Thank you for sharing this historical information Clive, it's an excellent educational resource. I am gradually making progress on my Baroque Lute construction, it takes a disproportionately long time building a first and your help has been much appreciated.
I also appreciate your comment! I made this kind of video in addition to my shop videos because it seemed to me that most people who are interested in the lute still do not really have access to interpretive material. Even if you have plans and listen to the music, that won't really help you to built a lute. Sometimes you need a person to teach just the attitude, if not the specifics of the world of the lute. That was my purpose, to show some conclusions that I reached about the way lutes were viewed in their own time. We can learn from that. Best, Clive
To make sure I understand correctly: both the large soundboard surface area as well as the reduced depth contribute to bass note prominence? I.e. if there were a lute with the same soundboard area and a deeper body/bowl, that more voluminous lute would not have bass notes as prominent as the one in your video? Thanks for this demonstration!
Yes, that's correct, and thanks to Bob Lundberg for pointing it out to me. Another aspect of the matter is the ergonomics; a bigger profile would normally mean a much larger body, but such lutes are impossible to play in practice. There is a famous example by JC Hoffmann. Italian makers around 1700 seem to have been as concerned with the ergonomics of the lute as with its musical potential, and many different forms appeared. Great comment, and thanks for watching!
I am sorry, I re-read your question, understood something and now I have a better reply: When the size of lutes grew over time, mainly around 1550 to 1650, the cavity did not grow proportionately with them. Empirical observation leads the experimenter to the conclusion that making a cavity larger lowers the fundamental resonant frequency. This is observed in all acoustical inquiries, pipes, bars, strings, etc. So the lute maker has the problem of restoring the resonance of the upper strings, and there are many solutions from theorbo (lowering the pitch an octave, tuning the intstrument higher) to archlute (shorter string length, wider, shorter body, fatter single strings). Most have flattening, and we observe that this makes the bass shorter, sharper and inclined to emphasize upper rather than lower partials. The soundboard area increase as a design problem is deceptive, because it is really the cavity and string length, being linked, that determine the physics in this example. Lute makers simply followed basics and made the volume smaller to shape the treble and bass to their musical ends. Still happening today.
@@EarlyMusicStudio1 Got it! Thanks for these quick replies, I really appreciate it. I'm working on an instrument right now that will have a very lute-like body and it is closer to the size of a bowl-back mandolin so I'm looking for ways to favor the already disadvantaged lower register. Right now my plan is to use double strings for the two lowest courses; should be an interesting experiment! What you mentioned about ergonomics makes total sense too. I think I'll have the opposite problem regarding ergonomic playability.
@@lukehebert6207 How extremely interesting! The mandos of the late 18 and especially the Neapolitan mandos are a distinguished by having the central five ribs almost like a guitar! Modern copies, American versions never have this degree of flattening. The doubling of lower courses brings new problems: intonation. Keep it up! c
Hi Mal, thanks for your question. I got a lot out of reading Ersnt Gottlieb Baron "Untersuchung des Instruments der Lauten" as well as articles published in the Lute Society of America's journals beginning in the 1970's by Douglas A. Smith, Robert Lundberg and Michael Saffle. The Guild of American Luthiers published a book by Robert Lundberg which has an extensive bibliography. Thanks for watching!
@@EarlyMusicStudio1 Thanks! If I might be permitted one more question, do you know where one can go for historical evidence of bass string choices in the 18th century? I haven’t had much luck with online sources I’m afraid.
Hello and thanks for your comment! I made the video because I am convinced of the architecture-that the flattening has an ergonomic and acoustical advantage. The bass, which can in my experience easily overbalance and overwhelm the upper strings, is better modulated. It has a positive effect on the resonance of the cavity, raising it, so that the overall effect is less boomy, especially with modern strings. Another view is that makers of the 18th C. had a ready market for valuable older lutes, in short supply, and they wanted to maximize their profit by re-engineering antiques. This also happened to harpsichords-it’s called “ravalement”. But it must be said that earlier music, say from before 1720, has a very different texture and purpose from music of the following decade. One is more based on a two-voice frame derived from continuo practice, with rapidly changing harmonies and the brisé style (Reusner, Mouton, Gallot, De Visée, Richée, Bittner, early Weiss). The later style is more rhetorical, based on simplified harmonic devices with slow-moving bass lines and a melodic style which we think of as Rococo. These lute works like are the “character” pieces of Couperin, Weiss especially moved more to this Italianate style, with its short repeated phrases, echo effects and “cantabile” melodies, as Baron observed. For this later music, the style of lute changed, with the German theorbo coming into favour, and the deep and large-bodied instruments of Hofmann, Schele and Edlinger. So as fashions changed, the instruments changed with them. For the Emfindsam pieces by Falckenhagen and Hagen et al., we would prefer this later neo-Renaissance instrument for the best effect. The flattened instruments are a Mannerist outgrowth of the early 1600s. In painting, for example, the limbs are muscular, the necks and bodies extended and enlarged, the scale is expanded and the landscape is less important. This tendency is first seen in the sculpture and painting of Michelangelo, and it became dominant throughout the European world of art and architecture until around 1680. It was gradually replaced by a more naturalistic aesthetic view. “Ich bin ein diplomierte Lautenisten: Ich trage immer neunzehn Lauten Kaesten” (I am a graduate lutenist; I always drag nineteen lute cases around.) attributed to Jonathan Rubin. Best wishes and apologies for overly elaborate replies, Clive
Thank you for sharing this historical information Clive, it's an excellent educational resource. I am gradually making progress on my Baroque Lute construction, it takes a disproportionately long time building a first and your help has been much appreciated.
I also appreciate your comment! I made this kind of video in addition to my shop videos because it seemed to me that most people who are interested in the lute still do not really have access to interpretive material. Even if you have plans and listen to the music, that won't really help you to built a lute. Sometimes you need a person to teach just the attitude, if not the specifics of the world of the lute. That was my purpose, to show some conclusions that I reached about the way lutes were viewed in their own time. We can learn from that. Best, Clive
That Lundberg lute sounds fantastic and you play it well.
Thanks a lot!
Excellent demonstration. Very interesting - thanks!
Hi James, Glad you liked it, and thanks for watching!
To make sure I understand correctly: both the large soundboard surface area as well as the reduced depth contribute to bass note prominence? I.e. if there were a lute with the same soundboard area and a deeper body/bowl, that more voluminous lute would not have bass notes as prominent as the one in your video?
Thanks for this demonstration!
Yes, that's correct, and thanks to Bob Lundberg for pointing it out to me. Another aspect of the matter is the ergonomics; a bigger profile would normally mean a much larger body, but such lutes are impossible to play in practice. There is a famous example by JC Hoffmann. Italian makers around 1700 seem to have been as concerned with the ergonomics of the lute as with its musical potential, and many different forms appeared. Great comment, and thanks for watching!
I am sorry, I re-read your question, understood something and now I have a better reply:
When the size of lutes grew over time, mainly around 1550 to 1650, the cavity did not grow proportionately with them. Empirical observation leads the experimenter to the conclusion that making a cavity larger lowers the fundamental resonant frequency. This is observed in all acoustical inquiries, pipes, bars, strings, etc.
So the lute maker has the problem of restoring the resonance of the upper strings, and there are many solutions from theorbo (lowering the pitch an octave, tuning the intstrument higher) to archlute (shorter string length, wider, shorter body, fatter single strings).
Most have flattening, and we observe that this makes the bass shorter, sharper and inclined to emphasize upper rather than lower partials. The soundboard area increase as a design problem is deceptive, because it is really the cavity and string length, being linked, that determine the physics in this example. Lute makers simply followed basics and made the volume smaller to shape the treble and bass to their musical ends. Still happening today.
@@EarlyMusicStudio1 Got it! Thanks for these quick replies, I really appreciate it. I'm working on an instrument right now that will have a very lute-like body and it is closer to the size of a bowl-back mandolin so I'm looking for ways to favor the already disadvantaged lower register. Right now my plan is to use double strings for the two lowest courses; should be an interesting experiment!
What you mentioned about ergonomics makes total sense too. I think I'll have the opposite problem regarding ergonomic playability.
@@lukehebert6207 How extremely interesting!
The mandos of the late 18 and especially the Neapolitan mandos are a distinguished by having the central five ribs almost like a guitar! Modern copies, American versions never have this degree of flattening. The doubling of lower courses brings new problems: intonation. Keep it up!
c
could you write references to the books you got information and music for this video?
Hi Mal, thanks for your question. I got a lot out of reading Ersnt Gottlieb Baron "Untersuchung des Instruments der Lauten" as well as articles published in the Lute Society of America's journals beginning in the 1970's by Douglas A. Smith, Robert Lundberg and Michael Saffle. The Guild of American Luthiers published a book by Robert Lundberg which has an extensive bibliography. Thanks for watching!
@@EarlyMusicStudio1 Thank you very much for the interesting references. can't wait to dive into them
Might one ask what the 13-course model is strung up with, particularly in the bass?
The strings are copper overspun reproductions of 18th century strings, available from Savarez.
@@EarlyMusicStudio1 Thanks! If I might be permitted one more question, do you know where one can go for historical evidence of bass string choices in the 18th century? I haven’t had much luck with online sources I’m afraid.
@@metalmeditations2036 you could consult Gamut Strings. Dan Larson has a lot of info; www.gamutmusic.com/
The Edlinger is exactly how a proper baroque lute should sound.
Hello and thanks for your comment! I made the video because I am convinced of the architecture-that the flattening has an ergonomic and acoustical advantage. The bass, which can in my experience easily overbalance and overwhelm the upper strings, is better modulated. It has a positive effect on the resonance of the cavity, raising it, so that the overall effect is less boomy, especially with modern strings. Another view is that makers of the 18th C. had a ready market for valuable older lutes, in short supply, and they wanted to maximize their profit by re-engineering antiques. This also happened to harpsichords-it’s called “ravalement”.
But it must be said that earlier music, say from before 1720, has a very different texture and purpose from music of the following decade. One is more based on a two-voice frame derived from continuo practice, with rapidly changing harmonies and the brisé style (Reusner, Mouton, Gallot, De Visée, Richée, Bittner, early Weiss). The later style is more rhetorical, based on simplified harmonic devices with slow-moving bass lines and a melodic style which we think of as Rococo. These lute works like are the “character” pieces of Couperin, Weiss especially moved more to this Italianate style, with its short repeated phrases, echo effects and “cantabile” melodies, as Baron observed. For this later music, the style of lute changed, with the German theorbo coming into favour, and the deep and large-bodied instruments of Hofmann, Schele and Edlinger.
So as fashions changed, the instruments changed with them. For the Emfindsam pieces by Falckenhagen and Hagen et al., we would prefer this later neo-Renaissance instrument for the best effect. The flattened instruments are a Mannerist outgrowth of the early 1600s. In painting, for example, the limbs are muscular, the necks and bodies extended and enlarged, the scale is expanded and the landscape is less important. This tendency is first seen in the sculpture and painting of Michelangelo, and it became dominant throughout the European world of art and architecture until around 1680. It was gradually replaced by a more naturalistic aesthetic view.
“Ich bin ein diplomierte Lautenisten: Ich trage immer neunzehn Lauten Kaesten”
(I am a graduate lutenist; I always drag nineteen lute cases around.) attributed to Jonathan Rubin.
Best wishes and apologies for overly elaborate replies, Clive