I can't remember exactly where I read it, but I suspect it was either
in David Van Edwards "Build your own Renaissance Lute" CD course, or
"Historical Lute Construction" by Robert Lundberg, that the lack of
lining between the soundboard and ribs is to keep the top as light and
flexible as possible, and to make it easier to remove the top in the
future for repair.
In fact the overall construction philosophy of lutes, vihuelas, viols,
Renaissance and Baroque guitars, seems to be light. As far as the
backs are concerned, I suppose it was also in keeping with the light
philosophy and if these instruments didn't suffer catastrophic failure
due to inadequate glue surface between the back and sides under normal
use, then linings aren't really needed. Modern guitars are built much
more heavily than their ancestors.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:20 PM, WALSH STUART <[1]s.wa...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
This is a very basic question and I may have got things confused!
Whenever I see constructional details of flat-backed plucked
instruments after about 1800 or so they all seem to use either solid
linings, or kerfing or tentallones to join the top and the back to
the sides. This is true (I think) of all guitars, flat-backed
mandolins, ukuleles bandurrias, timples... etc....they all use extra
wood attached to the insides of the ribs.
But at least some earlier (flat-backed, plucked) instruments don't.
Have I got that right? If so, why do (some) earlier instruments
just have soundboard and backs glued to the sides?
Grateful for any insights
Stuart
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
[2]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
To get on or off this list see list information at
[3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
Mark Day
[4]www.markday.me
--
References
1. mailto:s.wa...@ntlworld.com
2. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
4. http://neowalla.smugmug.com/
