----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger E. Blumberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Roger E. Blumberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: Re: also Viola picture
> > > > Hi Rosinfiorini; > > > > let me just clearify that the problem with the bridge in general, and the > > way you've connected those dots, is that this artist _knows_ how to draw > > good perspective. If you look at the right side edge of the viol's face, > as > > it drops down the side of instrument, all the well exicuted perspective > and > > geometry of those boxy edges and sides of the middle waist bout, you can > see > > how true this is. Now if you go back the the bridge, if it were all one > > connected piece, it's perspective (in relation to all other prespective on > > the viol) would be way off -- the work of a talented 5 year old perhaps, > but > > not Viti. That rendering would not pass muster, would never get out the > door > > (or on the wall) with Viti's name and reputation attached to it, I > believe. > > So, if for no other reason, that's why I'm not ready to accept that we're > > looking at one connected piece of bridgework. > > > > In your minds eye, imagine standing a boxed deck of cards or cigarette > pack > > upright on it's long narrow edge on top of the face of that instrument, > > perpendicular to the face of the viola. > > http://www.thecipher.com/viol_TimoteoViti_c1500Madonna-italy.jpg > > can you see the kind of perspective it would create, and the kind of > > perspective Viti would have seen? He sees the correct perspective just 2 > or > > 3 inches away at the right side of the instrument, so why can't he see it > > for the bridge? > > > > Thanks > > Roger > > > > > just another bit of detail to add to the mix (I don't know here else to tack > it, so I'll put it here); > > regarding the likelihood of the Viti viola having originally been a 4 or 5 > stringed machine, and that it better defaults to a plucked viola as well > (and no kind of even 5 string bowed viol), see the width of the tail piece, > and the exteme paths and angles the strings need to take to reach the 1st > and 6th slots of the bridge, and then they head in the sharp opposite > direction after the bridge to meet the nut slots. > http://www.thecipher.com/viol_TimoteoViti_c1500Madonna-italy.jpg > > Under tension those strings will want to walk up the bridge to rest closer > to center, closer to a straight line path -- tail to nut. They'll jump their > bridge slots guaranteed. > > Now compare the width of a true real dedicated and better developed/refined > 6 string gamba as again seen in the 1502 fresco grouping. I'll isolate one > instrument. > http://www.thecipher.com/AngelConsort1503single.jpg > > See the wide width of the tail behind the bridge, and the better string path > that would create? Some of that greater width is shadow I think, but it's > still much wider than on the Viti viola, wide enough for six strings to fit > comfortably, and the string path is much straighter from tail to bridge, > pretty much a straight line. > > even the tail-width of this true dedicated bowed 5 stringer is wider than > the Viti tail. > http://www.thecipher.com/oldestGamba-40p.jpg > > The Viti tail and neck width _are_ in good proportion to each other, the > plucking bridge (if it is) is also in good proportion to tail width and neck > width. But neither that bowing bridge's width, nor 6 strings, are > proportional for that instrument. > > I think maybe we are getting closer to unraveling this. > > Roger > Here's an interesting comparison: Viti's 1505 viol http://www.thecipher.com/viol_TimoteoViti_c1500Madonna-italy.jpg Raphael's viol of 1514 http://www.thecipher.com/viol-guitar_Raphael_1514.jpg (again, Raphael was one of Viti's students.) Compare the look and feel, scale and proportions, design refinement, technologies, etc between these two instruments. Raphael's is the real deal and state of the art. Viti's is of an older pattern (and a later-day conversion I still believe). (And I dare any guitarist in the world to not recognize his own instrument when he sees it -- there in Raphael's painting ;') The viol Raphael painted is a stunning peice of work. You can even see that the end of the fretboard is up off the deck The edge bindings all around the body are a nice little surprise to. It's nice to see just how deep-bodied those instruments really were. You can also see the greater depth in the Borgia Apt viola, but Raphael's is up close and unmistakeable. http://www.thecipher.com/violasineacrulo_Borgia1493bw.jpg The bridge is still attached to Raphael's viol (must be glued down) . It looks like it belongs there, it's fit, scale, position on the face, look right. In all, it's still higher, and the neck/fretboard is still narrower than I might have expected, but I believe this one. The fretboard evelation on this one does help justify the bridge height though. Notice how thin and narrow the foot of this bridge is, and how high the center cut-out is. I don't see either of those things in the Viti viol bridge(s). The top looks so thin it's buckling, rippling, with time and age. This must have been one very resonant instrument -- a true humming viol. Roger To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
