Manolo,
Yes, thanks for the ideas, and I would love to read the book by Lewis
Munford, and will order it today.
However, I do differ with you on the workmanship aspect. For instance, I've
noticed in lutes that I've personally examined, having a bugle where the spine
goes into the end clasp, maybe not too clear. Many lutemakers I've spoken with
including Paul Thompson can't see why anyone would make a new lute like this.
Also, the Yale Jauch is very much distorted beyond any reasonable artistic
expression, and the belly shape needs to be reconstructed, to be acceptable, in
this case you can't blame tension and humidity, only the workman ship
The other point being, lutes have most likely distorted over the centuries
so the actual shape may not be what we think it is. The symmetrical templates
of Stradivari at least, gives us a clue, as to where they were starting from.
It is almost impossible to make a perfectly symmetrical anything, lute,
guitar etc. they will all differ slightly no matter how hard one tries to
achieve perfect symmetry. However one has to start somewhere.
> In the japanese aesthetic there is a word I can't >remember now for this
>idea of being perfect precisely through imperfection
I believe the term for it is Wabe Sabe.
The American Indians leave out threads in their woven rugs to make them
imperfect and hence, satisfy the evil sprits.
I've long suspected that the lutemakers of the past had a similar idea, the
imperfection of man, but that can be achieved simply by trying to be perfect.
That being said, there are some lutes that appear to be very symmetrical, as
well.
All the best,
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Manolo Laguillo
To: Michael Thames ; LUTELIST
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: was: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Sorry, but I can't agree with the two ideas expressed below by Michael Thames:
1. poor workmanship on the part of old lutemakers
2. symmetry equals to perfection, therefore asymmetry = imperfection.
Because:
a. They had a superior craftmanship level, and could have done the lutes
perfectly symmetrical if they would have the desire and need to do so. We only
have to look at the perfectly spherical stone "balls" present in so many
buildings of the Renaissance. The sphere is, by the way, the representation of
absolute symmetry...
b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of composition. It is a
cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi architects (Albert
Speer...) used it a lot.
Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but something much more exciting:
the appearance of it, without really being it.
In the japanese aesthetic there is a word I can't remember now for this idea
of being perfect precisely through imperfection.
All this relates with something of paramount importance in the interpretation
of early music, that we all know, and that I am going to express with an
example: if we have a measure with 4 /\ /\ , each one has to be played with a
different accent, stressed differently. This is difficult for us because we
were born in an epoch where everything is mechanic, and handmade objects are
luxury... Remember William Morris?
I will dare to recommend you a book, Michael, that you could enjoy a lot:
Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization.
Saludos,
Manolo Laguillo
Michael Thames wrote:
Lundberg did not say that lute bellies weren't symmetrical, >just that the
lute
as a whole doesn't have a clear center line.
Without getting lundbergs book out, he says something to the
effect that there isn't a straight line on the lute except the strings.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. I prefer to think in terms
that the lute has a center line and the neck is tilted.
From my experience with the few different lutes I've made, the
originals are not perfectly symmetrical. For many reasons age, stress etc.
poor workmanship. For this reason alone, coming across Stadivari's template,
and seeing first hand that lutes were conceived from the beginning to be
perfectly symmetrical cleared up at least for me some of the mystery.
I know many makers will copy a lute with every distortion, and
imperfection, it seems for me that this might not be the way to do it.
I wonder if these early makers had some mind set to stop just short of
perfection?
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garry Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute list" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:54 AM
Subject: RE: Stradivari lute?
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:55 AM
To: Lute net
Subject: Stradivari lute?
I noticed a lute template of the belly ( 11 course French lute) made
from
thick paper, folded down the middle to from the centre line, indicating
to
me, that lutes were originally conceived to be symmetrically prefect,
and do
in fact have a clear centre line, contrary to what Lundberg says.
[GB>]
Lundberg did not say that lute bellies weren't symmetrical, just that the
lute
as a whole doesn't have a clear center line.
If you'll look at page 76 ( Practicum One: Making the Form ) in
"Historical Lute
Construction", you'll notice that Lundberg's instructions coincide with
what you
describe above.
I'm sure that Martin Shepherd (first name out of the brain this morning.)
or
someone else can probably give a concise description of the "asymmetry" of
the
lute. It's too early for me; I need more coffee >:)
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
