Everyone,
Has it occurred to anyone that, in the
contexts of density and tensions, we're missing
one other important component in order to say
anything certain about how stringing was done
then or how we can re-create those conditions
now? How 'bout some actual surviving strings?
Chris
--- On Thu, 2/19/09, Mark Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Mark Wheeler <[email protected]>
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Toyota Theorbo for rent, low mileage
> To: "'howard posner'"
<[email protected]>, "'Lute Net'" <[email protected]>
> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 5:59 PM
> Sorry All,
>
> I accidentally hit the send button before I got round to
> actually writing
> anything in the last post...So here is what I wanted to
> write
>
> As far as cranking the string up, there are historical
> accounts of this....
> Robinson says âso high as you dare venter for
> breakingâ.
>
> As far as Dowland goes, I do not see any problem, he meanes
> not too stiffe
> that it breaks. Dowland and Robinson are not contradictory.
>
>
> Mace talks quite a bit about stringing and even using
> different gauges, but
> stresses that equal tension among the strings is very
> important especially
> when playing in consort so that you can be heard.
>
> Taken the limited range of gut stringing, tuning the
> highest string to the
> highest possible pitch is necessary to achieve an equal
> tension. Exactly
> what this pitch was would certainly have not been exactly
> the same for every
> lutenist, but a difference of a fourth, would be pushing it
> all too far.
>
> Just as it is clear that bass lutes were tuned lower than
> tenor lutes, it
> seems only logical that small theorbos were tuned higher
> (or less
> re-entrant) than larger ones.
>
> It seems that the 2 main factors for the trend of "toy
> theorbos" (more a
> definition of usage than size) and single strung archlutes
> are the
> availability of modern string materials and the size of car
> boots. Both of
> which are not evil, just modern factors that did not exist
> in the past.
>
> All the best
> Mark
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: howard posner [mailto:[email protected]]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2009 22:52
> An: Lute Net
> Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Toyota Theorbo for rent, low mileage
>
> On Feb 19, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Stewart McCoy wrote:
>
> > "Does some historical source say both
> "highest pitch possible" and
> > "thinnest useable string" in discussing
> theorbos? And if so, is
> > there
> > any reason to believe that every theorbist
> subscribed to it?"
> >
> >
> > That sounds like quite a bit of the sort to me. You
> were asking
> > Martyn
> > Hodgson to produce a source with specific wording,
> for
> > circumstances
> > which must apply to every theorbo player.
> Unfortunately the
> > implication
> > is, that if he fails to do so, his arguments are
> specious, which
> > is a
> > bit unfair.
>
> Sorry, no. I was responding to Mark Wheeler's remark
> that "one of
> the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest
> string is
> tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the
> thinnest useable
> string." (I quoted it with his name at the top.)
>
> A fair reading of that remark is that it's posited as
> universal: this
> is what most players did for centuries. I don't
> believe it for a
> moment, and I doubt anybody ever actually said it. Hence
> my
> question: did anyone ever say, "use the thinnest
> string you can and
> crank that sucker?"
>
> Even if Mace said such a thing, which he didn't, that
> does not
> establish such a dubious proposition as "one of the
> fundamentals of
> historical lute stringing." Your lengthy paragraphs
> oddly suggesting
> that I fault Mace for not mentioning Pittoni or Handel or
> Stockhausen
> are thus beside the point, except insofar as they
> acknowledge the
> limited application of Mace's remarks.
>
> > Your next question was, "What is the
> "thinnest useable string"?"
>
> It was kind of a rhetorical question...
>
> > To find your "thinnest useable string",
> simply measure the
> > thickness of all the strings you possess, and pick
> out the
> > thinnest one. If you find you can use it on the
> instrument of your
> > choice, you will have found the "thinnest useable
> string". If it
> > breaks, it won't be much use any more, except
> possibly for smaller
> > instruments or for frets.
>
> Have you ever done this? If you have, no offense intended,
> but it
> strikes me as a strange use of time. It's certainly
> not a recipe for
> optimum sound.
>
> I think historical players began with an idea of what was
> workable,
> received from teachers, other players and then their own
> experience.
> Why on earth would they be pushing the limits of
> practicality and
> constantly flirting with strings breaking in the middle of
> performances?
>
> I know Dowland emphatically prescribed the opposite, saying
> "first
> set on your Trebles, which must be strayned neither too
> stiffe nor
> too slacke, but of such a reasonable height that they may
> deliver a
> pleasant sound, and also (as Musitions call it) play too
> and fro
> after the strokes thereon," and warning of strings
> that were too
> thin: "but let it not be too small, for those give no
> sound, besides
> they will be either rotten for lacke of substance, or
> extreame false."
>
> > So far I have dwelt on the less contentious side of
> the question:
> > large instruments require a re-entrant tuning, because
> otherwise
> > there is a risk that their strings will break. I hope
> we are agreed
> > on that.
>
> We're not. There are plenty of big bass lutes out
> there that aren't
> in re-entrant tuning (and it appears that the first
> chitarrones
> started out as bass lutes). Re-entrant tuning is not a
> result of
> having a big instrument, but rather of having a big
> instrument with a
> basic A or G lute tuning instead of D or E tuning.
> Re-entrant tuning
> was thus always an aesthetic choice, and remains an
> aesthetic
> choice. In the 18th century, gallichons/mandoras too big
> to be tuned
> to lute pitch in G were tuned in non-rentrant tuning at
> lower
> pitches. These instruments were extremely common in
> Central Europe,
> probably more so than theorbos.
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
