I'm not sure to whom to reply, so I pick on the good Dr. of Chemistry. It comes down to the question of what is perfection. Is a straight line straight, or is a mess of fractals (don't pick on me for the joking reference, I realize that there is more to fractals). Are we really going to go to this level? If I shave my lute soundboard to a fraction of my goals, but one small segment is a ten thousandth of a millimeter off will it affect the sound (Answer, it will, but will I hear it? Every tiny difference effects a totality, but the effect isn't necessarily noticeable - or predictable).
Chemistry isn't Physics, and Physics isn't Chemistry - and Quantum Mechanics (my day, fifty years ago - now should we say Quantum Theory) would suggest that everything is random and undefined, but statistically comes to a form when treated as a whole. (Sorry love, I'm trying to be careful to put this general terms). I know that I've sent you a private message on the topic regarding my father at Bell Labs, but your rather detailed comments here require me to comment. Symmetry and crystaline structure are both synonymous, and also a matter of degree, in fact everything is a matter of degree. My father sent an internal memo to his colleagues at the Labs in about 1047, it had to do with his theoretical speculation on what might happen at the P/N junction of a doped crystal, a crystal whose structure was compromised by impurities. He was working with quartz, a very stable crystalline structure. Schockley's crew was working in Germanium, less strict in structure. It didn't work with quartz, but Germanium was flexible and we got the transistor (and Schockley the Nobel, although it was the crew that did it). Silicon based transitor crystals came in later, with developement. Where is the point? Not in the perfection of structure or symmetry. Those don't exist if you go deep enough. Even though I'm a political conservative I'll support relativism when it comes to the perfection of sound, or the symmetry of the scale. And I'll not email our good Dr. of Chemistry to argue the left and right hand symmetry, we all know that the well made lute will have a difference of bracing and soundboard shaving to accomodate the bass versus the treble. That isn't symmetry, that is good design and making. I repeat, nothing is symmetrical if you go to the right level. The String Theorists are proposing 13 levels, and 13 can never be symmetrical. But that isn't important, what is important to the musician is the symmetry of sound - and that isn't really a symmetry. We all know that the natural overtone scale of the tensioned string has faults in it when compared to our chosen even temperament scale. Perfection is the exact form (frequencies) of the overtones on the single string, but that isn't perfection when wanting more notes, or different keys. How many times must I punctuate with the Pythagorean comma? And does my cat hear the tones as in the Oriental natural scale, or hear the nuances of the middle eastern quarter tones (and they are a bit smaller than that - my personal ear distinguishes about 5 cents, or less, on the cent scale where a half tone is 100 cents). What is a pleasant and harmonic sound? It isn't defined by the physics of sound vibrations, else we would have none. It is the compromise of our scales, and the training of our ears. Luckily my mind is asymmetrical, so I've no horse in this race (or dog in this fight). I shall retire to bed and contemplate my navel (were I able to see it). But I shall do so with well made popcorn (as I will make it) and a good book. It is a matter of level when one discusses symmetry. And it is a matter of level when one accepts or denies it. I'm not sure if I accept fractals as geometry, but the advocates have a point (no pun intended, they do have points on a straight line). Best, Jon > The term "perfect symmetry" does not exist in chemistry. The branch of mathematics that deals with the > characterization and categorization of symmetry is called "group theory." Molecules and crystals are > categorized according to the degree and type of symmetry into groups. Depending on the temperature and > pressure of the ice, the crystals will belong to one "point group" or another. If one were to apply the > principles of group theory to lutes, most lutes would belong to the C1 point group. That means that the > lute is not superimposible on its mirror image. This is why we need right-hand and left-hand lutes. If anyone > does not believe me he or she is welcome to email me off list and we can debate it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: May 23, 2005 6:44 PM > To: LUTELIST <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>, > Manolo Laguillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Michael Thames <[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. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michael Thames<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: LUTELIST<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> ; Manolo Laguillo<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com<http://www.thamesclassicalguitars.com/> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>; "LUTELIST" > <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu<mailto: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]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > >To: "lute list" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu<mailto: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 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > -- > > > > >
