[LUTE] Re: Lute sound/split sound
Dear Chris, there is no argument about that there was strumming in lute music. Neusidler and Judenkunig called it mit Durchstreichen, i. e. with strumming. Even 17th century French lute music has it. Yet what Howard meant to conclude, if I got it right, was that as modern rhythm guitarists avoid to stand out, so did medieval lutenists when playing bourdons. His intention being to dispute--yes, there it is again: spaltklang. Mathias [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Mathias, --- Mathias Rösel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No such thing like rhythm lutes in medieval ensemble music, How do you know? Have you been listening to those non-existent recordings? You don't think any 14th-century lutenist in a dance band ever strummed a bunch of fifths? In the way rock band rhythm guitarists do? No, I don't think so. Matter of restricted imagination, probably. There's lots of strumming in Pesaro, Thibault, and Dalza. These are really early renaissance sources (Pesaro and Thibault may or may not be for plectrum lute) but it's likely that the strumming aspect is a holdover from the Mediaeval plectrum style. Dalza's Pivas alla Venetiana involve practically nothing else other than strumming! We don't have a surviving Charte of choycest Strumms for ye Lout, that doesn't mean rhythm lute didn't exist in group playing. Chris or baroque for that matter, as far as I can see. It's called continuo. That's a bit sweeping, don't you think? At least, it's not the way I'm used to playing continuo when accompanying singers. First thing is to distinctly provide the bass line. Guitarists may approach this differently. In broken consorts, and some lute songs, its called the tab parts that don't have divisions. A viol player in a polyphonic consort needs to have his instrument and his line heard distinctly. The cittern player in a broken consort wants to blend with the pandora (and lute, if the lute isn't playing divisions). Again, how can he / she (cittern), playing his / her own part? By DOING IT. It's what musicians do. Okay, I'm not a musician. I'm a lute player, occasionally, in a broken consort. And I don't try to blend with other instruments but to be heard as distinctly as possible. I'm sorry I can't continue this, as I'm heading for the players' meeting in Cottbus. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound/split sound
I think if we don't have any real historical evidence we are just retouching the color of the past. There are plenty of paintings showing lutes and shawms, trumpets, drums and so on. A motley crew. And what sounds louder close up does not necessarily carry, so room size becomes a factor, and so on.. Playing loud is not any better than playing full at a distance, and a full sound may even be better. As far as rhythm medieval lute, I can't imagine that they didn't try it, who wouldn't? I don't think there's anything wrong with coining phrases--there have been some famous ones like the X chord and doublet, not to mention terms in sonata form and so on. But they are modern terms. And one of the most common of these in HP was klangideal, which you don't really see anymore in musicology, though I kinda liked it. These things go in waves. The idea that some sort of uniformity of style existed may well just be a product of the industrial revolution. One of the nice things about renaissance furniture is that the hardware is all different: hinges, screws, clasps, nails, and so. Maybe that's the way everything was. Maybe the LHC in Cern will show that no two particles can ever be alike at the same time. dt At 03:28 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote: Maybe we're talking nonsense because we haven't defined our terms. Or maybe you assume a clear dichotomy between blending and not blending; the world is a more complicated place than that. Indeed, I think the whole notion of a single sound ideal for all of Europe for a century or more is inherently incredible, but that's another discussion. Pictures show single instruments (harps, fiddles, lutes, flutes), playing together with singers. Surviving ars nova music, when executed with instruments so distinct, leaves no chance to merge or blend. Saying this does not make it so. We don't even know what the instruments were playing. Likely they were doubling the singers, in which case the dominant sound on each line would be the voice, colored by the doubling instrument; the question of whether a harp could blend with a lute would be unimportant. If other instruments are producing a treble-heavy sound, a lute player playing with a quill might just as well be trying to blend with them. How can he / she, playing his / her own part? 1) We don't know what part the lute played; 2) If you had a lute in your hand and wanted to match, as much as possible, the the tone of a rebec or a bray harp, would you play with fingers over the rose or with a quill back toward the bridge? Rhythm guitar players play with plectra today, but they rarely want to focus attention on their individual instrument. No such thing like rhythm lutes in medieval ensemble music, How do you know? Have you been listening to those non-existent recordings? You don't think any 14th-century lutenist in a dance band ever strummed a bunch of fifths? or baroque for that matter, as far as I can see. It's called continuo. In broken consorts, and some lute songs, its called the tab parts that don't have divisions. A viol player in a polyphonic consort needs to have his instrument and his line heard distinctly. The cittern player in a broken consort wants to blend with the pandora (and lute, if the lute isn't playing divisions). Again, how can he / she (cittern), playing his / her own part? By DOING IT. It's what musicians do. I'm listening at the moment to a recording of Swanne Alley; the bass viol, bandora and cittern blend very nicely in the sense that unless I'm trying to deconstruct it as I hear it, it sounds like one big instrument most of the time. About once a year, this list embarks on a discussion of whether the lute/archlute/theorbo is audible in continuo sections with harpsichords, and I always make the point that the object isn't to be heard as discrete voice, but rather to combine into whatever continuo sound you're trying to achieve. But let's omit orchestras, the lute not being an orchestra instrument. The archlute is. I assume you meant to exclude gallichons and theorbos, and I won't argue that point with you, but the archlute is just a lute with extra bass strings. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound/split sound
Gentlemen, I kindly advise you to read the following book : Musiques savantes, musiques populaires : les symboliques du sonore en FRance , 1200 - 1750 by an excellent ethnolmusicologist Luc Charles-Dominique. It published by the CNRS Editions (available there : http://www.cnrseditions.fr/ouvrage/5746.html ). I am not comissionned in any way ;-) It helps to understand better the problem you have been debating lately on this forum. I know, it's in French, but, well, it is well worth the little effort...! Best, Jean-Marie === 02-10-2008 23:45:00 === howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Maybe we're talking nonsense because we haven't defined our terms. Or maybe you assume a clear dichotomy between blending and not blending; the world is a more complicated place than that. I'm too simple a listener, probably. IMHO it's a dichotomy, yes. You're certainy right, though, the world is a more complicated place than that, as the old Chinese saying has it ,) Indeed, I think the whole notion of a single sound ideal for all of Europe for a century or more is inherently incredible, but that's another discussion. It is so, indeed. I have not the faintest idea how people in northern Danmark or other people in southern Italy perceived those notions. What I try to discuss are changes of lute playing techniques in context of modern explanations of different sound aesthetics during the medieval, renaissance, and baroque eras. Pictures show single instruments (harps, fiddles, lutes, flutes), playing together with singers. Surviving ars nova music, when executed with instruments so distinct, leaves no chance to merge or blend. Saying this does not make it so. We don't even know what the instruments were playing. That's not my. I wasn't born then, so I don't know as a witness. (And you don't know either. So why do you object?) But there are pictures surviving, depicting medieval musicians who play together with singers. If you agree that things like that aren't impossible to have happened, then maybe you'll concede that those instrumentalists will either have played from the singers' parts or they played something which didn't survive in written form. You may say, all instrumentalists playing from parts, would join in one part to form an instrumental party. All I can say, then, is that it wouldn't make much sense IMHO. What would make sense on the other hand is that different instruments would go along with different parts to form a colourful band. It's just more probably, lacking evidence notwithstanding. Likely they were doubling the singers, in which case the dominant sound on each line would be the voice, colored by the doubling instrument; the question of whether a harp could blend with a lute would be unimportant. Yepp, that's certainly so. But there are pictures of purely instrumental bands, too. 2) If you had a lute in your hand and wanted to match, as much as possible, the the tone of a rebec or a bray harp, would you play with fingers over the rose or with a quill back toward the bridge? I for one would play close-to-rose so as to match. Quill stands out, that much is for sure. Rhythm guitar players play with plectra today, but they rarely want to focus attention on their individual instrument. No such thing like rhythm lutes in medieval ensemble music, How do you know? Have you been listening to those non-existent recordings? You don't think any 14th-century lutenist in a dance band ever strummed a bunch of fifths? In the way rock band rhythm guitarists do? No, I don't think so. Matter of restricted imagination, probably. or baroque for that matter, as far as I can see. It's called continuo. That's a bit sweeping, don't you think? At least, it's not the way I'm used to playing continuo when accompanying singers. First thing is to distinctly provide the bass line. Guitarists may approach this differently. In broken consorts, and some lute songs, its called the tab parts that don't have divisions. A viol player in a polyphonic consort needs to have his instrument and his line heard distinctly. The cittern player in a broken consort wants to blend with the pandora (and lute, if the lute isn't playing divisions). Again, how can he / she (cittern), playing his / her own part? By DOING IT. It's what musicians do. Okay, I'm not a musician. I'm a lute player, occasionally, in a broken consort. And I don't try to blend with other instruments but to be heard as distinctly as possible. I'm sorry I can't continue this, as I'm heading for the players' meeting in Cottbus. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --- Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound/split sound
Mathias, --- Mathias Rösel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No such thing like rhythm lutes in medieval ensemble music, How do you know? Have you been listening to those non-existent recordings? You don't think any 14th-century lutenist in a dance band ever strummed a bunch of fifths? In the way rock band rhythm guitarists do? No, I don't think so. Matter of restricted imagination, probably. There's lots of strumming in Pesaro, Thibault, and Dalza. These are really early renaissance sources (Pesaro and Thibault may or may not be for plectrum lute) but it's likely that the strumming aspect is a holdover from the Mediaeval plectrum style. Dalza's Pivas alla Venetiana involve practically nothing else other than strumming! We don't have a surviving Charte of choycest Strumms for ye Lout, that doesn't mean rhythm lute didn't exist in group playing. Chris or baroque for that matter, as far as I can see. It's called continuo. That's a bit sweeping, don't you think? At least, it's not the way I'm used to playing continuo when accompanying singers. First thing is to distinctly provide the bass line. Guitarists may approach this differently. In broken consorts, and some lute songs, its called the tab parts that don't have divisions. A viol player in a polyphonic consort needs to have his instrument and his line heard distinctly. The cittern player in a broken consort wants to blend with the pandora (and lute, if the lute isn't playing divisions). Again, how can he / she (cittern), playing his / her own part? By DOING IT. It's what musicians do. Okay, I'm not a musician. I'm a lute player, occasionally, in a broken consort. And I don't try to blend with other instruments but to be heard as distinctly as possible. I'm sorry I can't continue this, as I'm heading for the players' meeting in Cottbus. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
I've read it's the 20th century and german version of what we know as style brisé (just in case nobody else has already mentioned). Thomas - Original Message - From: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:58 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound I thought Spaetklang was when you can't keep the tempo. d At 02:08 AM 9/30/2008, you wrote: And Splatklang is when you don't quite manage to play that difficult chord P To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
And spit-clang is when you got too much oomph to it, no? M. David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I thought Spaetklang was when you can't keep the tempo. d At 02:08 AM 9/30/2008, you wrote: And Splatklang is when you don't quite manage to play that difficult chord P 2008/9/30 Mathias Roesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: So, is Spaltklang the equivalent of other 20th century ideas about older music, such as terraced dynamics? Trying to strictly answer your question: No. The term is not an equivalent of ideas, not of other ideas, not of other 20th century ideas. Let alone terraced dynamics ;) Spaltklang does not exclusively bear on Early Music (older music), it is applied on modern music, too, e. g. some ensemble music by Stravinsky. My I suggest that we do not dance around this golden name. It's not worth it. It's just an attempt of a descriptive term. Mathias --- Mathias Roesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: So if I understand correctly, the answer to my question about who mentioned Spaltklang is that it was 20th-century German musicologists interpreting the intent of earlier musicians Yes 8) As it seems, Heinrich Besseler was the one to coin the term. I've never encountered an English term similar to Spaltklang. As results from discussions on other lists, spaltklang wasn't translated into English musicology. I was told that English spaking scholars would quote the German term, adding a short explanation. It seems to me that Harnoncourt has nearly the opposite opinion, writing that the baroque orchestra was like a baroque organ, with the sounds of the individual instruments designed to blend. Perhaps Mr Harnoncourt has changed his mind somewhere on his way? At any rate, that would be contrary to what he presented in his book Klangrede where he said that different colours and speaking positions in an orchestra (which is what qualifies as spaltklang) are, so to say, the salient points of baroque music. He contrasts the modern orchestra, in which the instruments are designed to stand out (consider, for example, the sharper tone of the modern flute, oboe and trumpet, in comparison to their baroque counterparts). Erm, are you talking about modern, i. e. romantic orchestras? I was under the impression that it's baroque instruments which stand out, as opposed to romantic instruments which are supposed to blend. BTW, what does MGG stand for? Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. It's a standard lexicon of music, comparable to the New Grove. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
Lemme try to clarify this. Split sound is when the sounds of different ensemble members do not blend, that's all. I think we can all agree by and large with the following: The medieval hofkapelle at the Burgundian court consisted of single musicians who would do their best to get heard distinctly (the lute being played with quills therefore). That's split sound (spaltklang). As opposed to that, renaissance musicians preferred to play ensemble music with families of instruments (flutes, viols, lutes) so as to make the music sound as though one big instrument was at work. That's not split sound, it's merging sound (schmelzklang). Musicians of broken consorts usually played as single members of their bands, trying to be heard as well as possible. Like in Burgundia, that is split sound. It's an integral part of baroque rhetorics of music (klangrede). Orchestras from the Twenty-Four Violins of the King onward started another development, viz. merging the sounds of several instruments of the same type, and blending the sounds of groups of instruments (wood wind, strings, brass etc), resulting in 19th century orchestra aesthetics (mischklang). Surviving lute music dates from the renaissance through rococo periods. The HIP lute was a solo instrument, an ensemble instrument, but never an orchestra instrument. So, one might argue that if lute players followed the general aesthetics of their respective era, renaissance lute players probably tried not to stand out when playing in ensemble, whereas later broken consort lutenists would try to stand out as much as possible. Which would explain why renaissance lutenists' propensity of playing near the rose, and the shift from 1600 onward to the bridge. Mathias thomas schall [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I've read it's the 20th century and german version of what we know as style brisé (just in case nobody else has already mentioned). Thomas - Original Message - From: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:58 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound I thought Spaetklang was when you can't keep the tempo. d At 02:08 AM 9/30/2008, you wrote: And Splatklang is when you don't quite manage to play that difficult chord P To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
Thanks Mathias, This subject is very interesting and you explained it very well. 2008/10/2 Mathias Roesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lemme try to clarify this. Split sound is when the sounds of different ensemble members do not blend, that's all. I think we can all agree by and large with the following: The medieval hofkapelle at the Burgundian court consisted of single musicians who would do their best to get heard distinctly (the lute being played with quills therefore). That's split sound (spaltklang). As opposed to that, renaissance musicians preferred to play ensemble music with families of instruments (flutes, viols, lutes) so as to make the music sound as though one big instrument was at work. That's not split sound, it's merging sound (schmelzklang). Musicians of broken consorts usually played as single members of their bands, trying to be heard as well as possible. Like in Burgundia, that is split sound. It's an integral part of baroque rhetorics of music (klangrede). Orchestras from the Twenty-Four Violins of the King onward started another development, viz. merging the sounds of several instruments of the same type, and blending the sounds of groups of instruments (wood wind, strings, brass etc), resulting in 19th century orchestra aesthetics (mischklang). Surviving lute music dates from the renaissance through rococo periods. The HIP lute was a solo instrument, an ensemble instrument, but never an orchestra instrument. So, one might argue that if lute players followed the general aesthetics of their respective era, renaissance lute players probably tried not to stand out when playing in ensemble, whereas later broken consort lutenists would try to stand out as much as possible. Which would explain why renaissance lutenists' propensity of playing near the rose, and the shift from 1600 onward to the bridge. Mathias -- References 1. mailto:[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: Lute sound/split sound
howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: The medieval hofkapelle at the Burgundian court consisted of single musicians who would do their best to get heard distinctly (the lute being played with quills therefore). That's split sound (spaltklang). But there's no evidence of such a sound ideal other than the interpretation of later musicologists, is there? Admittedly, there are no 15th century recordings available, as far as I know, but perhaps we may consider a) surviving written music and b) iconographic material as evidence. Pictures show single instruments (harps, fiddles, lutes, flutes), playing together with singers. Surviving ars nova music, when executed with instruments so distinct, leaves no chance to merge or blend. Only once you execute the music with families of instruments, e. g. lute ensemble, sounds blend. (Cf. Jon Banks, Music for Lute Consort c.1500, available from the Lute Society, see http://www.lutesoc.co.uk/DavidVanEdwards/pubpics/Lute%20trios%201.jpg ) Yet that's not what we see on related pictures. If other instruments are producing a treble-heavy sound, a lute player playing with a quill might just as well be trying to blend with them. How can he / she, playing his / her own part? Rhythm guitar players play with plectra today, but they rarely want to focus attention on their individual instrument. No such thing like rhythm lutes in medieval ensemble music, or baroque for that matter, as far as I can see. As opposed to that, renaissance musicians preferred to play ensemble music with families of instruments (flutes, viols, lutes) so as to make the music sound as though one big instrument was at work. That's not split sound, it's merging sound (schmelzklang). Musicians of broken consorts usually played as single members of their bands, trying to be heard as well as possible. Like in Burgundia, that is split sound. It's an integral part of baroque rhetorics of music (klangrede). Again, I think just the opposite is true. A viol player in a polyphonic consort needs to have his instrument and his line heard distinctly. The cittern player in a broken consort wants to blend with the pandora (and lute, if the lute isn't playing divisions). Again, how can he / she (cittern), playing his / her own part? Orchestral oboes and violins in unision, and bassoons and cellos, are combining into a blended sound, as are the continuo instruments. As I said, orchestras started another development, viz. merging the sounds of several instruments. Still in baroque orchestras it's all about distinct parts to be heard, speaking to each other, not glidingly changing sound colours of the whole sound body like in 19th and early 20th centuries orchestra music. But let's omit orchestras, the lute not being an orchestra instrument. Mathias Surviving lute music dates from the renaissance through rococo periods. The HIP lute was a solo instrument, an ensemble instrument, but never an orchestra instrument. So, one might argue that if lute players followed the general aesthetics of their respective era, renaissance lute players probably tried not to stand out when playing in ensemble, whereas later broken consort lutenists would try to stand out as much as possible. Which would explain why renaissance lutenists' propensity of playing near the rose, and the shift from 1600 onward to the bridge. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound/split sound
Maybe we're talking nonsense because we haven't defined our terms. Or maybe you assume a clear dichotomy between blending and not blending; the world is a more complicated place than that. Indeed, I think the whole notion of a single sound ideal for all of Europe for a century or more is inherently incredible, but that's another discussion. Pictures show single instruments (harps, fiddles, lutes, flutes), playing together with singers. Surviving ars nova music, when executed with instruments so distinct, leaves no chance to merge or blend. Saying this does not make it so. We don't even know what the instruments were playing. Likely they were doubling the singers, in which case the dominant sound on each line would be the voice, colored by the doubling instrument; the question of whether a harp could blend with a lute would be unimportant. If other instruments are producing a treble-heavy sound, a lute player playing with a quill might just as well be trying to blend with them. How can he / she, playing his / her own part? 1) We don't know what part the lute played; 2) If you had a lute in your hand and wanted to match, as much as possible, the the tone of a rebec or a bray harp, would you play with fingers over the rose or with a quill back toward the bridge? Rhythm guitar players play with plectra today, but they rarely want to focus attention on their individual instrument. No such thing like rhythm lutes in medieval ensemble music, How do you know? Have you been listening to those non-existent recordings? You don't think any 14th-century lutenist in a dance band ever strummed a bunch of fifths? or baroque for that matter, as far as I can see. It's called continuo. In broken consorts, and some lute songs, its called the tab parts that don't have divisions. A viol player in a polyphonic consort needs to have his instrument and his line heard distinctly. The cittern player in a broken consort wants to blend with the pandora (and lute, if the lute isn't playing divisions). Again, how can he / she (cittern), playing his / her own part? By DOING IT. It's what musicians do. I'm listening at the moment to a recording of Swanne Alley; the bass viol, bandora and cittern blend very nicely in the sense that unless I'm trying to deconstruct it as I hear it, it sounds like one big instrument most of the time. About once a year, this list embarks on a discussion of whether the lute/archlute/theorbo is audible in continuo sections with harpsichords, and I always make the point that the object isn't to be heard as discrete voice, but rather to combine into whatever continuo sound you're trying to achieve. But let's omit orchestras, the lute not being an orchestra instrument. The archlute is. I assume you meant to exclude gallichons and theorbos, and I won't argue that point with you, but the archlute is just a lute with extra bass strings. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
Which would explain why renaissance lutenists' propensity of playing near the rose, and the shift from 1600 onward to the bridge. Was there really a shift? I seem to recall instructions on where to plant you little finger, rather than where to actually play the strings, so perhaps it is an illusion. That's another point I cannot discuss, really. My ren-lute sounds different, when I play parallel close to the rose, from my bar-lute, when I perpendicular close to the bridge. That's what I observe with other players, too. Perhaps it's an illusion and that's why i can't discuss it 8) -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound/split sound
howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Maybe we're talking nonsense because we haven't defined our terms. Or maybe you assume a clear dichotomy between blending and not blending; the world is a more complicated place than that. I'm too simple a listener, probably. IMHO it's a dichotomy, yes. You're certainy right, though, the world is a more complicated place than that, as the old Chinese saying has it ,) Indeed, I think the whole notion of a single sound ideal for all of Europe for a century or more is inherently incredible, but that's another discussion. It is so, indeed. I have not the faintest idea how people in northern Danmark or other people in southern Italy perceived those notions. What I try to discuss are changes of lute playing techniques in context of modern explanations of different sound aesthetics during the medieval, renaissance, and baroque eras. Pictures show single instruments (harps, fiddles, lutes, flutes), playing together with singers. Surviving ars nova music, when executed with instruments so distinct, leaves no chance to merge or blend. Saying this does not make it so. We don't even know what the instruments were playing. That's not my. I wasn't born then, so I don't know as a witness. (And you don't know either. So why do you object?) But there are pictures surviving, depicting medieval musicians who play together with singers. If you agree that things like that aren't impossible to have happened, then maybe you'll concede that those instrumentalists will either have played from the singers' parts or they played something which didn't survive in written form. You may say, all instrumentalists playing from parts, would join in one part to form an instrumental party. All I can say, then, is that it wouldn't make much sense IMHO. What would make sense on the other hand is that different instruments would go along with different parts to form a colourful band. It's just more probably, lacking evidence notwithstanding. Likely they were doubling the singers, in which case the dominant sound on each line would be the voice, colored by the doubling instrument; the question of whether a harp could blend with a lute would be unimportant. Yepp, that's certainly so. But there are pictures of purely instrumental bands, too. 2) If you had a lute in your hand and wanted to match, as much as possible, the the tone of a rebec or a bray harp, would you play with fingers over the rose or with a quill back toward the bridge? I for one would play close-to-rose so as to match. Quill stands out, that much is for sure. Rhythm guitar players play with plectra today, but they rarely want to focus attention on their individual instrument. No such thing like rhythm lutes in medieval ensemble music, How do you know? Have you been listening to those non-existent recordings? You don't think any 14th-century lutenist in a dance band ever strummed a bunch of fifths? In the way rock band rhythm guitarists do? No, I don't think so. Matter of restricted imagination, probably. or baroque for that matter, as far as I can see. It's called continuo. That's a bit sweeping, don't you think? At least, it's not the way I'm used to playing continuo when accompanying singers. First thing is to distinctly provide the bass line. Guitarists may approach this differently. In broken consorts, and some lute songs, its called the tab parts that don't have divisions. A viol player in a polyphonic consort needs to have his instrument and his line heard distinctly. The cittern player in a broken consort wants to blend with the pandora (and lute, if the lute isn't playing divisions). Again, how can he / she (cittern), playing his / her own part? By DOING IT. It's what musicians do. Okay, I'm not a musician. I'm a lute player, occasionally, in a broken consort. And I don't try to blend with other instruments but to be heard as distinctly as possible. I'm sorry I can't continue this, as I'm heading for the players' meeting in Cottbus. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
I thought Spaetklang was when you can't keep the tempo. d At 02:08 AM 9/30/2008, you wrote: And Splatklang is when you don't quite manage to play that difficult chord P 2008/9/30 Mathias Roesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: So, is Spaltklang the equivalent of other 20th century ideas about older music, such as terraced dynamics? Trying to strictly answer your question: No. The term is not an equivalent of ideas, not of other ideas, not of other 20th century ideas. Let alone terraced dynamics ;) Spaltklang does not exclusively bear on Early Music (older music), it is applied on modern music, too, e. g. some ensemble music by Stravinsky. My I suggest that we do not dance around this golden name. It's not worth it. It's just an attempt of a descriptive term. Mathias --- Mathias Roesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: So if I understand correctly, the answer to my question about who mentioned Spaltklang is that it was 20th-century German musicologists interpreting the intent of earlier musicians Yes 8) As it seems, Heinrich Besseler was the one to coin the term. I've never encountered an English term similar to Spaltklang. As results from discussions on other lists, spaltklang wasn't translated into English musicology. I was told that English spaking scholars would quote the German term, adding a short explanation. It seems to me that Harnoncourt has nearly the opposite opinion, writing that the baroque orchestra was like a baroque organ, with the sounds of the individual instruments designed to blend. Perhaps Mr Harnoncourt has changed his mind somewhere on his way? At any rate, that would be contrary to what he presented in his book Klangrede where he said that different colours and speaking positions in an orchestra (which is what qualifies as spaltklang) are, so to say, the salient points of baroque music. He contrasts the modern orchestra, in which the instruments are designed to stand out (consider, for example, the sharper tone of the modern flute, oboe and trumpet, in comparison to their baroque counterparts). Erm, are you talking about modern, i. e. romantic orchestras? I was under the impression that it's baroque instruments which stand out, as opposed to romantic instruments which are supposed to blend. BTW, what does MGG stand for? Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. It's a standard lexicon of music, comparable to the New Grove. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Peter Martin Belle Serre La Caulie 81100 Castres France tel: 0033 5 63 35 68 46 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: [6]www.silvius.co.uk [7]http://absolute81.blogspot.com/ [8]www.myspace.com/sambuca999 [9]www.myspace.com/chuckerbutty -- References 1. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. http://www.silvius.co.uk/ 7. http://absolute81.blogspot.com/ 8. http://www.myspace.com/sambuca999 9. http://www.myspace.com/chuckerbutty
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: So, is Spaltklang the equivalent of other 20th century ideas about older music, such as terraced dynamics? Trying to strictly answer your question: No. The term is not an equivalent of ideas, not of other ideas, not of other 20th century ideas. Let alone terraced dynamics ;) Spaltklang does not exclusively bear on Early Music (older music), it is applied on modern music, too, e. g. some ensemble music by Stravinsky. My I suggest that we do not dance around this golden name. It's not worth it. It's just an attempt of a descriptive term. Mathias --- Mathias Rösel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: So if I understand correctly, the answer to my question about who mentioned Spaltklang is that it was 20th-century German musicologists interpreting the intent of earlier musicians Yes 8) As it seems, Heinrich Besseler was the one to coin the term. I've never encountered an English term similar to Spaltklang. As results from discussions on other lists, spaltklang wasn't translated into English musicology. I was told that English spaking scholars would quote the German term, adding a short explanation. It seems to me that Harnoncourt has nearly the opposite opinion, writing that the baroque orchestra was like a baroque organ, with the sounds of the individual instruments designed to blend. Perhaps Mr Harnoncourt has changed his mind somewhere on his way? At any rate, that would be contrary to what he presented in his book Klangrede where he said that different colours and speaking positions in an orchestra (which is what qualifies as spaltklang) are, so to say, the salient points of baroque music. He contrasts the modern orchestra, in which the instruments are designed to stand out (consider, for example, the sharper tone of the modern flute, oboe and trumpet, in comparison to their baroque counterparts). Erm, are you talking about modern, i. e. romantic orchestras? I was under the impression that it's baroque instruments which stand out, as opposed to romantic instruments which are supposed to blend. BTW, what does MGG stand for? Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. It's a standard lexicon of music, comparable to the New Grove. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
And Splatklang is when you don't quite manage to play that difficult chord P 2008/9/30 Mathias Roesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: So, is Spaltklang the equivalent of other 20th century ideas about older music, such as terraced dynamics? Trying to strictly answer your question: No. The term is not an equivalent of ideas, not of other ideas, not of other 20th century ideas. Let alone terraced dynamics ;) Spaltklang does not exclusively bear on Early Music (older music), it is applied on modern music, too, e. g. some ensemble music by Stravinsky. My I suggest that we do not dance around this golden name. It's not worth it. It's just an attempt of a descriptive term. Mathias --- Mathias Roesel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: So if I understand correctly, the answer to my question about who mentioned Spaltklang is that it was 20th-century German musicologists interpreting the intent of earlier musicians Yes 8) As it seems, Heinrich Besseler was the one to coin the term. I've never encountered an English term similar to Spaltklang. As results from discussions on other lists, spaltklang wasn't translated into English musicology. I was told that English spaking scholars would quote the German term, adding a short explanation. It seems to me that Harnoncourt has nearly the opposite opinion, writing that the baroque orchestra was like a baroque organ, with the sounds of the individual instruments designed to blend. Perhaps Mr Harnoncourt has changed his mind somewhere on his way? At any rate, that would be contrary to what he presented in his book Klangrede where he said that different colours and speaking positions in an orchestra (which is what qualifies as spaltklang) are, so to say, the salient points of baroque music. He contrasts the modern orchestra, in which the instruments are designed to stand out (consider, for example, the sharper tone of the modern flute, oboe and trumpet, in comparison to their baroque counterparts). Erm, are you talking about modern, i. e. romantic orchestras? I was under the impression that it's baroque instruments which stand out, as opposed to romantic instruments which are supposed to blend. BTW, what does MGG stand for? Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. It's a standard lexicon of music, comparable to the New Grove. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Peter Martin Belle Serre La Caulie 81100 Castres France tel: 0033 5 63 35 68 46 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: [6]www.silvius.co.uk [7]http://absolute81.blogspot.com/ [8]www.myspace.com/sambuca999 [9]www.myspace.com/chuckerbutty -- References 1. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. http://www.silvius.co.uk/ 7. http://absolute81.blogspot.com/ 8. http://www.myspace.com/sambuca999 9. http://www.myspace.com/chuckerbutty
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: might argue that there _was_ kinda ideal sound. On my way through the museum of musical instruments in Vienna, I learned that in the 16th century it was Spaltklang. The obvious question would be who said that? MGG 1st edition, that is, 1943-1986. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: might argue that there _was_ kinda ideal sound. On my way through the museum of musical instruments in Vienna, I learned that in the 16th century it was Spaltklang. The obvious question would be who said that? 1.) Die Verwendung der Instrumente war im 14. Jh. ausgedehnter und mannigfacher als vorher, beruhte jedoch auf ähnlichen Grundlagen wie schon in der Ars antiqua. (...) Das zweite Kennzeichen blieb, soweit Bilder und Beschreibungen ein Urteil gestatten, die bunte Kombination von Einzelfarben zu einem »Spaltklang« (...). (Heinrich Besseler, Art. Ars Nova, in: Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart [MGG], 1. Aufl. 1986, Bd. 01, S. 725) 2.) Unter »Stilform« können die einem definierten Stil eigentümlichen »Formen« (im speziellen Sinne) verstanden werden (z.B. als spezifische Stilformen des Barockstils die Tanzformen des 17. Jh. oder die Da capo- Arie), oder auch, in einem etwas gelockerten Wortgebrauch, die Formeln, d.h. die Stilmittel (z.B. als spezifisches Stilmittel des Barockstils die Sopr.-Bc.- Struktur oder der Spaltklang). [Joseph Müller-Blattau, Art. Form, MGG Bd. 04, S. 556) 3.) In England prägte sich durch die Praxis des Consort schon frühzeitig ein eigener Instr.-Stil. Die ad-lib.-Besetzung im Broken Consort repräsentiert deutlich das barocke Spaltklang-Ideal und macht im Bevorzugen bestimmter Gruppen instrumentatorische Absichten und vor allem eine klare Differenzierung vom Vokalstil sichtbar. (Heinz Becker, Art. Instrumentation, III. Geschichte der Instrumentation, MGG Bd. 6, S. 1261) My attempted translations: 1.) Use of instruments during the 14th century was more extended and more various than before, but it was based on similar principles as already with ars antiqua. (...) The second feature stayed, as far as pictures and descriptions allow for conclusions, gaudy combinations of single colours for split sound. (Heinrich Besseler, Art. Ars Nova, in: MGG, vol. 1, p. 725) 2.) Forms of style can be understood as particular forms (in the restricted sense) of a defined style (e. g. 17th century dance forms or da-capo-airs as specific forms of baroque style) or in a broader sense of the word, formulae, i. e. means of style (e. g. treble-and-bass-structure or split sound as specific means of baroque style). [Joseph Müller-Blattau, Art. Form, MGG vol. 4, p. 556) 3.) Consort practice already early coined an own instrumental style. Ad libitum instrumentations of broken consorts clearly represent baroque ideal sound, making clear the arrangers' intentions, and accurate discrimination from vocal style after all, by preferences of certain registers. (Heinz Becker, Art. Instrumentation, III. History of Instrumentation, MGG vol. 6, p. 1261) Hope that helps so far, as for chapters and verses. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: might argue that there _was_ kinda ideal sound. On my way through the museum of musical instruments in Vienna, I learned that in the 16th century it was Spaltklang. The obvious question would be who said that? 1.) Die Verwendung der Instrumente war im 14. Jh. ausgedehnter und mannigfacher als vorher, beruhte jedoch auf ähnlichen Grundlagen wie schon in der Ars antiqua. (...) Das zweite Kennzeichen blieb, soweit Bilder und Beschreibungen ein Urteil gestatten, die bunte Kombination von Einzelfarben zu einem »Spaltklang« (...). (Heinrich Besseler, Art. Ars Nova, in: MGG Bd. 1, S. 725) 2.) Unter »Stilform« können die einem definierten Stil eigentümlichen »Formen« (im speziellen Sinne) verstanden werden (z.B. als spezifische Stilformen des Barockstils die Tanzformen des 17. Jh. oder die Da capo-Arie), oder auch, in einem etwas gelockerten Wortgebrauch, die Formeln, d.h. die Stilmittel (z.B. als spezifisches Stilmittel des Barockstils die Sopr.-Bc.- Struktur oder der Spaltklang). [Joseph Müller-Blattau, Art. Form, MGG Bd. 4, S. 556) 3.) In England prägte sich durch die Praxis des Consort schon frühzeitig ein eigener Instr.-Stil. Die ad-lib.-Besetzung im Broken Consort repräsentiert deutlich das barocke Spaltklang-Ideal und macht im Bevorzugen bestimmter Gruppen instrumentatorische Absichten und vor allem eine klare Differenzierung vom Vokalstil sichtbar. (Heinz Becker, Art. Instrumentation, III. Geschichte der Instrumentation, MGG Bd. 6, S. 1261) My attempted translations: 1.) Use of instruments during the 14th century was more extended and more various than before, but it was based on similar principles as already with ars antiqua. (...) The second feature stayed, as far as pictures and descriptions allow for conclusions, gaudy combinations of single colours for split sound. (Heinrich Besseler, Art. Ars Nova, in: MGG, vol. 1, p. 725) 2.) Forms of style can be understood as particular forms (in the restricted sense) of a defined style (e. g. 17th century dance forms or da-capo-airs as specific forms of baroque style) or in a broader sense of the word, formulae, i. e. means of style (e. g. treble-and-bass-structure or split sound as specific means of baroque style). [Joseph Müller-Blattau, Art. Form, MGG vol. 4, p. 556) 3.) In England, consort practice already early coined an own instrumental style. Ad libitum instrumentations of broken consorts clearly represent baroque ideal sound, making clear the arrangers' intentions, and accurate discrimination from vocal style after all, by preferences of certain registers. (Heinz Becker, Art. Instrumentation, III. History of Instrumentation, MGG vol. 6, p. 1261) Hope that helps so far, as for chapters and verses. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
On Sep 29, 2008, at 4:22 AM, Mathias Rösel wrote: Hope that helps so far, as for chapters and verses. So if I understand correctly, the answer to my question about who mentioned Spaltklang is that it was 20th-century German musicologists interpreting the intent of earlier musicians without citing the words of any earlier musicians. I've never encountered an English term similar to Spaltklang. It seems to me that Harnoncourt has nearly the opposite opinion, writing that the baroque orchestra was like a baroque organ, with the sounds of the individual instruments designed to blend. He contrasts the modern orchestra, in which the instruments are designed to stand out (consider, for example, the sharper tone of the modern flute, oboe and trumpet, in comparison to their baroque counterparts). Of course, H. may have been talking about a different century from the one the MGG writers discussed. BTW, what does MGG stand for? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
Maria Gerasimenko-Golota, a friend of mine. RT - Original Message - From: Jean-Marie Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:30 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound BTW, what does MGG stand for? Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart... I think Jean-Marie = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 29-09-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ D O T E A S Y - Join the web hosting revolution! http://www.doteasy.com
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound / split sound
Mathias, So, is Spaltklang the equivalent of other 20th century ideas about older music, such as terraced dynamics? Chris --- Mathias Rösel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: So if I understand correctly, the answer to my question about who mentioned Spaltklang is that it was 20th-century German musicologists interpreting the intent of earlier musicians Yes 8) As it seems, Heinrich Besseler was the one to coin the term. I've never encountered an English term similar to Spaltklang. As results from discussions on other lists, spaltklang wasn't translated into English musicology. I was told that English spaking scholars would quote the German term, adding a short explanation. It seems to me that Harnoncourt has nearly the opposite opinion, writing that the baroque orchestra was like a baroque organ, with the sounds of the individual instruments designed to blend. Perhaps Mr Harnoncourt has changed his mind somewhere on his way? At any rate, that would be contrary to what he presented in his book Klangrede where he said that different colours and speaking positions in an orchestra (which is what qualifies as spaltklang) are, so to say, the salient points of baroque music. He contrasts the modern orchestra, in which the instruments are designed to stand out (consider, for example, the sharper tone of the modern flute, oboe and trumpet, in comparison to their baroque counterparts). Erm, are you talking about modern, i. e. romantic orchestras? I was under the impression that it's baroque instruments which stand out, as opposed to romantic instruments which are supposed to blend. BTW, what does MGG stand for? Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. It's a standard lexicon of music, comparable to the New Grove. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: might argue that there _was_ kinda ideal sound. On my way through the museum of musical instruments in Vienna, I learned that in the 16th century it was Spaltklang. The obvious question would be who said that? The museum's iPod 8) I was under the impression that it was commonly agreed. I'll look it up (it meaning spaltklang) in MGG. - Grove, anyone? -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
On Sep 28, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Mathias Rösel wrote: might argue that there _was_ kinda ideal sound. On my way through the museum of musical instruments in Vienna, I learned that in the 16th century it was Spaltklang. The obvious question would be who said that? The museum's iPod 8) And how old is the iPod? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
I suspect a couple of things on this issue that go toward the nature of strings as it relates to sound and playing position. The concept, nature and tension of strings from an historical view point has been discussed here many times and at length. The only absolute that we can derive from these discussions is that we really don't know much for sure. The iconography indicates a move in right hand position toward the bridge as the Sixteenth Century progresses and more strings are added to the Lute. It is not difficult to assume that as more strings are added that, of necessity, they would, or should have to be of lesser tension else the instrument would implode under the combined pressure of additional courses. If this assumption is true then strings of lesser tension would have to be played at a location nearer to the bridge in order to produce a pleasing sound. I of course am no specialist and the preceding is but my theory. But still it could come back to the nature of the original period strings and our lack of knowledge of how they were made. We often make assumptions based on our ability, or inability, to duplicate what we believe to be factual. When in the end we are confronted with contradictions we are loath to think our research is flawed. Until that point when we know for sure the how's and why's of historical practices we can only explore, examine, and try to apply them to the real world of Lute playing we strive in. We should attempt to get the best sound out of the instrument and strings we have beneath our fingers at the moment. If playing near the bridge makes your instrument sound like someone dropping nails into a large empty can then don't play near the bridge. VW - Original Message - From: howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 10:52 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound On Sep 28, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Mathias Rösel wrote: might argue that there _was_ kinda ideal sound. On my way through the museum of musical instruments in Vienna, I learned that in the 16th century it was Spaltklang. The obvious question would be who said that? The museum's iPod 8) And how old is the iPod? -- 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.4/1695 - Release Date: 9/27/2008 1:11 PM
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
Well put, Vance. A very sensible account of the problem of sound ! Thanks for making things clear for everybody. There's relativity in everything, as someone said before me... ;-) Jean-Marie === 28-09-2008 18:01:08 === I suspect a couple of things on this issue that go toward the nature of strings as it relates to sound and playing position. The concept, nature and tension of strings from an historical view point has been discussed here many times and at length. The only absolute that we can derive from these discussions is that we really don't know much for sure. The iconography indicates a move in right hand position toward the bridge as the Sixteenth Century progresses and more strings are added to the Lute. It is not difficult to assume that as more strings are added that, of necessity, they would, or should have to be of lesser tension else the instrument would implode under the combined pressure of additional courses. If this assumption is true then strings of lesser tension would have to be played at a location nearer to the bridge in order to produce a pleasing sound. I of course am no specialist and the preceding is but my theory. But still it could come back to the nature of the original period strings and our lack of knowledge of how they were made. We often make assumptions based on our ability, or inability, to duplicate what we believe to be factual. When in the end we are confronted with contradictions we are loath to think our research is flawed. Until that point when we know for sure the how's and why's of historical practices we can only explore, examine, and try to apply them to the real world of Lute playing we strive in. We should attempt to get the best sound out of the instrument and strings we have beneath our fingers at the moment. If playing near the bridge makes your instrument sound like someone dropping nails into a large empty can then don't play near the bridge. VW - Original Message - From: howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 10:52 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound On Sep 28, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Mathias Rösel wrote: might argue that there _was_ kinda ideal sound. On my way through the museum of musical instruments in Vienna, I learned that in the 16th century it was Spaltklang. The obvious question would be who said that? The museum's iPod 8) And how old is the iPod? -- 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.4/1695 - Release Date: 9/27/2008 1:11 PM --- Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 28-09-2008
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:01 PM, vance wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not difficult to assume that as more strings are added that, of necessity, they would, or should have to be of lesser tension else the instrument would implode under the combined pressure of additional courses. Not to pretend to know more, but I think it's true the construction of instruments changed with the addition of strings. Hence the foundation of your theory might be false. We often make assumptions based on our ability, or inability, to duplicate what we believe to be factual. [...] We should attempt to get the best sound out of the instrument and strings we have beneath our fingers at the moment. The point in hip-playing is not to find to the best sound we are happy with today, but to find the best sound the old ones might have been happy with back then. Tune your ears to what they might have liked. I have some hands-on experience with what we in the West would call ethnic music. It's surprising to see what other people think is a beautiful sound. I take that as a sobering lesson for my 'historical' lute playing. What we think is the best sound ... at the moment, to quote you but slightly out of context, might be far off the mark if attempting to recreate a hip-sound. Not saying you are wrong, I suppose what you are describing is what I'm doing for a living most of the time, but just to have a reality check. Think of bray harps, sawari in Japanese music (sorry, my hobby horse neighing), krumhorns, c. Beauty is not a universal concept, taste does change over time. David *** David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: might argue that there _was_ kinda ideal sound. On my way through the museum of musical instruments in Vienna, I learned that in the 16th century it was Spaltklang. The obvious question would be who said that? MGG (3rd ed) had it as a usual term. Spaltklang was the usual sound ideal of medieval and baroque ensembles. The Burgundian court chapel consisted of singers, fiddles, flutes, harps, lutes etc. all of whom were supposed to be distinctly heard. By and large the same applied to broken consorts around 1600. Perhaps, the opposite will make it clear. Renaissance had instrument families perform music, i. e. families of viols, flutes, lutes etc. so as to make music sound as one whole. Another example is king Louis XIV's orchestra, the 24 Violins of the King, where several violins had to fuse or merge their respective sounds into one. I've posted my question, how to translate Spaltklang into English, to several discussion groups. Answers expected to pop up soon 8) -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
Hundreds of 16th c sources show playing over or just behind the sound hole. The situation thus reflects layers of diversity in technique: just as there was thumb middle in addition to over under, there are clearly players who played close to the bridge, near the bridge, halfway to the sound hole, just below the sound hole, and over the sound hole. What you don't see often, is the hand position between the rose and the nut, which you do see in guitar. In fact modern guitar players use a much more modern hand position for both renaissance and baroque guitar. Basically, there was no uniform technique or klangideal--just lots of players; lots of styles. One can argue that the between or near bridge position is a bit more common, but the other ones are certainly not rare. dt At 01:03 PM 9/25/2008, you wrote: A better example of a buzzy would be a bray harp, which were fairly common in the Renaissance. I know several folks who own them, although I've never actually seen them engage the bray pegs... IIRC Crawford Young said that he is having a bray lute built, since there is apparently some evidence for such instruments (not sure if it was for Ren or Medieval). Guy -Original Message- From: Sauvage Valéry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:22 PM To: Lute List Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound There's no such thing as sound that's objectively best. As soon as you say best you've eliminated objectivity from consideration. Well I'm not with you on this point... If you can't hear where the instrument is best sounding... and best can be objective (ask some acoustician specialists or as I said, ask a luthier...) I think people who listened to krumhorns might enjoy buzzing strings. -- Have you ever heard well played krumhorns quartet ? Heavenly melodies ;- Val (don't take me too serious, as I'm not, Alas...) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
On Sep 27, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Mathias Rösel wrote: Once you put the lute into a broader frame of 16th century ensemble, one might argue that there _was_ kinda ideal sound. On my way through the museum of musical instruments in Vienna, I learned that in the 16th century it was Spaltklang. The obvious question would be who said that? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
Valery, There is no such thing as a best sound or playing position. No idea of a best way to get a sound from a lute existed back then: the Italians, and especially the Venetians, have in all times excelled ...in the Consorts of grave, solemn music, sometimes running so sweetly with soft touching of the strings as may seem to ravish the hearer's spirit from his body... Whereas the Germans, as they delight most in loud music, so still music of lutes and like instruments, they like them better who strike hard upon the strings than those who with a gentle touch make sweeter melody, which they think fitter for chambers to invite sleep... the Itinerary of Fynes Moryson c.1590 So, should we emulate the Italians or the Germans today? Which is better? (Both, I think.) While we might like to imagine the Italians caressing the strings by the rose and the Germans lustily whacking down by the bridge, we really don't know how they were doing what they were doing. From this description, one might also more easily imagine a buzzing lute in the hands of a German, but of course Capirola was Italian. So much of this is subjective. Vincenzo Galilei says in Fronimo that lutes are superior to keyboard instruments because keyboard instruments have not been able, cannot, and never will be able to express the harmonies for affetti like hardness, softness, harshness, sweetness, consequently the cries, laments, shrieks, tears, and finally quietude and rage with so much grace and skill as excellent players do on the lute... Wow. Cries, laments, shrieks, tears... Powerful stuff. (Both of the above quotes, courtesy Paul O'Dette.) Obviously a variety of playing positions and sounds existed. I wholeheartedly try to embrace this. (Still working on it.) For me, however, the norm of playing closer to the bridge most of the time works better because it gives more control of articulation and dynamics. One would presume this to be an important aspect of expressing the affects. That _doesn't_ mean sempre sul ponticello e fortissimo. One last thing that many forget - the sound that comes out of a lute is quite different for the listener than for the player. Chris --- Sauvage Valéry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please name the tutors telling to play so close to the bridge ? and the iconographical evidence (yes there is some but not so much...) And the other evidence (speak with some luthiers) is to try to play the strings in different places and hear where sound is the best (objectively, not just as an idea of your ideal sound) Of couse it depends on the lute, strings and soundboard, but I'm quite sure it is not by playing close to the bridge you get the better objective sound from our instrument. Do you also think people listening to songs like Janequin wrote, Lassus and others, listeining to viols and flûtes, could like buzzing strings on frets ? I'm really not sure of this idea. (I believe Da Milano's silver nails is a poetic hyperbole, so many poetic hyperboles in this time poetry, paintings and writings) My two cents... Valéry - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Andrew Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 7:57 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound Andrew, I tend to agree with what the tutors recommend. (I don't know if I would use the words sharp or pungent to describe it, however.) There is also such circumstantial evidence as Capirola's advice to set your frets so that they actually buzz against the strings and the description of Francesco playing with thimbles into which were set little quills. Some have suggested that the thimbles/quills idea was just a poetic hyperbole. Possibly. But why would a listener from that time have thought to place such an invention in the hands of Francesco - things that would presumably produce a very, very bright sound - if brightness wasn't a desirable trait in the first place? I get the feeling that for many, playing so far over the rose is a relic of converts to the lute subconciously trying to re-create a warm tonal ideal remembered from their previous days of playing (modern) classical guitar. Personally I like playing fairly close to the bridge - there's more volume and I feel much more control over articulation and shading. You can still warm things up by moving closer to the rose if you want or brighten things by putting your pinky behind the bridge. Chris --- Andrew Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The original lute tutors consistently recommend playing close to the bridge - with the pinkie very close to the bridge - or even on or behind the bridge. Taking into account the possible differences between modern and historical strings, this still seems to indicate 16th c taste (early 16th
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
Valery, There is no such thing as a best sound or playing position. No idea of a best way to get a sound from a lute existed back then: I already tell my opinion on this, and ask luthier about it . Any luthier on the list ? The matter of taste of ancient players and listener is unknown now. You can quote this or that, and who knows what else was said ? (same with nails playing... one quotes what he want to hear...) I'm talking about the place on the lute that sounds, you can go more or less to have some effects but there is a place your lute is at the optimal sound. Again quoting old texts is interesting, playing the instrument is more interesting IMO... (and buzzing is certainly not the rule...) V. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
On Sep 26, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Sauvage Valéry wrote: I already tell my opinion on this, and ask luthier about it . Any luthier on the list ? The matter of taste of ancient players and listener is unknown now. You can quote this or that, and who knows what else was said ? (same with nails playing... one quotes what he want to hear...) I'm talking about the place on the lute that sounds, you can go more or less to have some effects but there is a place your lute is at the optimal sound. I'm sure someone experienced and schooled in lutes and acoustics can identify the loudest sound, or the sound with the shortest transient or longest sustain, or highest proportion of bass or of overtones in the 800-1200hz range, or the sound that's most like a trombone or least like a crumhorn, but best or optimal is a matter of taste, not capable of objective verification. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
The original lute tutors consistently recommend playing close to the bridge - with the pinkie very close to the bridge - or even on or behind the bridge. Taking into account the possible differences between modern and historical strings, this still seems to indicate 16th c taste (early 16th c at least) was for a much sharper, more pungent sound than most modern lutenists are playing. The close-to- the-bridge sound is certainly surprising - I keep trying it but my hand keeps creeping towards the rose... On 25 Sep 2008, at 02:00, Stephen Fryer wrote: What sort of sound were they trying for in e.g. the 16th century? Do we have any evidence on this? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
Andrew, Yes, it seems obvious that players, at least later in the baroque period, used a technique as you are describing. Actually, I think you have an assumption that they were after a sharper, more pungent sound. Toyohiko has shown the contrary. He plays with a historical technique, close to the bridge, but he uses a low tension gut string set, and he gets a beautiful sound. ed At 09:24 AM 9/25/2008 +0100, Andrew Gibbs wrote: The original lute tutors consistently recommend playing close to the bridge - with the pinkie very close to the bridge - or even on or behind the bridge. Taking into account the possible differences between modern and historical strings, this still seems to indicate 16th c taste (early 16th c at least) was for a much sharper, more pungent sound than most modern lutenists are playing. The close-to- the-bridge sound is certainly surprising - I keep trying it but my hand keeps creeping towards the rose... On 25 Sep 2008, at 02:00, Stephen Fryer wrote: What sort of sound were they trying for in e.g. the 16th century? Do we have any evidence on this? -- 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.1/1688 - Release Date: 9/24/2008 6:29 AM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
Andrew, I tend to agree with what the tutors recommend. (I don't know if I would use the words sharp or pungent to describe it, however.) There is also such circumstantial evidence as Capirola's advice to set your frets so that they actually buzz against the strings and the description of Francesco playing with thimbles into which were set little quills. Some have suggested that the thimbles/quills idea was just a poetic hyperbole. Possibly. But why would a listener from that time have thought to place such an invention in the hands of Francesco - things that would presumably produce a very, very bright sound - if brightness wasn't a desirable trait in the first place? I get the feeling that for many, playing so far over the rose is a relic of converts to the lute subconciously trying to re-create a warm tonal ideal remembered from their previous days of playing (modern) classical guitar. Personally I like playing fairly close to the bridge - there's more volume and I feel much more control over articulation and shading. You can still warm things up by moving closer to the rose if you want or brighten things by putting your pinky behind the bridge. Chris --- Andrew Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The original lute tutors consistently recommend playing close to the bridge - with the pinkie very close to the bridge - or even on or behind the bridge. Taking into account the possible differences between modern and historical strings, this still seems to indicate 16th c taste (early 16th c at least) was for a much sharper, more pungent sound than most modern lutenists are playing. The close-to- the-bridge sound is certainly surprising - I keep trying it but my hand keeps creeping towards the rose... On 25 Sep 2008, at 02:00, Stephen Fryer wrote: What sort of sound were they trying for in e.g. the 16th century? Do we have any evidence on this? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
Could you please name the tutors telling to play so close to the bridge ? and the iconographical evidence (yes there is some but not so much...) And the other evidence (speak with some luthiers) is to try to play the strings in different places and hear where sound is the best (objectively, not just as an idea of your ideal sound) Of couse it depends on the lute, strings and soundboard, but I'm quite sure it is not by playing close to the bridge you get the better objective sound from our instrument. Do you also think people listening to songs like Janequin wrote, Lassus and others, listeining to viols and flûtes, could like buzzing strings on frets ? I'm really not sure of this idea. (I believe Da Milano's silver nails is a poetic hyperbole, so many poetic hyperboles in this time poetry, paintings and writings) My two cents... Valéry - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Andrew Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 7:57 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound Andrew, I tend to agree with what the tutors recommend. (I don't know if I would use the words sharp or pungent to describe it, however.) There is also such circumstantial evidence as Capirola's advice to set your frets so that they actually buzz against the strings and the description of Francesco playing with thimbles into which were set little quills. Some have suggested that the thimbles/quills idea was just a poetic hyperbole. Possibly. But why would a listener from that time have thought to place such an invention in the hands of Francesco - things that would presumably produce a very, very bright sound - if brightness wasn't a desirable trait in the first place? I get the feeling that for many, playing so far over the rose is a relic of converts to the lute subconciously trying to re-create a warm tonal ideal remembered from their previous days of playing (modern) classical guitar. Personally I like playing fairly close to the bridge - there's more volume and I feel much more control over articulation and shading. You can still warm things up by moving closer to the rose if you want or brighten things by putting your pinky behind the bridge. Chris --- Andrew Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The original lute tutors consistently recommend playing close to the bridge - with the pinkie very close to the bridge - or even on or behind the bridge. Taking into account the possible differences between modern and historical strings, this still seems to indicate 16th c taste (early 16th c at least) was for a much sharper, more pungent sound than most modern lutenists are playing. The close-to- the-bridge sound is certainly surprising - I keep trying it but my hand keeps creeping towards the rose... On 25 Sep 2008, at 02:00, Stephen Fryer wrote: What sort of sound were they trying for in e.g. the 16th century? Do we have any evidence on this? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
Yes you're right, sharp and pungent is overstating it - brightness is a good way of putting it. Or perhaps pluckier? as in the old lute- stop-on-harpsichords argument. But to argue against myself there's lots of iconographical evidence for lutenists not playing close to the bridge... On 25 Sep 2008, at 18:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew, I tend to agree with what the tutors recommend. (I don't know if I would use the words sharp or pungent to describe it, however.) There is also such circumstantial evidence as Capirola's advice to set your frets so that they actually buzz against the strings and the description of Francesco playing with thimbles into which were set little quills. Some have suggested that the thimbles/quills idea was just a poetic hyperbole. Possibly. But why would a listener from that time have thought to place such an invention in the hands of Francesco - things that would presumably produce a very, very bright sound - if brightness wasn't a desirable trait in the first place? I get the feeling that for many, playing so far over the rose is a relic of converts to the lute subconciously trying to re-create a warm tonal ideal remembered from their previous days of playing (modern) classical guitar. Personally I like playing fairly close to the bridge - there's more volume and I feel much more control over articulation and shading. You can still warm things up by moving closer to the rose if you want or brighten things by putting your pinky behind the bridge. Chris -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Sauvage Valéry wrote: And the other evidence (speak with some luthiers) is to try to play the strings in different places and hear where sound is the best (objectively, not just as an idea of your ideal sound) Of couse it depends on the lute, strings and soundboard, but I'm quite sure it is not by playing close to the bridge you get the better objective sound from our instrument. There's no such thing as sound that's objectively best. As soon as you say best you've eliminated objectivity from consideration. Do you also think people listening to songs like Janequin wrote, Lassus and others, listeining to viols and flûtes, could like buzzing strings on frets ? I think people who listened to krumhorns might enjoy buzzing strings. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
Hello Valery Thomas Mace for sure. I'm fairly sure Marin Mersenne and Mary Burwell. Now I was sure Gerle said something like 'plant the 4th and the 5th finger on the soundboard close to the bridge' - but on checking I find he actually says 'place the little finger and the ringfinger on the soundboard, not on the rose, but a little lower'. Hmm, false memory... Or maybe it was Newsidler who said to put the last finger on the soundboard very close to the bridge - I'll check. So I must re-phrase my statement: The original lute tutors consistently recommend playing close to the bridge... to SOME of the original lute tutors recommend playing close to the bridge... Andrew On 25 Sep 2008, at 19:16, Sauvage Valéry wrote: Could you please name the tutors telling to play so close to the bridge ? and the iconographical evidence (yes there is some but not so much...) And the other evidence (speak with some luthiers) is to try to play the strings in different places and hear where sound is the best (objectively, not just as an idea of your ideal sound) Of couse it depends on the lute, strings and soundboard, but I'm quite sure it is not by playing close to the bridge you get the better objective sound from our instrument. Do you also think people listening to songs like Janequin wrote, Lassus and others, listeining to viols and flûtes, could like buzzing strings on frets ? I'm really not sure of this idea. (I believe Da Milano's silver nails is a poetic hyperbole, so many poetic hyperboles in this time poetry, paintings and writings) My two cents... Valéry To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
Valery, I was going to ask the same question about which tutors advocate playing close to the bridge... I remember something like that but in the baroque period, not in the renaissance, and it seems that the increasing number of strings/courses influenced the right hand position and that gradually the right hand came closer to the bridge than in the earlier period. I had set a couple of pages to demonstrate this and other things too on the basis of iconographical evidence. At the time there was a discussion about the use of the left hand thumb to stop strings over the neck, a practice clearly illustrated in a lot a paintings in the 16th century and quite common for jazz guitarists nowadays. At the same time there was also a controversy about Hoppy Smith's choice to play near or above the rose for his Dowland's programme, which I thought to be a very good idea indeed and musically rewarding. Then, to push my argument forward I put these pages online and you can have a look at them at : http://le.luth.free.fr/renaissance/index.htmlfor the 16th century http://le.luth.free.fr/baroque/index.htmlfor the 17th century http://le.luth.free.fr/baroque2/index.html for the 18th century http://le.luth.free.fr/pouce/index.html about the use of the left hand thumb, and Arthur J. Ness gave more information on that at http://mysite.verizon.net/vzepq31c/thumb.html Feel free to react... or not ! Jean-Marie === 25-09-2008 20:16:40 === Could you please name the tutors telling to play so close to the bridge ? and the iconographical evidence (yes there is some but not so much...) And the other evidence (speak with some luthiers) is to try to play the strings in different places and hear where sound is the best (objectively, not just as an idea of your ideal sound) Of couse it depends on the lute, strings and soundboard, but I'm quite sure it is not by playing close to the bridge you get the better objective sound from our instrument. Do you also think people listening to songs like Janequin wrote, Lassus and others, listeining to viols and flûtes, could like buzzing strings on frets ? I'm really not sure of this idea. (I believe Da Milano's silver nails is a poetic hyperbole, so many poetic hyperboles in this time poetry, paintings and writings) My two cents... Valéry - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Andrew Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 7:57 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound Andrew, I tend to agree with what the tutors recommend. (I don't know if I would use the words sharp or pungent to describe it, however.) There is also such circumstantial evidence as Capirola's advice to set your frets so that they actually buzz against the strings and the description of Francesco playing with thimbles into which were set little quills. Some have suggested that the thimbles/quills idea was just a poetic hyperbole. Possibly. But why would a listener from that time have thought to place such an invention in the hands of Francesco - things that would presumably produce a very, very bright sound - if brightness wasn't a desirable trait in the first place? I get the feeling that for many, playing so far over the rose is a relic of converts to the lute subconciously trying to re-create a warm tonal ideal remembered from their previous days of playing (modern) classical guitar. Personally I like playing fairly close to the bridge - there's more volume and I feel much more control over articulation and shading. You can still warm things up by moving closer to the rose if you want or brighten things by putting your pinky behind the bridge. Chris --- Andrew Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The original lute tutors consistently recommend playing close to the bridge - with the pinkie very close to the bridge - or even on or behind the bridge. Taking into account the possible differences between modern and historical strings, this still seems to indicate 16th c taste (early 16th c at least) was for a much sharper, more pungent sound than most modern lutenists are playing. The close-to- the-bridge sound is certainly surprising - I keep trying it but my hand keeps creeping towards the rose... On 25 Sep 2008, at 02:00, Stephen Fryer wrote: What sort of sound were they trying for in e.g. the 16th century? Do we have any evidence on this? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --- Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 25-09-2008 N ¶è®ß¶¬+-±ç¥Ëbú+«b¢vÛiÿü0ÁË j»f¢ëayÛ
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
There's no such thing as sound that's objectively best. As soon as you say best you've eliminated objectivity from consideration. Well I'm not with you on this point... If you can't hear where the instrument is best sounding... and best can be objective (ask some acoustician specialists or as I said, ask a luthier...) I think people who listened to krumhorns might enjoy buzzing strings. -- Have you ever heard well played krumhorns quartet ? Heavenly melodies ;- Val (don't take me too serious, as I'm not, Alas...) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound
A better example of a buzzy would be a bray harp, which were fairly common in the Renaissance. I know several folks who own them, although I've never actually seen them engage the bray pegs... IIRC Crawford Young said that he is having a bray lute built, since there is apparently some evidence for such instruments (not sure if it was for Ren or Medieval). Guy -Original Message- From: Sauvage Valéry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:22 PM To: Lute List Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound There's no such thing as sound that's objectively best. As soon as you say best you've eliminated objectivity from consideration. Well I'm not with you on this point... If you can't hear where the instrument is best sounding... and best can be objective (ask some acoustician specialists or as I said, ask a luthier...) I think people who listened to krumhorns might enjoy buzzing strings. -- Have you ever heard well played krumhorns quartet ? Heavenly melodies ;- Val (don't take me too serious, as I'm not, Alas...) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound, esoteric or worldly?
- Original Message - From: vance wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound, esoteric or worldly? That is I believe the key. It is the old emigration from the Guitar and its single string configuration. Many starting on the Lute actually only play one string in a course and may not realize it for years. It takes a modification of technique from that used on the Guitar to play the Lute so that it sounds like it is supposed to. - Original Message - From: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 4:35 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute sound, esoteric or worldly? I think it is also about one or two strings. Players who get a big round sound, which is neither soft nor weed whackery, hit two strings pretty consistently. One of the nice things about video is you can see the strings vibrate. dt 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1683 - Release Date: 9/21/2008 10:10 AM
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound, esoteric or worldly?
in a way I have found that the aim to tone production among lutenists could perhaps be divided to two extremes: there are those very gentle players, who hardly touch their strings, and then there are those, who nearly beat the strings. I'm not a prof player, but I know both approaches. On a day when there's too much tension in my whole body, there's too much tension in my fingers, resulting in a somewhat banging and clashing sound. Not nice, but loud enough. Once I realize what I'm doing, I try to relax by concentrating on the RH finger tips. You know, that absolute beginner's exercise. Get a light grip to both strings of the course with your forefinger. Push the course toward the soundboard a bit, slightly letting bend the 1st (from the tip) knuckle. Then let go. Try to connect the parts of that movements into a whole. Do it once, in one touch. On a good day, all I have to do is to touch the strings in the described way, kinda tapping, and the sound is just there with only slightly less volume than the other way, notwithstanding thumb-in or thumb-out. Mind you, volume is not the first thing I want to get out of my lute. Mathias Esoteric and worldly players - do these words function in English? Anyhow you can easily categorize also the lute heroes this way, not to speak of us ordinals... I - as an ordinal - put myself to the latter category: I really try to make the strings sound. I am even ready to use tiny violence to the strings to make them vibrate, to make the body of the instrument resonate. Arto, I have no lute heroes.Youtube etc shows well enough that there are amazing players of plucked instruments from many cultures who can play a million notes a second. Just as an amateur, and in the way you have set the scene, I'm in the opposite camp to you. England is a small country with a lot of people in it and, unless you are rich, other people are not far away. Stuart But I also can appreciate the opposite attitude, the soft and gentle, perhaps philosophical touch. But to me lute really is of this world, means of my intentions, not so much some living history... Please, do not ask me to name, to which group I set any of our lute heroes! :-) Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute sound, esoteric or worldly?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear lutenists, in a way I have found that the aim to tone production among lutenists could perhaps be divided to two extremes: there are those very gentle players, who hardly touch their strings, and then there are those, who nearly beat the strings. Esoteric and worldly players - do these words function in English? Anyhow you can easily categorize also the lute heroes this way, not to speak of us ordinals... I - as an ordinal - put myself to the latter category: I really try to make the strings sound. I am even ready to use tiny violence to the strings to make them vibrate, to make the body of the instrument resonate. Arto, I have no lute heroes.Youtube etc shows well enough that there are amazing players of plucked instruments from many cultures who can play a million notes a second. Just as an amateur, and in the way you have set the scene, I'm in the opposite camp to you. England is a small country with a lot of people in it and, unless you are rich, other people are not far away. Stuart But I also can appreciate the opposite attitude, the soft and gentle, perhaps philosophical touch. But to me lute really is of this world, means of my intentions, not so much some living history... Please, do not ask me to name, to which group I set any of our lute heroes! :-) Arto 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1680 - Release Date: 19/09/2008 08:25
