[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
The planting is an interesting topic which one could discuss from many angles, however, the essence here is that if youplant the finger, you stop it from vibrating. So for legato playing, one must drive through or use a combination of set and drive through. There are times when some of the fingers of both hands need to be pre-positioned. In the video you can see that I put some of the fingers down into the strings before I use them., trying to stop only one of the two strings. Other times I do not and drive through the strings. Important to mention that this is just what I have figured out for myself after forty+ years of noodling, it isn't the right way. There are so many ways to strike the string and that is why the lute is so intriguing and subtle in articulation. However, when this is not the case, as in playing a riff or a simpler textures I recommend driving through the strings, which in turn requires enough space between the pairs, and a very well timed and placed stroke.In driving through the strings, ideally the string makes a new note BEFORE the old note has ended. Technically, this overlapping of notes is called over legato. The reason that this is important is that the big advantage of double strings is that they can ring through better than single strings, and, interestingly, thumb out and thumb over ring through best, however, thumb in makes a rounder sound at the expense of legato. It is not always possible to play over legato, but it is an important sound for the lute. Sometimes, those fingers really net to be set in place. I think I have a sneaking suspicion that if I could raise my technique two levels higher, I could drive through every string on every note. I have seen classical guitarists come close to this, of course, it is harder on double strings. Alas, I may not get there! But never say never. dt __ From: William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk To: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thu, April 26, 2012 9:46:32 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Thanks David, That's very helpful and a systematic analysis. The approach I've used for most of my lutes is to use the string spacing of an old 9c lute (label Matteus Vogt) as a starting point. It belonged to the Lute Society at one time. I took a rubbing of the strings (as did a few other UK makers) and measuring it just now, it pretty much fits the criteria you specify regarding the spacing at bridge and nut. In fact comparing it with the spacings I now have for many other old lutes, it's pretty much average. The point about hitting the two strings together is, of course, important. I had lessons from Diana Poulton (thumb out, close to bridge) and Michael Schaeffer (thumb inside, close to rose) who were both very particular about that issue and the tone production that resulted. Both said that the finger should be planted on the strings so you could feel them both, before plucking. There were, of course, at that time many very eminient lutenists still using nail, and one told me that he was happy to hit one of the strings and the other would vibrate in sympathy! Your other point about the second course lying under the knuckle of the first lh finger is one I haven't come across before - I'll check my lutes and see how they measure up against that one. As far as the nut is concerned, I agree that unless you have a spacing that works for you, some experimentation is needed. I wonder if you ever came across any of Jacob van der Geest's lutes? He made lots of very narrow (0.5mm?), shallow grooves side by side right across the nut and the player could place the strings to suit him/herself. I'm not sure how successful it was, but his instruments were certainly much revered at one time. Anyway - Plenty to think about there. Thanks again! Bill From: David Tayler [1]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, 26 April 2012, 2:01 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Take a small, thin piece of wood 5mm, 5.2mm and so on Place it carefully between the paired strings, right at the bridge, careful not to scratch the soundboard or damage your strings (you can smooth the wood if you use gut. Increase the 2nd and 3rd course width until you can hit two strings clearly and cleanly. Then measure, then adjust. Start with 5.2mm If your nut spacing is too close, you can make a very, very thin mark with a file Then move one string out wider at the nut. You will quickly find the best ratio with no math needed :) Just don't
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Thank you, David, for your detailed suggestions regarding string spacing, and also for your very fine HD video of the Milan piece. As you say, ten minutes with a good teacher could resolve many technique issues for many of us. But for various reasons, many of us don't have ready access to a good teacher. Your methodical research and clear explanations will be very helpful to me, and - I'm sure - many others. Ned On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:41 PM, David Tayler wrote: If you follow the link and use HD plus the pause button in full screen you can see close ups of striking two strings. However, it is better to be shown how to do it by a real person :) You can see in the video that one string (the near string) goes under the other one, and both strings are plucked with a slight curved stroke. Also you can see that my fingers are well below the strings. Now I'm not saying that is the right way to do it, and, indeed, I use four or five hand positions, thumb over, thumb centre, etc, etc. Each has its own challenges, It is just one way to do it. And, really, I could not do it without the right spacing. It would be nearly impossible. So for me, what makes a good lute: setup. I can play an average or even below average lute and get a pretty good sound with the right spacing. I this case, I use thumb in: egg The other variant is thumb in: squid where the fingers are more extended. That is, the thumb is inside the hand, mostly, and the hand is shaped as if it could hold an egg. In fact, I could lay one! Most importantly, the wrist is very loose. The wrist is a biggie as far as tone goes. The video was made with a follow focus tracking so you can see everything mostly in focus. [1]http://youtu.be/soTjO9WlsAs?hd=1t=2m16s __ From: William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk To: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net Cc: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wed, April 25, 2012 11:32:00 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? I haven't come across that formula David. Can you please point me to a source for the recipe? It could save a lot of time and money! Thanks, Bill From: David Tayler [2]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: William Samson [3]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 18:57 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Simple geometry. It's all been worked out, unlike forty years ago when we worked it out. No different from buying clothes. dt At 11:55 PM 4/9/2012, you wrote: A luthier would need a formula relating hand dimensions (hand span, fistmele and so on) in order to build a lute that's exactly the right size for a particular player. Without such a formula, all the luthier gets is a headache when asked to build a lute that's the right size for a particular player. If it's down to the player to decide what spacings they need, how will they determine that without having a selection of instruments to try first? Not as easy as in the time of Laux Maler as David Van Edwards so amusingly pointed out! I don't see how making exact copies of original instruments actually helps here - There are variations in these too - Compare, for example the well-known 7c Hieber with the 7c Venere of about the same size (58/59cm?). The Hieber has a wide string spacing at the nut end, and the Venere is almost impossibly narrow here for most players I know. Otherwise, there's not a lot of difference in dimensions - bridge spacing, scale, body dimensions . . . I sympathise with your point of view, but can't see how these objectives can be achieved in practice without buying, trying and then rejecting a goodish number of instruments. Bill From: David Tayler [4]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012, 22:27 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my experience that the player will have to go through a very long retraining period after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers, the size of the hand (and fingers) and the rules which govern the span
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Thanks David, That's very helpful and a systematic analysis. The approach I've used for most of my lutes is to use the string spacing of an old 9c lute (label Matteus Vogt) as a starting point. It belonged to the Lute Society at one time. I took a rubbing of the strings (as did a few other UK makers) and measuring it just now, it pretty much fits the criteria you specify regarding the spacing at bridge and nut. In fact comparing it with the spacings I now have for many other old lutes, it's pretty much average. The point about hitting the two strings together is, of course, important. I had lessons from Diana Poulton (thumb out, close to bridge) and Michael Schaeffer (thumb inside, close to rose) who were both very particular about that issue and the tone production that resulted. Both said that the finger should be planted on the strings so you could feel them both, before plucking. There were, of course, at that time many very eminient lutenists still using nail, and one told me that he was happy to hit one of the strings and the other would vibrate in sympathy! Your other point about the second course lying under the knuckle of the first lh finger is one I haven't come across before - I'll check my lutes and see how they measure up against that one. As far as the nut is concerned, I agree that unless you have a spacing that works for you, some experimentation is needed. I wonder if you ever came across any of Jacob van der Geest's lutes? He made lots of very narrow (0.5mm?), shallow grooves side by side right across the nut and the player could place the strings to suit him/herself. I'm not sure how successful it was, but his instruments were certainly much revered at one time. Anyway - Plenty to think about there. Thanks again! Bill From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, 26 April 2012, 2:01 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Take a small, thin piece of wood 5mm, 5.2mm and so on Place it carefully between the paired strings, right at the bridge, careful not to scratch the soundboard or damage your strings (you can smooth the wood if you use gut. Increase the 2nd and 3rd course width until you can hit two strings clearly and cleanly. Then measure, then adjust. Start with 5.2mm If your nut spacing is too close, you can make a very, very thin mark with a file Then move one string out wider at the nut. You will quickly find the best ratio with no math needed :) Just don't make it too wide, or the total span will be too wide. If you have very small hands, you may have to go with roughly parallel where the spacing is narrow at the bridge and a bit wider at the nut. But I dodn't advise this as it does not always work. Gottlieb's lutes are sometimes set up perfect in narrow, roughly parallel And they are really nice lutes, very interesting sound. When I was 17, I guess this would be 1972, I just could not stand this buzz. So I took a chopstick, and made tiny spacers for the nut. I made a nut, then sawed it into slices. Each slice was a pair of strings, and I moved the pieces around till I figured it out. Buzz free since then. However, the thin lines is easier. You can make a practice nut if you do not want to mess up the one you have. Incidentally, course two MUST and I mean MUST lie under the knuckle, or you will never make a good bar chord sound. That's another story Basically, with the right stroke, and the right setup, the lute is easy to play, because it was an instrument that everyone played. However, if you have not learned to strike two strings dead on, you may have some difficulty. Most people do not have the right stroke because the spacing is wrong. Then someone like Ron McFarlane can show you, or a few other people, to hit two strings. 'That's where the pedagogical skill comes in. It takes ten minutes, plain and simple, to show someone. Maybe someone could do it in five. I made a lute video recently with a macro cam that shows the stroke I use, but you are free to find your own, and everyone's hand is different. There is no right way to play. But the buzzing, the splats, it is too much--I find it unacceptable. Sure you can edit them all out in a recording--and that is exactly what happens. But what is the point? Your choice, ten years or ten minutes! Personally, if I had a lute that was not set up right, I would sell it. Too much aggravation. But some people don't mind, and the vast majority of people think their lute is just right, so that is really OK, as well. dt __ From
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
I haven't come across that formula David. Can you please point me to a source for the recipe? It could save a lot of time and money! Thanks, Bill From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 18:57 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Simple geometry. It's all been worked out, unlike forty years ago when we worked it out. No different from buying clothes. dt At 11:55 PM 4/9/2012, you wrote: A luthier would need a formula relating hand dimensions (hand span, fistmele and so on) in order to build a lute that's exactly the right size for a particular player. Without such a formula, all the luthier gets is a headache when asked to build a lute that's the right size for a particular player. If it's down to the player to decide what spacings they need, how will they determine that without having a selection of instruments to try first? Not as easy as in the time of Laux Maler as David Van Edwards so amusingly pointed out! I don't see how making exact copies of original instruments actually helps here - There are variations in these too - Compare, for example the well-known 7c Hieber with the 7c Venere of about the same size (58/59cm?). The Hieber has a wide string spacing at the nut end, and the Venere is almost impossibly narrow here for most players I know. Otherwise, there's not a lot of difference in dimensions - bridge spacing, scale, body dimensions . . . I sympathise with your point of view, but can't see how these objectives can be achieved in practice without buying, trying and then rejecting a goodish number of instruments. Bill From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012, 22:27 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my experience that the player will have to go through a very long retraining period after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers, the size of the hand (and fingers) and the rules which govern the span and spacing of strings. Without these two numbers in balance, it is impossible, or very difficult to make a good sound. When these numbers are in balance, it is easy to make a good sound; in fact, it is difficult to make a bad sound. No one would wear size 4 or size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though the lute is from the age of custom made. Equally sadly, most people do not understand the basic physics of twang, thwack and pluck, which involves some simple experiments with a special bridge and nut that are universally adjustable. Generally speaking, and I mean VERY generally, the plucking-point spacing is wrong, that is, the place where you actually pluck the string, and it is almost always too narrow. However, it is the ratio of the bridge to nut, factoring the string length, and figured at YOUR plucking point that gives numbers for the thou shalt not buzz dimensions. Empirically, anyone can see that the spacing is different at any point on the string. A player with years of experience can give you some advice, after watching you play, about the setup. You may have to compromise somewhat on the overall span, or use a sliding scale so that the treble has more room. After these two biggies, there is a seemingly endless list of features, all of which are important. And here you will need some experience to guide you. However, I would add that most lutes made nowadays are not copies of originals. They are rescaled, resized, rebarred, rebridged, reglued, revarnished. Available is everything: everything-except-original. Now, you may want that. Personally, I think everyone needs a reality check instrument that is a copy of an original. Otherwise, it is just a guitar, basically, with wonky pegs. Since you asked about sound in your list, it is no fun playing a monochromatic instrument of any kind
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Take a small, thin piece of wood 5mm, 5.2mm and so on Place it carefully between the paired strings, right at the bridge, careful not to scratch the soundboard or damage your strings (you can smooth the wood if you use gut. Increase the 2nd and 3rd course width until you can hit two strings clearly and cleanly. Then measure, then adjust. Start with 5.2mm If your nut spacing is too close, you can make a very, very thin mark with a file Then move one string out wider at the nut. You will quickly find the best ratio with no math needed :) Just don't make it too wide, or the total span will be too wide. If you have very small hands, you may have to go with roughly parallel where the spacing is narrow at the bridge and a bit wider at the nut. But I dodn't advise this as it does not always work. Gottlieb's lutes are sometimes set up perfect in narrow, roughly parallel And they are really nice lutes, very interesting sound. When I was 17, I guess this would be 1972, I just could not stand this buzz. So I took a chopstick, and made tiny spacers for the nut. I made a nut, then sawed it into slices. Each slice was a pair of strings, and I moved the pieces around till I figured it out. Buzz free since then. However, the thin lines is easier. You can make a practice nut if you do not want to mess up the one you have. Incidentally, course two MUST and I mean MUST lie under the knuckle, or you will never make a good bar chord sound. That's another story Basically, with the right stroke, and the right setup, the lute is easy to play, because it was an instrument that everyone played. However, if you have not learned to strike two strings dead on, you may have some difficulty. Most people do not have the right stroke because the spacing is wrong. Then someone like Ron McFarlane can show you, or a few other people, to hit two strings. 'That's where the pedagogical skill comes in. It takes ten minutes, plain and simple, to show someone. Maybe someone could do it in five. I made a lute video recently with a macro cam that shows the stroke I use, but you are free to find your own, and everyone's hand is different. There is no right way to play. But the buzzing, the splats, it is too much--I find it unacceptable. Sure you can edit them all out in a recording--and that is exactly what happens. But what is the point? Your choice, ten years or ten minutes! Personally, if I had a lute that was not set up right, I would sell it. Too much aggravation. But some people don't mind, and the vast majority of people think their lute is just right, so that is really OK, as well. dt __ From: William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk To: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net Cc: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wed, April 25, 2012 11:32:00 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? I haven't come across that formula David. Can you please point me to a source for the recipe? It could save a lot of time and money! Thanks, Bill From: David Tayler [1]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: William Samson [2]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 18:57 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Simple geometry. It's all been worked out, unlike forty years ago when we worked it out. No different from buying clothes. dt At 11:55 PM 4/9/2012, you wrote: A luthier would need a formula relating hand dimensions (hand span, fistmele and so on) in order to build a lute that's exactly the right size for a particular player. Without such a formula, all the luthier gets is a headache when asked to build a lute that's the right size for a particular player. If it's down to the player to decide what spacings they need, how will they determine that without having a selection of instruments to try first? Not as easy as in the time of Laux Maler as David Van Edwards so amusingly pointed out! I don't see how making exact copies of original instruments actually helps here - There are variations in these too - Compare, for example the well-known 7c Hieber with the 7c Venere of about the same size (58/59cm?). The Hieber has a wide string spacing at the nut end, and the Venere is almost impossibly narrow here for most players I know. Otherwise, there's not a lot of difference in dimensions - bridge spacing, scale, body dimensions . . . I sympathise with your point of view, but can't see how these objectives can be achieved in practice without buying, trying and then rejecting a goodish number of instruments. Bill From: David Tayler [3]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
If you follow the link and use HD plus the pause button in full screen you can see close ups of striking two strings. However, it is better to be shown how to do it by a real person :) You can see in the video that one string (the near string) goes under the other one, and both strings are plucked with a slight curved stroke. Also you can see that my fingers are well below the strings. Now I'm not saying that is the right way to do it, and, indeed, I use four or five hand positions, thumb over, thumb centre, etc, etc. Each has its own challenges, It is just one way to do it. And, really, I could not do it without the right spacing. It would be nearly impossible. So for me, what makes a good lute: setup. I can play an average or even below average lute and get a pretty good sound with the right spacing. I this case, I use thumb in: egg The other variant is thumb in: squid where the fingers are more extended. That is, the thumb is inside the hand, mostly, and the hand is shaped as if it could hold an egg. In fact, I could lay one! Most importantly, the wrist is very loose. The wrist is a biggie as far as tone goes. The video was made with a follow focus tracking so you can see everything mostly in focus. [1]http://youtu.be/soTjO9WlsAs?hd=1t=2m16s __ From: William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk To: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net Cc: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wed, April 25, 2012 11:32:00 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? I haven't come across that formula David. Can you please point me to a source for the recipe? It could save a lot of time and money! Thanks, Bill From: David Tayler [2]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: William Samson [3]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 18:57 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Simple geometry. It's all been worked out, unlike forty years ago when we worked it out. No different from buying clothes. dt At 11:55 PM 4/9/2012, you wrote: A luthier would need a formula relating hand dimensions (hand span, fistmele and so on) in order to build a lute that's exactly the right size for a particular player. Without such a formula, all the luthier gets is a headache when asked to build a lute that's the right size for a particular player. If it's down to the player to decide what spacings they need, how will they determine that without having a selection of instruments to try first? Not as easy as in the time of Laux Maler as David Van Edwards so amusingly pointed out! I don't see how making exact copies of original instruments actually helps here - There are variations in these too - Compare, for example the well-known 7c Hieber with the 7c Venere of about the same size (58/59cm?). The Hieber has a wide string spacing at the nut end, and the Venere is almost impossibly narrow here for most players I know. Otherwise, there's not a lot of difference in dimensions - bridge spacing, scale, body dimensions . . . I sympathise with your point of view, but can't see how these objectives can be achieved in practice without buying, trying and then rejecting a goodish number of instruments. Bill From: David Tayler [4]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012, 22:27 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my experience that the player will have to go through a very long retraining period after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers, the size of the hand (and fingers) and the rules which govern the span and spacing of strings. Without these two numbers in balance, it is impossible, or very difficult to make a good sound. When these numbers are in balance, it is easy to make a good sound; in fact, it is difficult to make a bad sound. No one would wear size 4 or size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
A luthier would need a formula relating hand dimensions (hand span, fistmele and so on) in order to build a lute that's exactly the right size for a particular player. Without such a formula, all the luthier gets is a headache when asked to build a lute that's the right size for a particular player. If it's down to the player to decide what spacings they need, how will they determine that without having a selection of instruments to try first? Not as easy as in the time of Laux Maler as David Van Edwards so amusingly pointed out! I don't see how making exact copies of original instruments actually helps here - There are variations in these too - Compare, for example the well-known 7c Hieber with the 7c Venere of about the same size (58/59cm?). The Hieber has a wide string spacing at the nut end, and the Venere is almost impossibly narrow here for most players I know. Otherwise, there's not a lot of difference in dimensions - bridge spacing, scale, body dimensions . . . I sympathise with your point of view, but can't see how these objectives can be achieved in practice without buying, trying and then rejecting a goodish number of instruments. Bill From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012, 22:27 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my experience that the player will have to go through a very long retraining period after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers, the size of the hand (and fingers) and the rules which govern the span and spacing of strings. Without these two numbers in balance, it is impossible, or very difficult to make a good sound. When these numbers are in balance, it is easy to make a good sound; in fact, it is difficult to make a bad sound. No one would wear size 4 or size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though the lute is from the age of custom made. Equally sadly, most people do not understand the basic physics of twang, thwack and pluck, which involves some simple experiments with a special bridge and nut that are universally adjustable. Generally speaking, and I mean VERY generally, the plucking-point spacing is wrong, that is, the place where you actually pluck the string, and it is almost always too narrow. However, it is the ratio of the bridge to nut, factoring the string length, and figured at YOUR plucking point that gives numbers for the thou shalt not buzz dimensions. Empirically, anyone can see that the spacing is different at any point on the string. A player with years of experience can give you some advice, after watching you play, about the setup. You may have to compromise somewhat on the overall span, or use a sliding scale so that the treble has more room. After these two biggies, there is a seemingly endless list of features, all of which are important. And here you will need some experience to guide you. However, I would add that most lutes made nowadays are not copies of originals. They are rescaled, resized, rebarred, rebridged, reglued, revarnished. Available is everything: everything-except-original. Now, you may want that. Personally, I think everyone needs a reality check instrument that is a copy of an original. Otherwise, it is just a guitar, basically, with wonky pegs. Since you asked about sound in your list, it is no fun playing a monochromatic instrument of any kind, but that is just a personal preference. I would say most lutes made today lean towards monochromatic. Main thing is to make a good sound. If you aren't making a beautiful sound, it isn't you: your lute is set up wrong, is the wrong size, or both. Lute players may think that their feet are the wrong size, but when you think about it, this cannot be the case. Everyone is different, and the instrument must fit. My teacher told me that you don't choose a lute, it chooses you. Maybe that is true. dt __ From: William Samson [1]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk To: Lute List [2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
My teacher told me that you don't choose a lute, it chooses you. Maybe that is true. That is true, you know it when you feel it, but it may take years of playing experience on many instruments to finally recognize that right and perfect match up when it happens. My once-in-a-lifetime lute didn't show up until 2010- and I have been playing lutes for about 40 years, and I wasn't even looking for a new R-lute anymore. Sometimes one never finds a perfect instrument and does the best one can- and IF it's a fabulous sounding instrument it is well worth the effort. That describes my vihuela- my one instrument that has been built scrupulously faithful to a specific, original model; except for the spacing/set-up meeting my hands- but only 90% of the way. Size 10-1/2 shoe for my size 11 foot. With some instruments you just don't get the full range of shoe sizes. Modern classical guitars are always going to be 64 or 65 cm. or close- radically change that, and you no longer have a proper E instrument. Or not one that sounds good. Of course one can get a terz guiitar- size and pitch of an alto/high tenor lute. There was a New Yorker article some years ago about a woman- concert level trained pianist- whose sole job for the Steinway company was matching prospective buyers to the instrument of their dreams. Players would try dozens, scores, of pianos until they found the right one- out of seemingly identical instruments, all built to identical specs, to a level of standardization that lutenists, luthiers, (and even guitarists for that matter) can't even dream of. To my knowledge, only one great historical pianist had an instrument built to his specs. Joseph Hoffman; early 20th century. He had all the keys shave a little more closely spaced to match his smaller-than-Rachmaninoffs hands. And of course Glenn Gould personally obsessed his instruments to incredible degrees. Sometimes the instrument can be set up to meet your hands, sometimes you train your hands to meet the instrument. Sometimes it's a bit of both. The shoe analogy breaks down at this point, and of course we haven't even touched on that historical thing. Anyway, an Edlinger Burkholtzer is no longer a Burkholtzer Burkholtzer. Dan On Apr 9, 2012, at 2:27 PM, David Tayler wrote: Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my experience that the player will have to go through a very long retraining period after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers, the size of the hand (and fingers) and the rules which govern the span and spacing of strings. Without these two numbers in balance, it is impossible, or very difficult to make a good sound. When these numbers are in balance, it is easy to make a good sound; in fact, it is difficult to make a bad sound. No one would wear size 4 or size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though the lute is from the age of custom made. Equally sadly, most people do not understand the basic physics of twang, thwack and pluck, which involves some simple experiments with a special bridge and nut that are universally adjustable. Generally speaking, and I mean VERY generally, the plucking-point spacing is wrong, that is, the place where you actually pluck the string, and it is almost always too narrow. However, it is the ratio of the bridge to nut, factoring the string length, and figured at YOUR plucking point that gives numbers for the thou shalt not buzz dimensions. Empirically, anyone can see that the spacing is different at any point on the string. A player with years of experience can give you some advice, after watching you play, about the setup. You may have to compromise somewhat on the overall span, or use a sliding scale so that the treble has more room. After these two biggies, there is a seemingly endless list of features, all of which are important. And here you will need some experience to guide you. However, I would add that most lutes made nowadays are not copies of originals. They are rescaled, resized, rebarred, rebridged, reglued, revarnished. Available is everything: everything-except-original. Now, you may want that. Personally, I think everyone needs a reality check instrument that is a copy of an original. Otherwise, it is just a guitar, basically, with wonky pegs. Since you asked about sound in your list, it is no fun playing a
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Although the shoe analogy can be taken too far, it is true that one edge of the double-edge sword of too many historical sizes, shapes, set-ups that can lead the player/builder dynamic astray is also that other edge provides more opportunity to get it right; and was consciously done so: Everyone can have an instrument made for his hand. The size of the hand, and slender, thick, short, and small fingers do not affect it in the slightest, unless something is wrong with the hand. Ernst Gottlieb Baron, Study of the Lute 1727, D.A. Smith translation. First and formost chuse a Lute neither great nor small, but a midling one, such as shall fit thine hand in thine owne judgement. Yet I had rather thou didst practice at first on a Lute that were somewhat greater and harder, vnless thy hand be very short: because that is good to stretch the sinews, which are in no sort to be slackned. John Baptisto Besardo of Visonti, Necessarie Observations Belonging to the Lute, and Lute Playing -English version in Robert Dowland's Varietie of Lute Lessons, 1610 Dan No one would wear size 4 or size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though the lute is from the age of custom made On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Daniel Winheld wrote: My teacher told me that you don't choose a lute, it chooses you. Maybe that is true. That is true, you know it when you feel it, but it may take years of playing experience on many instruments to finally recognize that right and perfect match up when it happens. My once-in-a-lifetime lute didn't show up until 2010- and I have been playing lutes for about 40 years, and I wasn't even looking for a new R-lute anymore. Sometimes one never finds a perfect instrument and does the best one can- and IF it's a fabulous sounding instrument it is well worth the effort. That describes my vihuela- my one instrument that has been built scrupulously faithful to a specific, original model; except for the spacing/set-up meeting my hands- but only 90% of the way. Size 10-1/2 shoe for my size 11 foot. With some instruments you just don't get the full range of shoe sizes. Modern classical guitars are always going to be 64 or 65 cm. or close- radically change that, and you no longer have a proper E instrument. Or not one that sounds good. Of course one can get a terz guiitar- size and pitch of an alto/high tenor lute. There was a New Yorker article some years ago about a woman- concert level trained pianist- whose sole job for the Steinway company was matching prospective buyers to the instrument of their dreams. Players would try dozens, scores, of pianos until they found the right one- out of seemingly identical instruments, all built to identical specs, to a level of standardization that lutenists, luthiers, (and even guitarists for that matter) can't even dream of. To my knowledge, only one great historical pianist had an instrument built to his specs. Joseph Hoffman; early 20th century. He had all the keys shave a little more closely spaced to match his smaller-than-Rachmaninoffs hands. And of course Glenn Gould personally obsessed his instruments to incredible degrees. Sometimes the instrument can be set up to meet your hands, sometimes you train your hands to meet the instrument. Sometimes it's a bit of both. The shoe analogy breaks down at this point, and of course we haven't even touched on that historical thing. Anyway, an Edlinger Burkholtzer is no longer a Burkholtzer Burkholtzer. Dan On Apr 9, 2012, at 2:27 PM, David Tayler wrote: Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my experience that the player will have to go through a very long retraining period after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers, the size of the hand (and fingers) and the rules which govern the span and spacing of strings. Without these two numbers in balance, it is impossible, or very difficult to make a good sound. When these numbers are in balance, it is easy to make a good sound; in fact, it is difficult to make a bad sound. No one would wear size 4 or size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though the lute is from the age of custom made. Equally sadly, most people do not understand the basic physics of twang, thwack and pluck, which involves some simple experiments with a special bridge
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Another source that recommends practicing on a tough-to-play lute is the Mary Burwell book. It will be good to play [. . .] upon a lute something high in strings and the strings something big. Practicing upon such a lute, it will strengthen the hands and make you play admirably well when you play upon a more easy lute. Bill From: Daniel Winheld dwinh...@lmi.net To: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2012, 18:57 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Although the shoe analogy can be taken too far, it is true that one edge of the double-edge sword of too many historical sizes, shapes, set-ups that can lead the player/builder dynamic astray is also that other edge provides more opportunity to get it right; and was consciously done so: Everyone can have an instrument made for his hand. The size of the hand, and slender, thick, short, and small fingers do not affect it in the slightest, unless something is wrong with the hand. Ernst Gottlieb Baron, Study of the Lute 1727, D.A. Smith translation. First and formost chuse a Lute neither great nor small, but a midling one, such as shall fit thine hand in thine owne judgement. Yet I had rather thou didst practice at first on a Lute that were somewhat greater and harder, vnless thy hand be very short: because that is good to stretch the sinews, which are in no sort to be slackned. John Baptisto Besardo of Visonti, Necessarie Observations Belonging to the Lute, and Lute Playing -English version in Robert Dowland's Varietie of Lute Lessons, 1610 Dan No one would wear size 4 or size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though the lute is from the age of custom made On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Daniel Winheld wrote: My teacher told me that you don't choose a lute, it chooses you. Maybe that is true. That is true, you know it when you feel it, but it may take years of playing experience on many instruments to finally recognize that right and perfect match up when it happens. My once-in-a-lifetime lute didn't show up until 2010- and I have been playing lutes for about 40 years, and I wasn't even looking for a new R-lute anymore. Sometimes one never finds a perfect instrument and does the best one can- and IF it's a fabulous sounding instrument it is well worth the effort. That describes my vihuela- my one instrument that has been built scrupulously faithful to a specific, original model; except for the spacing/set-up meeting my hands- but only 90% of the way. Size 10-1/2 shoe for my size 11 foot. With some instruments you just don't get the full range of shoe sizes. Modern classical guitars are always going to be 64 or 65 cm. or close- radically change that, and you no longer have a proper E instrument. Or not one that sounds good. Of course one can get a terz guiitar- size and pitch of an alto/high tenor lute. There was a New Yorker article some years ago about a woman- concert level trained pianist- whose sole job for the Steinway company was matching prospective buyers to the instrument of their dreams. Players would try dozens, scores, of pianos until they found the right one- out of seemingly identical instruments, all built to identical specs, to a level of standardization that lutenists, luthiers, (and even guitarists for that matter) can't even dream of. To my knowledge, only one great historical pianist had an instrument built to his specs. Joseph Hoffman; early 20th century. He had all the keys shave a little more closely spaced to match his smaller-than-Rachmaninoffs hands. And of course Glenn Gould personally obsessed his instruments to incredible degrees. Sometimes the instrument can be set up to meet your hands, sometimes you train your hands to meet the instrument. Sometimes it's a bit of both. The shoe analogy breaks down at this point, and of course we haven't even touched on that historical thing. Anyway, an Edlinger Burkholtzer is no longer a Burkholtzer Burkholtzer. Dan On Apr 9, 2012, at 2:27 PM, David Tayler wrote: Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my experience that the player will have to go through a very long retraining period after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my experience that the player will have to go through a very long retraining period after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers, the size of the hand (and fingers) and the rules which govern the span and spacing of strings. Without these two numbers in balance, it is impossible, or very difficult to make a good sound. When these numbers are in balance, it is easy to make a good sound; in fact, it is difficult to make a bad sound. No one would wear size 4 or size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though the lute is from the age of custom made. Equally sadly, most people do not understand the basic physics of twang, thwack and pluck, which involves some simple experiments with a special bridge and nut that are universally adjustable. Generally speaking, and I mean VERY generally, the plucking-point spacing is wrong, that is, the place where you actually pluck the string, and it is almost always too narrow. However, it is the ratio of the bridge to nut, factoring the string length, and figured at YOUR plucking point that gives numbers for the thou shalt not buzz dimensions. Empirically, anyone can see that the spacing is different at any point on the string. A player with years of experience can give you some advice, after watching you play, about the setup. You may have to compromise somewhat on the overall span, or use a sliding scale so that the treble has more room. After these two biggies, there is a seemingly endless list of features, all of which are important. And here you will need some experience to guide you. However, I would add that most lutes made nowadays are not copies of originals. They are rescaled, resized, rebarred, rebridged, reglued, revarnished. Available is everything: everything-except-original. Now, you may want that. Personally, I think everyone needs a reality check instrument that is a copy of an original. Otherwise, it is just a guitar, basically, with wonky pegs. Since you asked about sound in your list, it is no fun playing a monochromatic instrument of any kind, but that is just a personal preference. I would say most lutes made today lean towards monochromatic. Main thing is to make a good sound. If you aren't making a beautiful sound, it isn't you: your lute is set up wrong, is the wrong size, or both. Lute players may think that their feet are the wrong size, but when you think about it, this cannot be the case. Everyone is different, and the instrument must fit. My teacher told me that you don't choose a lute, it chooses you. Maybe that is true. dt __ From: William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk To: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sat, April 7, 2012 6:25:47 AM Subject: [LUTE] What makes a good lute? I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
I agree with David that string span and spacing are extremely important, and, as one about to have a lute built, I am wondering whether it would help to send the luthier a tracing of my right and left hands to help him calculate span and spacing correctly. I also agree with Ned that instrument size is very important. I have a 13-course that has a wonderfully warm tone when tuned to A=392, but it is too large for me, and the neck is too heavy, and I can't play it very long without developing neck, shoulder, and back problems. The shoe analogy is an excellent one. Perhaps when there was a luthier in every town, it was much easier to get a good fit, but I live in Texas, and the luthier who will build my next lute (Cezar Mateus) lives in New Jersey. -Original Message- From: David Tayler Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 4:27 PM To: lute Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Ninety percent of the lutes I see are set up wrong and are also the wrong size for the person playing. I doubt that this will change anytime soon: once someone buys the wrong size instrument, they either keep it or trade it in for another one that is the wrong size. So I would rate size and setup as the number one issue, based on my experience that the player will have to go through a very long retraining period after learning on a lute that is the wrong size. Why pedal backwards? Of the setup issues, the number one issue is the span and spacing. Without the right span and spacing, which reconciles two numbers, the size of the hand (and fingers) and the rules which govern the span and spacing of strings. Without these two numbers in balance, it is impossible, or very difficult to make a good sound. When these numbers are in balance, it is easy to make a good sound; in fact, it is difficult to make a bad sound. No one would wear size 4 or size 11 shoes if they are a size 9, and yet, that is precisely what happens. Sadly, people are rarely fitted to the lute, even though the lute is from the age of custom made. Equally sadly, most people do not understand the basic physics of twang, thwack and pluck, which involves some simple experiments with a special bridge and nut that are universally adjustable. Generally speaking, and I mean VERY generally, the plucking-point spacing is wrong, that is, the place where you actually pluck the string, and it is almost always too narrow. However, it is the ratio of the bridge to nut, factoring the string length, and figured at YOUR plucking point that gives numbers for the thou shalt not buzz dimensions. Empirically, anyone can see that the spacing is different at any point on the string. A player with years of experience can give you some advice, after watching you play, about the setup. You may have to compromise somewhat on the overall span, or use a sliding scale so that the treble has more room. After these two biggies, there is a seemingly endless list of features, all of which are important. And here you will need some experience to guide you. However, I would add that most lutes made nowadays are not copies of originals. They are rescaled, resized, rebarred, rebridged, reglued, revarnished. Available is everything: everything-except-original. Now, you may want that. Personally, I think everyone needs a reality check instrument that is a copy of an original. Otherwise, it is just a guitar, basically, with wonky pegs. Since you asked about sound in your list, it is no fun playing a monochromatic instrument of any kind, but that is just a personal preference. I would say most lutes made today lean towards monochromatic. Main thing is to make a good sound. If you aren't making a beautiful sound, it isn't you: your lute is set up wrong, is the wrong size, or both. Lute players may think that their feet are the wrong size, but when you think about it, this cannot be the case. Everyone is different, and the instrument must fit. My teacher told me that you don't choose a lute, it chooses you. Maybe that is true. dt __ From: William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk To: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sat, April 7, 2012 6:25:47 AM Subject: [LUTE] What makes a good lute? I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:35 PM, stephen arndt stephenwar...@verizon.net wrote: I agree with David that string span and spacing are extremely important, and, as one about to have a lute built, I am wondering whether it would help to send the luthier a tracing of my right and left hands to help him calculate span and spacing correctly. I also agree with Ned that instrument size is very important. I have a 13-course that has a wonderfully warm tone when tuned to A=392, but it is too large for me, and the neck is too heavy, and I can't play it very long without developing neck, shoulder, and back problems. The shoe analogy is an excellent one. Perhaps when there was a luthier in every town, it was much easier to get a good fit, but I live in Texas, and the luthier who will build my next lute (Cezar Mateus) lives in New Jersey. So, how would I know if the lute I currently have has good enough spacing? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Your hands will tell you. So, how would I know if the lute I currently have has good enough spacing? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
This is a good discussion inasmuch as it demonstrates a fair diversity in what we look for in a lute. I think it's tough for us compared to classical guitarists who can go to a shop and spend a day or two trying out a range of guitars, playing and comparing before deciding which one to buy. As lutenists we are seldom if ever are in this situation - at least in terms of fine instruments. Buying from an established maker involves placing an order then waiting months, sometimes years for the lute. Even then there is no guarantee that the instrument will sound and feel exactly as you had hoped. Another approach that I know some fine players have used is to keep an eye on new makers who build on spec and try their instruments, snapping one up at a favourable price if they find it suits them. This would work less well for a beginner who has less knowledge of what to look for - so we can find ourselves in a situation where experts play instruments by unknown makers and beginners spend very large sums ordering from makers of high repute. Is that a fair summary? Bill Sent from my BlackBerry smartphone from Virgin Media -Original Message- From: David Smith d...@dolcesfogato.com Sender: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 18:13:53 To: 'Lute List'lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Just to add my two cents. My lutes are a joy for the visual elegance they have, the artistry of the makers, the beauty of their sound, and the physical sensation of playing their strings. I would be hard pressed to say which is more important but without all of them I would be dissatisfied with them. From the simplest lute (a 1968 Harwood and Isaacs that Donna Curry used to play) to the 2011 BarberHarris and Rinzo Salvador lutes (very ornate) they all have their own souls to expose. My challenge is to learn what they have to offer and how to bring that out. For me this is a new journey. The strings matter (gut, nylgut, synthetics) and each type changes the character. My participation in this journey is to learn what works for me. It may not be the same as what works for anyone else but I am learning immense amounts from this community. So, in my judgment, there is no one thing that makes a good lute. The most important is the lutenist learning the lute and how to make it sing but all the other aspects also matter. Anyway, this is the view from a novice. Regards David -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Sauvage Valéry Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:40 AM To: 'Lute List' Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? I agree with this post... -Message d'origine- De : lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] De la part de A.J. Padilla MD Objet : [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? In medicine, we have a saying, The most important part of the stethoscope lies between the earpieces. It's in the fingers (or rather, the corpus striatum in the brain). Al To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
This seems a good moment to wheel out the piece from several years ago that still alas applies! Best wishes, David From the LS newsletter, November 1993: Buying a lute, 1551 === Good morrow, Master Laux; I wish to buy a lute. Good morrow, kind Sir; here are 998 for you to choose from. Would you have it large, medium or small? If the 392 large lutes in this small chest are not your liking, I have another 175 upstairs. Thank you, Master Laux; I will take this medium-sized one. Buying a lute, 1993 === I'd like to buy a lute please. Ah, you'd like to order a lute. Do you want a 4-course for the medieval repertoire, or a 5-course for the 15th century, or a 6-course, which covers most of the 16th century, or a 7-course for the Elizabethan repertoire, or an 8-course which gives you just that little bit more flexibility, or a 9-course, which takes you up to late Dowland, or a 10-course for the early 17th century, or an 11-course for the French repertoire, or a 12-course, which was probably much more common than most people think, or a 13-course? Erm... Of course, there are two different kinds of 13-course Of course. Now for the string length, I can do you 45cm for a treble, or 53cm in a, or 60cm in g, or 57cm if you've got small hands, or 64cm in f# (that's a g lute at aA5, of course), or 67 cm in f, or 71cm in e, or 78cm in d, or 88cm in c, or 93cm for a great bass. Or I can do you a really little one if you want to use gut strings. Erm... Now you can gave the body after Maler, or Frei, or Bosch, or Gerle, or Hieber, or Vernere, or Magno Dieffopruchar the Elder, or Magno Dieffopruchar the Younger, or Hartung, or Greif, or Hess, or Hellmer, or Langenwalder, or Buechenberg, or Unverdorben, or Mest, or Raillich, or Giogio Sellas, or Matteo Sellas, or Coch, or Tielke, or Schelle, or Eberle, or Widhalm, or Christian Hoffmann, or Martin Hoffmann, or Ian Harwood, or Zachary Taylor. Erm... You can have the ribs in sycamore, or Bird's-eye maple, or figured ash, or unfigured ash, or plum, or cherry, or yew, or cypress, or rosewood, or kingwood, or snakewood, or walnut, or ebony, or wenge, or cocobolo, or cryptomeria, or ecologically justifiable very realistic imitation of ivory. I don't do fibreglass these days. Erm... You can have the neck in the style of... No, no, don't bother about the neck. Well the varnish can be either three parts linseed oil... Look, do it however you like, please. How soon can you have it finished? Erm... At 07:16 + 8/4/12, willsam...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: This is a good discussion inasmuch as it demonstrates a fair diversity in what we look for in a lute. I think it's tough for us compared to classical guitarists who can go to a shop and spend a day or two trying out a range of guitars, playing and comparing before deciding which one to buy. As lutenists we are seldom if ever are in this situation - at least in terms of fine instruments. Buying from an established maker involves placing an order then waiting months, sometimes years for the lute. Even then there is no guarantee that the instrument will sound and feel exactly as you had hoped. Another approach that I know some fine players have used is to keep an eye on new makers who build on spec and try their instruments, snapping one up at a favourable price if they find it suits them. This would work less well for a beginner who has less knowledge of what to look for - so we can find ourselves in a situation where experts play instruments by unknown makers and beginners spend very large sums ordering from makers of high repute. Is that a fair summary? Bill Sent from my BlackBerry smartphone from Virgin Media -Original Message- From: David Smith d...@dolcesfogato.com Sender: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 18:13:53 To: 'Lute List'lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Just to add my two cents. My lutes are a joy for the visual elegance they have, the artistry of the makers, the beauty of their sound, and the physical sensation of playing their strings. I would be hard pressed to say which is more important but without all of them I would be dissatisfied with them. From the simplest lute (a 1968 Harwood and Isaacs that Donna Curry used to play) to the 2011 BarberHarris and Rinzo Salvador lutes (very ornate) they all have their own souls to expose. My challenge is to learn what they have to offer and how to bring that out. For me this is a new journey. The strings matter (gut, nylgut, synthetics) and each type changes the character. My participation in this journey is to learn what works
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
That's priceless, David! Thanks for cheering up this chilly Easter morning. All the best, Bill :) From: David Van Edwards da...@vanedwards.co.uk To: willsam...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: 'Lute List' lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2012, 12:02 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? This seems a good moment to wheel out the piece from several years ago that still alas applies! Best wishes, David From the LS newsletter, November 1993: Buying a lute, 1551 === Good morrow, Master Laux; I wish to buy a lute. Good morrow, kind Sir; here are 998 for you to choose from. Would you have it large, medium or small? If the 392 large lutes in this small chest are not your liking, I have another 175 upstairs. Thank you, Master Laux; I will take this medium-sized one. Buying a lute, 1993 === I'd like to buy a lute please. Ah, you'd like to order a lute. Do you want a 4-course for the medieval repertoire, or a 5-course for the 15th century, or a 6-course, which covers most of the 16th century, or a 7-course for the Elizabethan repertoire, or an 8-course which gives you just that little bit more flexibility, or a 9-course, which takes you up to late Dowland, or a 10-course for the early 17th century, or an 11-course for the French repertoire, or a 12-course, which was probably much more common than most people think, or a 13-course? Erm... Of course, there are two different kinds of 13-course Of course. Now for the string length, I can do you 45cm for a treble, or 53cm in a, or 60cm in g, or 57cm if you've got small hands, or 64cm in f# (that's a g lute at aA5, of course), or 67 cm in f, or 71cm in e, or 78cm in d, or 88cm in c, or 93cm for a great bass. Or I can do you a really little one if you want to use gut strings. Erm... Now you can gave the body after Maler, or Frei, or Bosch, or Gerle, or Hieber, or Vernere, or Magno Dieffopruchar the Elder, or Magno Dieffopruchar the Younger, or Hartung, or Greif, or Hess, or Hellmer, or Langenwalder, or Buechenberg, or Unverdorben, or Mest, or Raillich, or Giogio Sellas, or Matteo Sellas, or Coch, or Tielke, or Schelle, or Eberle, or Widhalm, or Christian Hoffmann, or Martin Hoffmann, or Ian Harwood, or Zachary Taylor. Erm... You can have the ribs in sycamore, or Bird's-eye maple, or figured ash, or unfigured ash, or plum, or cherry, or yew, or cypress, or rosewood, or kingwood, or snakewood, or walnut, or ebony, or wenge, or cocobolo, or cryptomeria, or ecologically justifiable very realistic imitation of ivory. I don't do fibreglass these days. Erm... You can have the neck in the style of... No, no, don't bother about the neck. Well the varnish can be either three parts linseed oil... Look, do it however you like, please. How soon can you have it finished? Erm... At 07:16 + 8/4/12, [1]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: This is a good discussion inasmuch as it demonstrates a fair diversity in what we look for in a lute. I think it's tough for us compared to classical guitarists who can go to a shop and spend a day or two trying out a range of guitars, playing and comparing before deciding which one to buy. As lutenists we are seldom if ever are in this situation - at least in terms of fine instruments. Buying from an established maker involves placing an order then waiting months, sometimes years for the lute. Even then there is no guarantee that the instrument will sound and feel exactly as you had hoped. Another approach that I know some fine players have used is to keep an eye on new makers who build on spec and try their instruments, snapping one up at a favourable price if they find it suits them. This would work less well for a beginner who has less knowledge of what to look for - so we can find ourselves in a situation where experts play instruments by unknown makers and beginners spend very large sums ordering from makers of high repute. Is that a fair summary? Bill Sent from my BlackBerry smartphone from Virgin Media -Original Message- From: David Smith [2]d...@dolcesfogato.com Sender: [3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 18:13:53 To: 'Lute List'[4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Just to add my two cents. My lutes are a joy for the visual elegance they have, the artistry of the makers, the beauty of their sound, and the physical sensation of playing their strings. I would be hard pressed to say which is more important but without all
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Aside from the essential question of acoustics, and the aesthetics of physical appearance, how about lasting quality? It may sound good right out of the box, but what's it like after it been under tension for a year? Where's the action? Is the rose bulging up to the strings? Do the pegs work? Bars intact? Bridge still on? In my limited lute-owning experience, I've not had any of those problems, but I have heard of them occurring with lutes and other stringed instruments. When you pay big bucks, those issues are as important as the fine inlay and rare woods. My 2 cents US, Leonard Williams /[ ] / \ | * | \_=_/ On 4/7/12 1:56 PM, William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I think that sums it up nicely, Eugene. The best lute is the next one, whether self-built or bought. Self building is great, but that's a whole other discussion . . . Thank you, everyone, for your views, and please keep 'em coming! Bill From: Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Roman Turovsky r.turov...@verizon.net Cc: Jean-Marie Poirier jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr; Luca Manassero l...@manassero.net; Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012, 17:58 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Someday I shall build one. I want to. I desire of one which looks like after 1000 years of battles and sings as fallen angel in catharsis. But for myself :) 2012/4/7 Roman Turovsky [1][1]r.turov...@verizon.net That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a deliberately ugly lute, for several reasons: 1. It could never be sold, because 2. No one would want to be seen with one. 3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand. I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense is similarly lacking. It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes. I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no sound, but that is another story. RT - Original Message - From: Eugene Kurenko [2][2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Jean-Marie Poirier [3][3]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Cc: Luca Manassero [4][4]l...@manassero.net; Lute List [5][5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Well I prefer to differ. Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand with pretty look. As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ guitars with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better. The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more expensive wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for 3000 I want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$ But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical instrument let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this sound. Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this great sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first of all. It's not a painting. So the lute must have the greatest sound first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable to me. B :) 2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier [1][6][6]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...??? Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit more complex than that, isn't it? Best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero [1][2][7][7]l...@manassero.net Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Something to keep in mind, in regard to the need of mending the instrument Leonard is referring to, is how far (or near) is the luthier who build it... Even if it doesn't break, wood lives, and therefore a lute must be periodically adjusted. Cheers, Manolo El 08/04/2012, a las 15:46, Leonard Williams escribió: Aside from the essential question of acoustics, and the aesthetics of physical appearance, how about lasting quality? It may sound good right out of the box, but what's it like after it been under tension for a year? Where's the action? Is the rose bulging up to the strings? Do the pegs work? Bars intact? Bridge still on? In my limited lute-owning experience, I've not had any of those problems, but I have heard of them occurring with lutes and other stringed instruments. When you pay big bucks, those issues are as important as the fine inlay and rare woods. My 2 cents US, Leonard Williams /[ ] / \ | * | \_=_/ On 4/7/12 1:56 PM, William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I think that sums it up nicely, Eugene. The best lute is the next one, whether self-built or bought. Self building is great, but that's a whole other discussion . . . Thank you, everyone, for your views, and please keep 'em coming! Bill From: Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Roman Turovsky r.turov...@verizon.net Cc: Jean-Marie Poirier jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr; Luca Manassero l...@manassero.net; Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012, 17:58 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Someday I shall build one. I want to. I desire of one which looks like after 1000 years of battles and sings as fallen angel in catharsis. But for myself :) 2012/4/7 Roman Turovsky [1][1]r.turov...@verizon.net That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a deliberately ugly lute, for several reasons: 1. It could never be sold, because 2. No one would want to be seen with one. 3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand. I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense is similarly lacking. It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes. I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no sound, but that is another story. RT - Original Message - From: Eugene Kurenko [2][2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Jean-Marie Poirier [3][3]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Cc: Luca Manassero [4][4]l...@manassero.net; Lute List [5][5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Well I prefer to differ. Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand with pretty look. As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ guitars with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better. The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more expensive wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for 3000 I want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$ But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical instrument let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this sound. Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this great sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first of all. It's not a painting. So the lute must have the greatest sound first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable to me. B :) 2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier [1][6][6]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...??? Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit more complex than that, isn't it? Best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero [1][2][7][7]l
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
A resounding yes to both of these last responses. I admit to the overwhelming confusion and the resultant choice to purchase from known quantities at high prices. The LS article completely ignored the addition confusion of how do you want it strung - gut (and what type of basses?), nylgut, carbon fiber, nylon, silk, That is an excursion in its own right. It is sometimes overwhelming enough to want to play early music on the classical guitar just to avoid the confusion... luckily not completely overwhelming. Simple guidelines to help novices decide how to enter this cornucopia of options would be immensely helpful. Until then buy and try seems to be the rule of the day. Regards David -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of David Van Edwards Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 4:03 AM To: willsam...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: 'Lute List' Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? This seems a good moment to wheel out the piece from several years ago that still alas applies! Best wishes, David From the LS newsletter, November 1993: Buying a lute, 1551 === Good morrow, Master Laux; I wish to buy a lute. Good morrow, kind Sir; here are 998 for you to choose from. Would you have it large, medium or small? If the 392 large lutes in this small chest are not your liking, I have another 175 upstairs. Thank you, Master Laux; I will take this medium-sized one. Buying a lute, 1993 === I'd like to buy a lute please. Ah, you'd like to order a lute. Do you want a 4-course for the medieval repertoire, or a 5-course for the 15th century, or a 6-course, which covers most of the 16th century, or a 7-course for the Elizabethan repertoire, or an 8-course which gives you just that little bit more flexibility, or a 9-course, which takes you up to late Dowland, or a 10-course for the early 17th century, or an 11-course for the French repertoire, or a 12-course, which was probably much more common than most people think, or a 13-course? Erm... Of course, there are two different kinds of 13-course Of course. Now for the string length, I can do you 45cm for a treble, or 53cm in a, or 60cm in g, or 57cm if you've got small hands, or 64cm in f# (that's a g lute at aA5, of course), or 67 cm in f, or 71cm in e, or 78cm in d, or 88cm in c, or 93cm for a great bass. Or I can do you a really little one if you want to use gut strings. Erm... Now you can gave the body after Maler, or Frei, or Bosch, or Gerle, or Hieber, or Vernere, or Magno Dieffopruchar the Elder, or Magno Dieffopruchar the Younger, or Hartung, or Greif, or Hess, or Hellmer, or Langenwalder, or Buechenberg, or Unverdorben, or Mest, or Raillich, or Giogio Sellas, or Matteo Sellas, or Coch, or Tielke, or Schelle, or Eberle, or Widhalm, or Christian Hoffmann, or Martin Hoffmann, or Ian Harwood, or Zachary Taylor. Erm... You can have the ribs in sycamore, or Bird's-eye maple, or figured ash, or unfigured ash, or plum, or cherry, or yew, or cypress, or rosewood, or kingwood, or snakewood, or walnut, or ebony, or wenge, or cocobolo, or cryptomeria, or ecologically justifiable very realistic imitation of ivory. I don't do fibreglass these days. Erm... You can have the neck in the style of... No, no, don't bother about the neck. Well the varnish can be either three parts linseed oil... Look, do it however you like, please. How soon can you have it finished? Erm... At 07:16 + 8/4/12, willsam...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: This is a good discussion inasmuch as it demonstrates a fair diversity in what we look for in a lute. I think it's tough for us compared to classical guitarists who can go to a shop and spend a day or two trying out a range of guitars, playing and comparing before deciding which one to buy. As lutenists we are seldom if ever are in this situation - at least in terms of fine instruments. Buying from an established maker involves placing an order then waiting months, sometimes years for the lute. Even then there is no guarantee that the instrument will sound and feel exactly as you had hoped. Another approach that I know some fine players have used is to keep an eye on new makers who build on spec and try their instruments, snapping one up at a favourable price if they find it suits them. This would work less well for a beginner who has less knowledge of what to look for - so we can find ourselves in a situation where experts play instruments by unknown makers and beginners spend very large sums ordering from makers of high repute. Is that a fair summary? Bill Sent from my BlackBerry smartphone from Virgin Media -Original Message- From: David Smith d...@dolcesfogato.com Sender: lute
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Aside from the essential question of acoustics, and the aesthetics of physical appearance, how about lasting quality? It may sound good right out of the box, but what's it like after it been under tension for a year? Where's the action? Is the rose bulging up to the strings? Do the pegs work? Bars intact? Bridge still on? When I bought my first lute in 1983 from Budget Instruments (8c after Hieber) it was commonly understood that the soundboard would be dead within 20 or so years. As a matter of fact, it's still sounding resonant, and everything is just fine with it. Certainly a good lute. Mathias In my limited lute-owning experience, I've not had any of those problems, but I have heard of them occurring with lutes and other stringed instruments. When you pay big bucks, those issues are as important as the fine inlay and rare woods. My 2 cents US, Leonard Williams /[ ] / \ | * | \_=_/ On 4/7/12 1:56 PM, William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I think that sums it up nicely, Eugene. The best lute is the next one, whether self-built or bought. Self building is great, but that's a whole other discussion . . . Thank you, everyone, for your views, and please keep 'em coming! Bill From: Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Roman Turovsky r.turov...@verizon.net Cc: Jean-Marie Poirier jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr; Luca Manassero l...@manassero.net; Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012, 17:58 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Someday I shall build one. I want to. I desire of one which looks like after 1000 years of battles and sings as fallen angel in catharsis. But for myself :) 2012/4/7 Roman Turovsky [1][1]r.turov...@verizon.net That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a deliberately ugly lute, for several reasons: 1. It could never be sold, because 2. No one would want to be seen with one. 3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand. I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense is similarly lacking. It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes. I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no sound, but that is another story. RT - Original Message - From: Eugene Kurenko [2][2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Jean-Marie Poirier [3][3]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Cc: Luca Manassero [4][4]l...@manassero.net; Lute List [5][5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Well I prefer to differ. Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand with pretty look. As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ guitars with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better. The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more expensive wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for 3000 I want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$ But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical instrument let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this sound. Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this great sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first of all. It's not a painting. So the lute must have the greatest sound first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable to me. B :) 2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier [1][6][6]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...??? Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit more complex than that, isn't it? Best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
How about adding reasonably accurate intonation to the list? Granted, that may be more often a property of the set-up than the 'goodness' of the lute itself, but still... On 4/8/2012 4:57 PM, Mathias Rösel wrote: Aside from the essential question of acoustics, and the aesthetics of physical appearance, how about lasting quality? It may sound good right out of the box, but what's it like after it been under tension for a year Where's the action? Is the rose bulging up to the strings? Do the pegs work? Bars intact? Bridge still on? When I bought my first lute in 1983 from Budget Instruments (8c after Hieber) it was commonly understood that the soundboard would be dead within 20 or so years. As a matter of fact, it's still sounding resonant, and everything is just fine with it. Certainly a good lute. Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
I'm not sure how intonation could be a factor for any competently made instrument. Strictly up to the player and her strings, I would think. On Apr 8, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Mark Warren wrote: How about adding reasonably accurate intonation to the list? Granted, that may be more often a property of the set-up than the 'goodness' of the lute itself, but still... On 4/8/2012 4:57 PM, Mathias Rösel wrote: Aside from the essential question of acoustics, and the aesthetics of physical appearance, how about lasting quality? It may sound good right out of the box, but what's it like after it been under tension for a year Where's the action? Is the rose bulging up to the strings? Do the pegs work? Bars intact? Bridge still on? When I bought my first lute in 1983 from Budget Instruments (8c after Hieber) it was commonly understood that the soundboard would be dead within 20 or so years. As a matter of fact, it's still sounding resonant, and everything is just fine with it. Certainly a good lute. Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Interesting list. First quick thought on reputation of maker as something that makes a good lute: isn't it the other way around? Chris. On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:25 AM, William Samson [1]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:willsam...@yahoo.co.uk 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
In medicine, we have a saying, The most important part of the stethoscope lies between the earpieces. It's in the fingers (or rather, the corpus striatum in the brain). Al -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of William Samson Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 9:26 AM To: Lute List Subject: [LUTE] What makes a good lute? I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century players) 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the right way...) I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, OK. If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point on my list either. Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions :-) Thanks! Luca William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote: I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
I can tell you how you can spot a good lute (if you buy from a lute maker) in Western Europe and USA, very simple: BY IT'S PRICE!!! And on the other hand I think you can't make a rule (or a set of rules) for what makes a good lute, important is when you buy it that you like the sound, it's a good feeling to play on it and it looks nice also. P.S.In my opinion, Joel van Lennep and Paul Thompson are the top quality lutes nowadays (still...) :) --- On Sat, 4/7/12, William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: From: William Samson willsam...@yahoo.co.uk Subject: [LUTE] What makes a good lute? To: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 4:25 PM I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero [1]l...@manassero.net Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century players) 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the right way...) I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, OK. If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point on my list either. Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions :-) Thanks! Luca William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote: I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at [1][2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html References 1. [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:l...@manassero.net 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Not a very easy question to answer and by the way not a very relevant question. The very notion of good applied to a lute or anything is obviously subjective. The few potentially objective criteria are evident : craftsmanship, woods, string action and price. All the rest is open to debate. I do not quite agree with Hera to say that Paul Thomson (no p by the way ;-) and Joel Van Lennep are the best makers to date, however good they may be, ans they are good ! There are, thank God, several other excellent makers, who produce excellent lutes as well, not to name them : Martin Haycock, David Van Edwards, Alexander Batov in England, Andy Rutherford in the US, Julien Stryjak or Stephen Murphy in France, Hendryk Hasenfüss in Germany and the list could be made much, much longer... All these people ARE excellent makers too. Now the problem is aesthetics, what you are after in your mind, your ideal of sound; and the price may be another good reason to go to this or that maker rather than the supposed top brass ! If you want the same lute as say Paul O'Dette, ok, go to the other Paul (Thomson) but if you have; if you hope to emulate Hoppy, then go to Joel in Boston. But if you have a precise idea of the lute you would like, the sound you would like for such or such repertoire, I am sure it will be easier to discuss details, and to experiment with makers who are not reputed to be simply the best... I know people who have sold their Thomson's lute because the sound eventually did not correspond to what they were after. My twopence anyway ! All the best, Jean-Marie = == En réponse au message du 07-04-2012, 16:39:34 == Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century players) 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the right way...) I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, OK. If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point on my list either. Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions :-) Thanks! Luca William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote: I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...??? Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit more complex than that, isn't it? Best, Jean-Marie = == En réponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero [1]l...@manassero.net Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century players) 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the right way...) I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, OK. If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point on my list either. Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions :-) Thanks! Luca William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote: I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at [1][2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html References 1. [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:l...@manassero.net 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Here is the instrument: (I' m worning you that it's not so horror) [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich and here is the music: [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal You can't go wrong and especially you can't get sick... :) Good luck! --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com wrote: From: Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? To: Luca Manassero l...@manassero.net Cc: Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:07 PM I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero [1][3]l...@manassero.net Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century players) 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the right way...) I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, OK. If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point on my list either. Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions :-) Thanks! Luca William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote: I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at [1][2][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html References 1. [3][5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:[6]l...@manassero.net 2. [7]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 3. [8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal 3. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=l...@manassero.net 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 6. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=l...@manassero.net 7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Well I prefer to differ. Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand with pretty look. As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ guitars with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better. The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more expensive wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for 3000 I want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$ But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical instrument let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this sound. Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this great sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first of all. It's not a painting. So the lute must have the greatest sound first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable to me. B :) 2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier [1]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...??? Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit more complex than that, isn't it? Best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero [1][2]l...@manassero.net Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century players) 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the right way...) I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, OK. If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point on my list either. Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions :-) Thanks! Luca William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote: I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at [1][2][3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html References 1. [3][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:[5]l...@manassero.net 2.
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
2012/4/7 Eugene Kurenko [1]eugene.kure...@gmail.com Haha :) BC Rich guitars looks not badl but Carlos Santana's PRS sounds much better :) And the sound is primary. 2012/4/7 hera caius [2]caiush2...@yahoo.com Here is the instrument: (I' m worning you that it's not so horror) [1][3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich and here is the music: [2][4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal You can't go wrong and especially you can't get sick... :) Good luck! -- References 1. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com 2. mailto:caiush2...@yahoo.com 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Na, ok, I will try to imagine Kerry King (Slayer) explaining in an interview: ...yes I saw the BC Rich guitars...but, you know...the PRS was sounding so much better in the store...really...and I thought it will sound even better in our ensemble... --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com wrote: From: Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:56 PM 2012/4/7 Eugene Kurenko [1][1]eugene.kure...@gmail.com Haha :) BC Rich guitars looks not badl but Carlos Santana's PRS sounds much better :) And the sound is primary. 2012/4/7 hera caius [2][2]caiush2...@yahoo.com Here is the instrument: (I' m worning you that it's not so horror) [1][3][3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich and here is the music: [2][4][4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal You can't go wrong and especially you can't get sick... :) Good luck! -- References 1. mailto:[5]eugene.kure...@gmail.com 2. mailto:[6]caiush2...@yahoo.com 3. [7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 4. [8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal To get on or off this list see list information at [9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=eugene.kure...@gmail.com 2. file://localhost/mc/compose?to%c3%8aiush2...@yahoo.com 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal 5. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=eugene.kure...@gmail.com 6. file://localhost/mc/compose?to%c3%8aiush2...@yahoo.com 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal 9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
That sounds really exciting...please let me know what was the conclusion... [24.gif] Caius --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr wrote: From: Jean-Marie Poirier jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? To: hera caius caiush2...@yahoo.com Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 7:08 PM No problem Caius (I finally unserstood that Caiusmust be your fist name, sorry about that !) Anyway, we can discuss that with Luca (but not only) in Vicenza next week :-) ! Best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:49:47 == Sorry for the p. Maybe i forgot to say: IN MY OPINION... --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier [1]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr wrote: From: Jean-Marie Poirier [2]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? To: Lute List [3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:24 PM Not a very easy question to answer and by the way not a very relevant question. The very notion of good applied to a lute or anything is obviously subjective. The few potentially objective criteria are evident : craftsmanship, woods, string action and price. All the rest is open to debate. I do not quite agree with Hera to say that Paul Thomson (no p by the way ;-) and Joel Van Lennep are the best makers to date, however good they may be, ans they are good ! There are, thank God, several other excellent makers, who produce excellent lutes as well, not to name them : Martin Haycock, David Van Edwards, Alexander Batov in England, Andy Rutherford in the US, Julien Stryjak or Stephen Murphy in France, Hendryk Hasenfuess in Germany and the list could be made much, much longer... All these people ARE excellent makers too. Now the problem is aesthetics, what you are after in your mind, your ideal of sound; and the price may be another good reason to go to this or that maker rather than the supposed top brass ! If you want the same lute as say Paul O'Dette, ok, go to the other Paul (Thomson) but if you have; if you hope to emulate Hoppy, then go to Joel in Boston. But if you have a precise idea of the lute you would like, the sound you would like for such or such repertoire, I am sure it will be easier to discuss details, and to experiment with makers who are not reputed to be simply the best... I know people who have sold their Thomson's lute because the sound eventually did not correspond to what they were after. My twopence anyway ! All the best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 16:39:34 == Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century players) 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the right way...) I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, OK. If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point on my list either. Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions :-) Thanks! Luca William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote: I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
So the conclusion is: great electric guitar (for my taste) have to look like BCR Zombie and sounds like PRS SE :) 2012/4/7 hera caius [1]caiush2...@yahoo.com Na, ok, I will try to imagine Kerry King (Slayer) explaining in an interview: ...yes I saw the BC Rich guitars...but, you know...the PRS was sounding so much better in the store...really...and I thought it will sound even better in our ensemble... --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Eugene Kurenko [2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com wrote: From: Eugene Kurenko [3]eugene.kure...@gmail.com Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? To: [4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:56 PM 2012/4/7 Eugene Kurenko [1][1][5]eugene.kure...@gmail.com Haha :) BC Rich guitars looks not badl but Carlos Santana's PRS sounds much better :) And the sound is primary. 2012/4/7 hera caius [2][2][6]caiush2...@yahoo.com Here is the instrument: (I' m worning you that it's not so horror) [1][3][3][7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich and here is the music: [2][4][4][8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal You can't go wrong and especially you can't get sick... :) Good luck! -- References 1. mailto:[5][9]eugene.kure...@gmail.com 2. mailto:[6][10]caiush2...@yahoo.com 3. [7][11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 4. [8][12]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal To get on or off this list see list information at [9][13]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[14]eugene.kure...@gmail.com 2. file://localhost/mc/compose?[15]to%c3%8aiush2...@yahoo.com 3. [16]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 4. [17]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal 5. file://localhost/mc/compose?to=[18]eugene.kure...@gmail.com 6. file://localhost/mc/compose?[19]to%c3%8aiush2...@yahoo.com 7. [20]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 8. [21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal 9. [22]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:caiush2...@yahoo.com 2. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com 3. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com 4. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 5. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com 6. mailto:caiush2...@yahoo.com 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal 9. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com 10. mailto:caiush2...@yahoo.com 11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal 13. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 14. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com 15. mailto:to%25c3%258aiush2...@yahoo.com 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal 18. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com 19. mailto:to%25c3%258aiush2...@yahoo.com 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal 22. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
No possible conclusion, I'm afraid...! Each one makes what he deems best na d that's it : Now, the music coming out of the box, what it says and how it says it, is what really counts, isn't it? All the best, Jean-Marie = == En réponse au message du 07-04-2012, 18:15:47 == That sounds really exciting...please let me know what was the conclusion... [24.gif] Caius --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr wrote: From: Jean-Marie Poirier jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? To: hera caius caiush2...@yahoo.com Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 7:08 PM No problem Caius (I finally unserstood that Caiusmust be your fist name, sorry about that !) Anyway, we can discuss that with Luca (but not only) in Vicenza next week :-) ! Best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:49:47 == Sorry for the p. Maybe i forgot to say: IN MY OPINION... --- On Sat, 4/7/12, Jean-Marie Poirier [1]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr wrote: From: Jean-Marie Poirier [2]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? To: Lute List [3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Saturday, April 7, 2012, 6:24 PM Not a very easy question to answer and by the way not a very relevant question. The very notion of good applied to a lute or anything is obviously subjective. The few potentially objective criteria are evident : craftsmanship, woods, string action and price. All the rest is open to debate. I do not quite agree with Hera to say that Paul Thomson (no p by the way ;-) and Joel Van Lennep are the best makers to date, however good they may be, ans they are good ! There are, thank God, several other excellent makers, who produce excellent lutes as well, not to name them : Martin Haycock, David Van Edwards, Alexander Batov in England, Andy Rutherford in the US, Julien Stryjak or Stephen Murphy in France, Hendryk Hasenfuess in Germany and the list could be made much, much longer... All these people ARE excellent makers too. Now the problem is aesthetics, what you are after in your mind, your ideal of sound; and the price may be another good reason to go to this or that maker rather than the supposed top brass ! If you want the same lute as say Paul O'Dette, ok, go to the other Paul (Thomson) but if you have; if you hope to emulate Hoppy, then go to Joel in Boston. But if you have a precise idea of the lute you would like, the sound you would like for such or such repertoire, I am sure it will be easier to discuss details, and to experiment with makers who are not reputed to be simply the best... I know people who have sold their Thomson's lute because the sound eventually did not correspond to what they were after. My twopence anyway ! All the best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 16:39:34 == Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century players) 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the right way...) I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, OK. If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point on my list either. Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions :-) Thanks! Luca William Samson on 07/04/12
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a deliberately ugly lute, for several reasons: 1. It could never be sold, because 2. No one would want to be seen with one. 3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand. I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense is similarly lacking. It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes. I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no sound, but that is another story. RT - Original Message - From: Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Jean-Marie Poirier jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Cc: Luca Manassero l...@manassero.net; Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Well I prefer to differ. Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand with pretty look. As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ guitars with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better. The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more expensive wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for 3000 I want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$ But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical instrument let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this sound. Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this great sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first of all. It's not a painting. So the lute must have the greatest sound first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable to me. B :) 2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier [1]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...??? Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit more complex than that, isn't it? Best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero [1][2]l...@manassero.net Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century players) 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the right way...) I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's an investment, OK. If it's a music instrument, then the maker is not the first point on my list either. Very exciting conversation: I look forward to read other opinions :-) Thanks! Luca William Samson on 07/04/12 15.25 wrote: I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Someday I shall build one. I want to. I desire of one which looks like after 1000 years of battles and sings as fallen angel in catharsis. But for myself :) 2012/4/7 Roman Turovsky [1]r.turov...@verizon.net That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a deliberately ugly lute, for several reasons: 1. It could never be sold, because 2. No one would want to be seen with one. 3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand. I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense is similarly lacking. It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes. I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no sound, but that is another story. RT - Original Message - From: Eugene Kurenko [2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Jean-Marie Poirier [3]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Cc: Luca Manassero [4]l...@manassero.net; Lute List [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Well I prefer to differ. Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand with pretty look. As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ guitars with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better. The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more expensive wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for 3000 I want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$ But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical instrument let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this sound. Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this great sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first of all. It's not a painting. So the lute must have the greatest sound first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable to me. B :) 2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier [1][6]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...??? Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit more complex than that, isn't it? Best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero [1][2][7]l...@manassero.net Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design / construction (again we need to be very careful: there are TWO 6 course lutes survived which tells us not much about the variety of 6 course instruments available to XVI century players) 5. materials (I'd dare say that if it's nicely playable and have a good sound and looks beautiful, well, materials must have been selected the right way...) I don't care about the maker's reputation. If it's
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Personally I would not underestimate the importance of appearance (of the lute) and reputation (of the maker) when buying an instrument. My idea of a good lute has changed so many times within the last couple of years: even when you think that you've found your dream instrument, the assurance that you will be able to sell it on for a good price in a couple of years when you don't like it anymore is comforting. This is doubly important when ordering unusual instruments! Sam On 7 April 2012 18:58, Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com wrote: Someday I shall build one. I want to. I desire of one which looks like after 1000 years of battles and sings as fallen angel in catharsis. But for myself :) 2012/4/7 Roman Turovsky [1]r.turov...@verizon.net That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a deliberately ugly lute, for several reasons: 1. It could never be sold, because 2. No one would want to be seen with one. 3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand. I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense is similarly lacking. It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes. I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no sound, but that is another story. RT - Original Message - From: Eugene Kurenko [2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Jean-Marie Poirier [3]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Cc: Luca Manassero [4]l...@manassero.net; Lute List [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Well I prefer to differ. Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand with pretty look. As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ guitars with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better. The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more expensive wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for 3000 I want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$ But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical instrument let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this sound. Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this great sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first of all. It's not a painting. So the lute must have the greatest sound first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable to me. B :) 2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier [1][6]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...??? Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit more complex than that, isn't it? Best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero [1][2][7]l...@manassero.net Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century lutemaking, an ugly instrument is unauthentic ;-) 3. quality of craftmanship (it's sad when you get a nice sound out of a lute a bit too toughly built, if you get what I mean...) 4. authenticity of design
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
I think that sums it up nicely, Eugene. The best lute is the next one, whether self-built or bought. Self building is great, but that's a whole other discussion . . . Thank you, everyone, for your views, and please keep 'em coming! Bill From: Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Roman Turovsky r.turov...@verizon.net Cc: Jean-Marie Poirier jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr; Luca Manassero l...@manassero.net; Lute List lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012, 17:58 Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Someday I shall build one. I want to. I desire of one which looks like after 1000 years of battles and sings as fallen angel in catharsis. But for myself :) 2012/4/7 Roman Turovsky [1][1]r.turov...@verizon.net That may be hypothetically possible, but no one would ever build a deliberately ugly lute, for several reasons: 1. It could never be sold, because 2. No one would want to be seen with one. 3. Acoustic and visual aesthetics tend to go hand-in-hand. I only know one luthier who has no visual sense, and his acoustic sense is similarly lacking. It is no surprise he has difficulty selling his axes. I have also known a maker who made beautiful looking lutes that had no sound, but that is another story. RT - Original Message - From: Eugene Kurenko [2][2]eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: Jean-Marie Poirier [3][3]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Cc: Luca Manassero [4][4]l...@manassero.net; Lute List [5][5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:50 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? Well I prefer to differ. Sound is the sound. And its quality not always goes hand in hand with pretty look. As former classical guitarist I can say that I knew some 3000$ guitars with sound like 800$ yamaha. Not better. The only differences were: french polish, intarsia and more expensive wood for body. So the pretty look costs much more than sound. It's weird for me. Why and what for? If I need musical instrument for 3000 I want sound on 2900$ and exterior on 100$ But not the opposite. Only the sound must amount 90% of price. Not exterior. If maker spends 6month for building the musical instrument let him spend 90% of this time for sound and pay a lot for this sound. Even if maker muild that great sound from cardboard pay for this great sound as for brilliant. The music is the language of sounds first of all. It's not a painting. So the lute must have the greatest sound first of all. And what we can see nowadays? Hardly understandable to me. B :) 2012/4/7 Jean-Marie Poirier [1][6][6]jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr Eugene, you wouldn't consider the problem of sound as an aesthetic one...??? Aesthetic doesn't only mean the aspect of the instrument? It's a little bit more complex than that, isn't it? Best, Jean-Marie = == En reponse au message du 07-04-2012, 17:07:11 == I vote only for sound and playability! Aesthetic have no sense for me. The instrument may looks like total horror but if it can produce great sound and is comfortable to play it's ok for me. By the way I really hate highly ornamented instruments with that flowers, hearts etc. IMHO theese nice things suits well on instruments for women but not for men. So as for me the great lute - is the lute which looks more like bloody viking axe and sounds like hell bell than another one which looks like romantic candy-box with sickening sweetest tone :))) 2012/4/7 Luca Manassero [1][2][7][7]l...@manassero.net Hi, very nice list. Let me put them in a slightly different order: 1. sound (very subjective, but when you hear it, you know you found it) 2. playability (again very subjective. Most of present lutemakers dogmata are rather funny, especially when supported by arguments like this respects the original instrument in the collection ABC. Fine, what if that istrument had been built for an 11 years old girl?) 3. Aesthetic. A lute si suppose to be beautiful. Sometimes it happens to see really ugly instruments. With all the research involved in XVI and XVII (and XVIII) century
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
I agree with this post... -Message d'origine- De : lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] De la part de A.J. Padilla MD Objet : [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? In medicine, we have a saying, The most important part of the stethoscope lies between the earpieces. It's in the fingers (or rather, the corpus striatum in the brain). Al To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
In my humble opinion: one chooses an instrument as one chooses a mate; but for an instrument it is primarily playability and sound. Nothing else matters. As in choosing a mate, others may think your choice beautiful, or ugly, easy or difficult. As long as YOU are in love, and your needs are met, nothing else matters, does it? trj -Original Message- From: Eugene Kurenko eugene.kure...@gmail.com To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sat, Apr 7, 2012 11:57 am Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? 2012/4/7 Eugene Kurenko [1]eugene.kure...@gmail.com Haha :) BC Rich guitars looks not badl but Carlos Santana's PRS sounds much better :) And the sound is primary. 2012/4/7 hera caius [2]caiush2...@yahoo.com Here is the instrument: (I' m worning you that it's not so horror) [1][3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich and here is the music: [2][4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal You can't go wrong and especially you can't get sick... :) Good luck! -- References 1. mailto:eugene.kure...@gmail.com 2. mailto:caiush2...@yahoo.com 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Rich 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_metal To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
A more pertinent question - at least for me - is how to find the lute that suits you, given sound and playability as high priorities? For most of us, is there a more efficient and less expensive way than to buy and probably sell many instruments until we find the one that fits our hands and ears? Ned On Apr 7, 2012, at 9:25 AM, William Samson wrote: I haven't really got much to add to the subject line. I've been chatting with Rob about this and various points have emerged I'd be interested in hearing what priorities you might put on the various characteristics of a lute in deciding if it's 'good' or otherwise. The kinds of things that have come up are (in no particular order): * playability (action, string spacing etc) * sound (which I can't easily define) * authenticity of design/construction * materials used * quality of craftsmanship * reputation of maker Of course these are rather broad headings and might easily be refined, clarified or broken down. Thoughts, please? Bill -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute?
Just to add my two cents. My lutes are a joy for the visual elegance they have, the artistry of the makers, the beauty of their sound, and the physical sensation of playing their strings. I would be hard pressed to say which is more important but without all of them I would be dissatisfied with them. From the simplest lute (a 1968 Harwood and Isaacs that Donna Curry used to play) to the 2011 BarberHarris and Rinzo Salvador lutes (very ornate) they all have their own souls to expose. My challenge is to learn what they have to offer and how to bring that out. For me this is a new journey. The strings matter (gut, nylgut, synthetics) and each type changes the character. My participation in this journey is to learn what works for me. It may not be the same as what works for anyone else but I am learning immense amounts from this community. So, in my judgment, there is no one thing that makes a good lute. The most important is the lutenist learning the lute and how to make it sing but all the other aspects also matter. Anyway, this is the view from a novice. Regards David -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Sauvage Valéry Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 11:40 AM To: 'Lute List' Subject: [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? I agree with this post... -Message d'origine- De : lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] De la part de A.J. Padilla MD Objet : [LUTE] Re: What makes a good lute? In medicine, we have a saying, The most important part of the stethoscope lies between the earpieces. It's in the fingers (or rather, the corpus striatum in the brain). Al To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
