http://www.aquilacorde.com/articles4.htm
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:36:10 +0100 Jarosław Lipski <jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> wrote: > 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 > > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
