Lute or Vihuela?

Hello people of the forum!
I can't decide on how to perform Luis Milan's pavanes, originally written for vihuela.
I know how to make my guitar sound more like a vihuela, or how to get the completely opposite timber by making it sound like a lute. As guitarists now, I can achieve that by playing closer to the neck (lute) or closer to the bridge (vihuela).
The thing is, I know that the pavanes were written for vihuela, but.. Is it wrong if I make it sound like a lute?
Since the lute was the most popular string instrument in reinassance, I don't see why not, and I like the sound of it. What I play, after all, is an adaptation for guitar. But maybe I should be more... loyal to the source, and make it sound like a vihuela.
Thoughts anyone?

Considering you're playing the piece on a guitar, and not a lute or vihuela, it seems silly to attempt some ersatz imitation of another instrument. I suggest you exploit the instrument you have at your disposal; no serious pianist playing Bach will dispense with dynamics in an attempt to make their instrument sound like a harpsichord. They will bring something fresh to the piece my employing their instrument to its full potential.

I suggest you do what you think *sounds* most musical. I'd consider imitating for any other reasons than artistic superiority to be sophomoric. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I hope it gives you something to consider.

I mostly agree with Zetetic. I don't find it necessary to make a piece sound as authentic as possible (especially not if you, as Zetetic said, aren't playing it on a vihuela anyways). As a performer you are an artist as well, not just a craftsman, and you may certainly take some creative influence on the music.

It is of course a good thing to do so consciously, and not just adapt the "standard romantic tone" so many classical musicans tend to fall in when interpreting a piece of music without thinking. Often, trying to incorporate the actual sound and practices of an era can help you to get a bit away from your aesthetic habits to something more unique.

I have to disagree with Zetetic a bit that nobody would try to imitate aspects of a harpsichord on a modern piano. After all, most people would play Bach with a lot less pedal than Debussy, etc. It's certainly legitimate to make use of the capabilities of a modern piano, with dynamics and different articulations, but it can also be refreshing to keep such elements at a minimum, keep a relatively dry tone, and apply the dynamics and articulations consciously at certain points. Certain things will have to be done quite differently on a piano than on a harpsichord of course, for example, you'd probably have to cut down on ornamentation when you're playing a Couperin suite on a piano, as with the piano sound it might quickly become too thick otherwise.

So, while I agree that you should go for what sounds musically right to you, there's nothing wrong with letting yourself be inspired by ancient practices.

If you want to sound like a vihuela, which is generally a very bright sounding instrument, try playing close to the bridge and with the tops of your fingernails, not the undersides as usual.

Excellent thoughts, I agree.. thanks.
I play some piano too and I try not to use dynamics at all when I play Bach, I rather ornament my pieces by playing rubato (not excessively of course) on many parts, for example, slowering arpeggios and accelerating scales. How do you guys play music written for harpsichord as regards dynamics?
Most guitarrists I've heard also play without dynamics when the music is pre-classical, which I find pointless for example for pieces written for lute, since the lute gave you the chance to use them. I don't believe that people from the barroque period couldn't play piano and forte on the lute just because they couldn't on the harpsichord.

Heheh. This is a case of Chinese whispers. . . everyone's comments seem to have been slowly distorted down the page.

Gardener - I didn't say that nobody would try to imitate a harpsichord when playing Bach on the piano (I said that they wouldn't dispense with dynamics) nor did I wish to suggest that you should play baroque music without dynamics! In fact, it's usually the done thing to use rather dynamics to bring out individual lines, though I find this quite puerile and patronising.

The point of counterpoint is that no one line dominates - I get fed up when people play fugues where all you can hear is the same subject being thumped out again and again with no thought for the structure or dynamic that should flow through the piece.

I'm ranting though. Basically, follow your ears!

Originally Posted by Zetetic

Heheh. This is a case of Chinese whispers. . . everyone's comments seem to have been slowly distorted down the page.

Don't worry, I think I had gotten your point about dynamics.

Originally Posted by Zetetic

Gardener - I didn't say that nobody would try to imitate a harpsichord when playing Bach on the piano (I said that they wouldn't dispense with dynamics) nor did I wish to suggest that you should play baroque music without dynamics! In fact, it's usually the done thing to use rather dynamics to bring out individual lines, though I find this quite puerile and patronising.

The point of counterpoint is that no one line dominates - I get fed up when people play fugues where all you can hear is the same subject being thumped out again and again with no thought for the structure or dynamic that should flow through the piece.

I'm ranting though. Basically, follow your ears!

Interesting. I agree with you about bringing out individual lines. But again, then the performer is limited. And therefore he should play without dynamics in order to be as loyal to the source as possible, and keep all voices equally predominant. Or apply the same dinamics to all the voices. That shouldn't be wrong. I still rather keep dynamics mostly out of the mix when I play pre-classical music.
Cheers.

Originally Posted by Zetetic

Heheh. This is a case of Chinese whispers. . . everyone's comments seem to have been slowly distorted down the page.

Gardener - I didn't say that nobody would try to imitate a harpsichord when playing Bach on the piano (I said that they wouldn't dispense with dynamics) nor did I wish to suggest that you should play baroque music without dynamics! In fact, it's usually the done thing to use rather dynamics to bring out individual lines, though I find this quite puerile and patronising.

The point of counterpoint is that no one line dominates - I get fed up when people play fugues where all you can hear is the same subject being thumped out again and again with no thought for the structure or dynamic that should flow through the piece.

I'm ranting though. Basically, follow your ears!

Very good points! I can understand what you mean by a patronising playing style. In the end, even in a fugue, it's about how it sounds as a whole, not how the technical aspects behind the composition can best be demonstrated to the listener. A concert isn't an analysis class. I find nothing wrong with emphasizing a voice over the others at certain points (which certainly isn't against the principles of counterpoint), but pointing out every subject entrance like a schoolmaster annoys me too. I guess we're slowly getting off topic though

Originally Posted by Gardener

Very good points! I can understand what you mean by a patronising playing style. In the end, even in a fugue, it's about how it sounds as a whole, not how the technical aspects behind the composition can best be demonstrated to the listener. A concert isn't an analysis class. I find nothing wrong with emphasizing a voice over the others at certain points (which certainly isn't against the principles of counterpoint), but pointing out every subject entrance like a schoolmaster annoys me too.

I, myself, do not try to demonstrate to the listener any technical aspect. What I try to do, though, is to try to understand the source as best as possible. That's one of the things I find most interesting about being an interpreter.
I can think of all the technical stuff when I'm studying the piece, but ultimately when I play I just play and give my best to achieve musicality. The thing is that, having studied certain parameters in advance, I get to play the music in a different manner.
As regards counterpoint, taking the "loyalty to the source" factor out of discussion, I believe it's like film making. You may shoot long takes and let the viewer decide what to look at. Or you may do an extensive editing job to show the viewer what you want him to see. I rather not emphasize any voice and let my ears decide what to focus on.

Originally Posted by Gardener

I guess we're slowly getting off topic though

Hehe, probably it's not matching the topic's title, but I think we're still on track.
Besides, I started the topic and I don't worry
Thanks for the thoughts.