Martin, Yes and it certainly works well if you have a lute set extremely 'fine' and are not trying to play as loud as possible, however one needs greater accuracy in placing the fingers. The feeling is a little like playing a fretless instrument. But also bear in mind that glued-on frets seem to be an early 17thC invention and higher notes (above 8th fret) were stopped on the belly. A very thin top fret smooths the transition. Having said this, I soon reverted to thicker frets to make life easier (if not HIP) - so much for my advocacy of historical evidence .................. rgds Martyn
Martin Shepherd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Martyn and All, The really interesting thing about "Varietie" is how thin the frets are. Dowland says use a fourth course string for frets 1 and 2, a third course for frets 3 and 4, second course for frets 5 and 6, and first course for frets 7 to 10. Our best estimate of likely string diameters therefore suggests a maximum of about .80mm, .64mm, .50mm, and .42mm for fret diameters, perhaps even thinner for the "first course" diameter because D was talking about a double first course. Has anyone tried using a .40mm fret? Even allowing for the fact that he was using double frets, this seems incredibly thin. Many modern players (admittedly using single frets) have tended to use very large diameter frets because that say it helps concentrate the pressure on the string rather than the fingerboard (especially if you have fleshy finger ends, which I guess was never the case for impoverished 16thC musicians!). They also claim large frets make playing ornaments easier. Comments, anyone? Best wishes, Martin Martyn Hodgson wrote: > Martin, > > Yes. But one of the problems continues to be the reluctance of players > to employ well graduated frets which allows the lute to be 'set fine' > (low action in modern parlance). You only need to read 'Varietie' to > understand the quite severe graduations required (cf. many current > frettings) and the thickness of the first fret. > > Incidentally, by using graduated frets the 'Old Ones' clearly showed > they well understood the importance of displacement to the fingerboard > rather than just to the top of the fret.............. > > Again, we should always aim to refer to historical information if we > are to approach what they expected. > > rgds > > Martyn > > */Martin Shepherd /* wrote: > > Dear All, > > Michael Lowe told me recently that he thought luthiers spent the > first > 30 years of their working lives making lutes, and the second thirty > years adjusting actions.... > > Best wishes, > > Martin > > Ed Durbrow wrote: > > >>Herb, > >>There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top > >>of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on > >>some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of > >>the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more > >>even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the > >>strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot > >>points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, > with gut > >>bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either > >>cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the > >>treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in > >>which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite > >>a learning experience, and I have much greater app > >> > >> > > > >It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd > like to > >know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an > >instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It > >seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up > >to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the > >point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings > >clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a > >buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must > >mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base > here? > >I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that > >into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even > >slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if > >the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch > with > >the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the > >differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a > >wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers > >here. > > > >cheers, > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Messenger > > NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail > --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail --
