Anthony,
I know these articles very well, but they don't answer some very difficult
questions. As I repeatedly say, I am not against this theory. What I am only
asking for is to call this hypothesis a hypothesis, taking into account the
present state of research. That's all! I don't think it's too much. Some
other real possibilities do exist as well, as explained in this thread.
Regards
Jaroslaw
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Hind" <anthony.h...@noos.fr>
To: "lute List" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 12:34 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Laurent de La Hyre [loaded?]
Le 28 fĂŠvr. 09 Ă 23:39, alexander a ĂŠcrit :
http://www.aquilacorde.com/articles4.htm
And you can see Mimmo taking various measurements, explained in the
article above at this link :
http://www.aquilacorde.com/researches.htm
Note that he does not just measure lute bridge holes. The same
problems concern Viols.
There must be some compensation in handling such instruments,
however, in spite of the painstaking work:
Just take a peep at the Charles IX Andrea Amati's viola (1570 ca?).
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 2007
http://www.aquilacorde.com/amati5.JPG
The 4th hole on the tailpiece of the Amati viol has a diameter of 2.3
mm only against the necessary pure gut of not less than 2.8-3 mm
(according to Mimmo).- If the hole was 2.3 we can suppose that the
string was around 2.0 mm. We are either dealing with very very low
tension or loading, or some sort of pretensioned stringing.
Anthony
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:36:10 +0100
JarosĹaw 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
--
