> When it comes to >the physical
>construction of musical instrument, high symmetry means >something
relatively boring and the
>lowest symmetry possible is necessary to construct an >instrument, such as
a lute, that is designed
>to emphasize the different roles of the left and right hands, >respectively
Marion,
I think it might be wise to get back to the issue at hand, as it
applies to the construction and conception of musical instruments.
Manolo, said symmetry is a cheap trick, uninteresting yet, symmetry is
used in, the lute, guitar, and violin templates of Stradivari, and Arnault
De Zwolle's work containing a drawing of a lute, with an accompanying
description of the method used to draw it. It includes the whole body of
geometry and principles of proportionality which would be used to develop
all new instruments created during the Renaissance, including the violin.
I was delighted to finally see a lute body, which was symmetrical.
I know of some lutemakers who copy every defect of proportion. The
problem with this is, it ends up compounding the defect, and as a result and
new lute is twice as distorted as the original.
I have already made a mould for the Yale Jauch using symmetry and it
looks very pleasing. The challenge will be to actually translate the final
outcome of construction, in which case Manolo will be pleased to know, it
probably won't be perfectly symmetrical.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "guy_and_liz Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>; "Manolo Laguillo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
> "Perfect symmetry" is a term that is too vague to use in scientific
descriptions. I don't know
> what it means unless it refers to the sphere, which allows all possible
symmetry operations.
> It's not that highly symmetric objects don't exist in nature, nor does it
have anything to do with
> the second law of thermodynamics on a molecular level. "Perfect symmetry"
as it relates to building
> lutes and other stringed instruments could be defined as belonging to the
C1 point group (which is
> to say that the instrument is asymmetrical). To find higher symmetry, it
is necessary to look at simpler instruments, such as a hand bell, which has
C-infinty-v symmetry. When it comes to the physical
> construction of musical instrument, high symmetry means something
relatively boring and the
> lowest symmetry possible is necessary to construct an instrument, such as
a lute, that is designed
> to emphasize the different roles of the left and right hands,
respectively.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: May 24, 2005 8:57 AM
> To: guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, LUTELIST
<lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>,
> Manolo Laguillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>
> >Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a >convenient and
reasonably good approximation, but >perfect symmetry runs afoul of the
second law of >thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects >and
dislocations
>
> OK, so I'm getting the idea that perfect symmetry does not exist in
nature, such a piety.
> However, has anyone read the book by Dr. Masaru Emoto, The hidden
Messages in Water.
> Dr. Emoto, has found and photographed the formation of water crystals.
Polluted water, or water subjected to negative thoughts, forms incomplete,
asymmetrical patterns, with dull colors, and water from clear springs,
exposed to positive thoughts forms brilliant complex, symmetrical, and
colorful snowflake patterns.
> In Buddhist, and Hindu art, one finds perfect symmetry in the form of
mandalas, which represent perfect Enlightenment.
> Is it wrong for humans to try to achieve perfect symmetry? It seems
nature is trying.
> Michael Thames
> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: guy_and_liz Smith
> To: LUTELIST ; Manolo Laguillo ; Michael Thames
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:44 PM
> Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>
>
> Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a convenient and
reasonably good approximation, but perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second
law of thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects and
dislocations.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Thames
> To: LUTELIST ; Manolo Laguillo
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>
>
> >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
>
> Interesting to note, the best lutemakers of the ren. were
Germans.
>
> > Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but >something much
more
> >exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it
>
> I'm not sure, but would venture to say, symmetry exists in ice
crystal,
> and crystal formations?
>
> Michael Thames
> www.ThamesClassicalGuitarscom
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST"
> <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
