Mimmo told me that he actually checked 70 lutes from which only 50% had
original bridges. On the total, 13 were 13 course -lutes (not important
here); 13 were 11 course lutes (d minor, of course) ; 3 with 10 course, 1
with 12 courses and short extended neck (like the Gaultier English engraving
or like the Satoh's lute); 2 with 7 courses; 2 with 8 courses. Just one was
a Liuto attiorbato of 13 courses and another was an archlute.
I didn't say that these mesurements mean nothing. I just wanted to show the
proportion of the present research to the amount of the lutes that existed
in 16-18th c. Besides we have only lutes in museums which mean that their
state may or may not be 100% original - they weren't X-rayed yet. The
smaller bridge hole just signifies that the string gauge would be smaller.
But as mentioned before this can mean some other things as well. As I posted
before, incidently I was forced to string my theorbo with guts much thiner
than usual. The 14th course is 1.2 mm at the moment (which would go through
any historical hole) and the instrument works better than ever. The tension
is low, but if you shift the hand towards the bridge (as on paintings) it
sounds great.
How many people do what the paintings show us - RH close to the bridge TO.
Even Mace says:
"That your little finger, be still fixt under the bridge. That your thumb
end lye upon the last bass; I mean the end of your thumb, ........ about
three or four inches above the bridge"
This is really close to the bridge. Than he says:
"Put the end of your second finger, a very little under the treble string,
(about three inches above the bridge)".
If the tip of the thumb is 4 inches from the bridge and the second finger
(index) 3 inches, we end with the hand position similar to Satoh's, but
slightly more TO. I tryed to put in practice his remarks, and it seems to
work on my low tension theorbo. We have to take into account the
possibilitie that the plain gut produced then, could be of different type
than modern so the tone would be even better. The last quite important
factor is the string action which is often very low now, but didn't need to
be so in 17 c.
I am not the advocate of any theory. Actually I like "loading" hypothesis
and am whole-heartedly for Mimmo's research, but I still prefer to call this
a hypothesis (in spite Mimmo's evidence is strong) until it's scientificly
prooved. I hope he will get support for his research! Actually, I really
think and I am not alone in this conviction that we need a complete and at
least a substantial survey.
That's all.
There are other string makers whose theorys are strong too.I am just a lute
player and have nothing to say about this any more. If you have any doubts
please consult them. I just responded to Anthony's emails, but don't claim
to be a string expert as none of us is I suppose.
Jaroslaw
----- Original Message -----
From: <dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:18 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Laurent de La Hyre [loaded?]
How many lutes were mesured for bridge hole's
diameter? 10, 20 or 30?
I dnot see that we need a complete or even a substantial survey.
Any instance where the bridge was conceived as we see it and the diapason
holes are significantly smaller than the holes for stoped basses is
evidence tht smaller diameter strings were conciously used, if that then
obliges the use of strings denser than natural, loading of some sort is
indicated, if not overspin, then chemical.
--
Dana Emery
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
