type, in my opinion, lutes sound their best when pitched at where they should be. Even with synthetics, if you try to go 64 cm at 440, even any synthetic treble, in my opinion, may sound very mousy thin (I speak from experience with 64 cm lutes). In the old times, they did not have a clue or concern about a= 460, 440, 415, 392, or 350, or anything else. They had an instrument, and strung it up, and pitched it where it should be, depending on the instrument. Why does your singer have to be at 440? Cannot he/she adapt to the tuning? These are not my rules they are natures rules. The property of gut is what it is, and we cannot exceed that. So, if you want gut at 440, you must go shorter. In my opinion, the multi ribs vs wide ribs sounds no differently. What does matter is who builds the lute. Go for it! ed At 08:38 PM 4/1/2008 +0100, Rob MacKillop wrote: I'm thinking of getting a 7c in G at 440 - is 64cms the longest length possible? I have big hands and find small lutes uncomfortable. I'm thinking of it principally for Dowland's chromatic fantasies but also accompanying a singer in songs from Dowland's first three books (all for seven-course), and need to be at 440. How stable will be the pitch at 440? Gut strings would be preferable, but might well opt for nylgut for the first course if it keeps breaking. What diameters and tensions would you suggest? Also on relatively small lutes (not baroque) such as a 7c, what difference in tone might one expect from a multi-ribbed back as opposed to wide ribs? Rob MacKillop -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.2/1353 - Release Date: 3/31/2008 6:21 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Dear Ed and All: So if you were stringing an 11- or 13-course baroque lute in gut, and the string length was 72 or 73 cm, would you pitch the first string at E-flat (A=415)? Cheers, Jim To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Martin, What about the shape of the lute? Does it alter the sound? I mean for instance, a Hieber shape versus a Frei. Regards. 2008/4/1, Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Rob, If you want G at 440, 59 cm is the longest mensur you can have, or you will be upset with premature string breakage. If you want 64 cm, the treble should be at F. Of course, the limit can be pushed much higher for nylon or other synthetics. But for gut, in our modern times we seem to want a longer mensur at a higher pitch, and this just does not work, as it contradicts the properties of gut. I have a performance coming up this weekend, on 11 course lute, at 415, F. The mensur is short, at 67 cm. It works fine, and trebles have been lasting for about 2 months. If I used my longer baroque lute at 70 cm, I am lucky, very lucky indeed, to last 1 day. So, if you want a g-lute at 440 with gut, 59 is the upper limit. Otherwise, you must go nylon trebles if you want to go longer, or be willing to put a new treble on very, very frequently. My opinion is that in the old renaissance and baroque days, lutes were pitched much lower than we are doing today. Why are we trying to push the upper limits in terms of pitch? We seem to be so boxed in at 440 vs 415 vs 392. For instance, on my 70 cm lute, I have moved it from 415 to a = about 400. Now, since I lowered the pitch, a gut treble lasts for months, again. And, without regard to string type, in my opinion, lutes sound their best when pitched at where they should be. Even with synthetics, if you try to go 64 cm at 440, even any synthetic treble, in my opinion, may sound very mousy thin (I speak from experience with 64 cm lutes). In the old times, they did not have a clue or concern about a= 460, 440, 415, 392, or 350, or anything else. They had an instrument, and strung it up, and pitched it where it should be, depending on the instrument. Why does your singer have to be at 440? Cannot he/she adapt to the tuning? These are not my rules they are natures rules. The property of gut is what it is, and we cannot exceed that. So, if you want gut at 440, you must go shorter. In my opinion, the multi ribs vs wide ribs sounds no differently. What does matter is who builds the lute. Go for it! ed At 08:38 PM 4/1/2008 +0100, Rob MacKillop wrote: I'm thinking of getting a 7c in G at 440 - is 64cms the longest length possible? I have big hands and find small lutes uncomfortable. I'm thinking of it principally for Dowland's chromatic fantasies but also accompanying a singer in songs from Dowland's first three books (all for seven-course), and need to be at 440. How stable will be the pitch at 440? Gut strings would be preferable, but might well opt for nylgut for the first course if it keeps breaking. What diameters and tensions would you suggest? Also on relatively small lutes (not baroque) such as a 7c, what difference in tone might one expect from a multi-ribbed back as opposed to wide ribs? Rob MacKillop -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.2/1353 - Release Date: 3/31/2008 6:21 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 --
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
E at 415 is about the same as F at 392. I would probably go at that, or slightly lower in pitch. ed At 08:24 PM 4/1/2008 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Ed and All: So if you were stringing an 11- or 13-course baroque lute in gut, and the string length was 72 or 73 cm, would you pitch the first string at E-flat (A=415)? Cheers, Jim To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.2/1353 - Release Date: 3/31/2008 6:21 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
Yes, the shape does alter the sound of an instrument, but that is not the topic. It really does not matter what the model is, because the topic is gut trebles, and how high we can go with pitch. A 70 cm Hieber or Frei baroque lute would have a difficult time keeping on a gut treble at F at a = 415, because of the length (mensur), not the shape. ed At 10:48 PM 4/1/2008 -0300, Bruno Correia wrote: Martin, What about the shape of the lute? Does it alter the sound? I mean for instance, a Hieber shape versus a Frei. Regards. 2008/4/1, Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Rob, If you want G at 440, 59 cm is the longest mensur you can have, or you will be upset with premature string breakage. If you want 64 cm, the treble should be at F. Of course, the limit can be pushed much higher for nylon or other synthetics. But for gut, in our modern times we seem to want a longer mensur at a higher pitch, and this just does not work, as it contradicts the properties of gut. I have a performance coming up this weekend, on 11 course lute, at 415, F. The mensur is short, at 67 cm. It works fine, and trebles have been lasting for about 2 months. If I used my longer baroque lute at 70 cm, I am lucky, very lucky indeed, to last 1 day. So, if you want a g-lute at 440 with gut, 59 is the upper limit. Otherwise, you must go nylon trebles if you want to go longer, or be willing to put a new treble on very, very frequently. My opinion is that in the old renaissance and baroque days, lutes were pitched much lower than we are doing today. Why are we trying to push the upper limits in terms of pitch? We seem to be so boxed in at 440 vs 415 vs 392. For instance, on my 70 cm lute, I have moved it from 415 to a = about 400. Now, since I lowered the pitch, a gut treble lasts for months, again. And, without regard to string type, in my opinion, lutes sound their best when pitched at where they should be. Even with synthetics, if you try to go 64 cm at 440, even any synthetic treble, in my opinion, may sound very mousy thin (I speak from experience with 64 cm lutes). In the old times, they did not have a clue or concern about a= 460, 440, 415, 392, or 350, or anything else. They had an instrument, and strung it up, and pitched it where it should be, depending on the instrument. Why does your singer have to be at 440? Cannot he/she adapt to the tuning? These are not my rules they are natures rules. The property of gut is what it is, and we cannot exceed that. So, if you want gut at 440, you must go shorter. In my opinion, the multi ribs vs wide ribs sounds no differently. What does matter is who builds the lute. Go for it! ed At 08:38 PM 4/1/2008 +0100, Rob MacKillop wrote: I'm thinking of getting a 7c in G at 440 - is 64cms the longest length possible? I have big hands and find small lutes uncomfortable. I'm thinking of it principally for Dowland's chromatic fantasies but also accompanying a singer in songs from Dowland's first three books (all for seven-course), and need to be at 440. How stable will be the pitch at 440? Gut strings would be preferable, but might well opt for nylgut for the first course if it keeps breaking. What diameters and tensions would you suggest? Also on relatively small lutes (not baroque) such as a 7c, what difference in tone might one expect from a multi-ribbed back as opposed to wide ribs? Rob MacKillop -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.2/1353 - Release Date: 3/31/2008 6:21 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 -- -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.2/1353 - Release Date: 3/31/2008 6:21 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:47 PM, Michael Gillespie wrote: Do you guys like Larry Brown's lutes? im looking at his Venere G Lute 8c. I have four of Larry's instruments: 10-course Venere (C36), 13- course Edlinger, 14-course archlute and Lacote model Romantic guitar.. I've not been dissappointed with any of them. I feel that I have four top-of-the-line instruments here. Regards, David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: 7c at 64cms
64 is a bit long in the tooth for 440. You can get the gut up to pitch barely but it is a stretch. But if you want it for Dowland, F is very good both singer and solo wise. The tessatura of the songs is such that a significant number phonate better at 392, although some of the nice ones lie low, eg Can she excuse, In Darkness I usually use two lutes for the songs a tone apart, so as to include Flow not so fast, Weep you no more, and a few of the low ones, Shepherd in a shade, etc.For a soprano you can go 392/440 For a mezzo or alto/countertenor 370/415 dt At 12:38 PM 4/1/2008, you wrote: I'm thinking of getting a 7c in G at 440 - is 64cms the longest length possible? I have big hands and find small lutes uncomfortable. I'm thinking of it principally for Dowland's chromatic fantasies but also accompanying a singer in songs from Dowland's first three books (all for seven-course), and need to be at 440. How stable will be the pitch at 440? Gut strings would be preferable, but might well opt for nylgut for the first course if it keeps breaking. What diameters and tensions would you suggest? Also on relatively small lutes (not baroque) such as a 7c, what difference in tone might one expect from a multi-ribbed back as opposed to wide ribs? Rob MacKillop -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
