> 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.
Jaroslaw
I HAVE called the loaded theory a hypothesis, only I have
called it the BEST hypothesis, at PRESENT as the starred forms in the
OED (sorry for the emphasis, but it is easier to explain this with
intonation than with the written word).
I certainly am open to taking account of the other hypotheses
discussed on this list (as well as the toroidal theory that has not
been discussed, but which I will explain when I have time). I have
rarely mentioned the loaded theory without mentioning the others;
and I am very interested in Damian's high torsion strings, which I
suppose may have some of the qualities of Charles Besnainou's
toroidal ones.
As I have said all along, these varying hypotheses have to account
for the same data, as Martin Shepherd so clearly stated. The smallest
bass string lute holes (not the biggest), and the shortest string
lengths.
Hopefully, such a bass string, would give excellent "intonation" with
the octaves, a low degree of impedance at the bridge, good sustain to
all strings, and not just to the bass voices, with good clarity, and
of course a homogenous sound across voices (as the loaded strings in
fact do).
Actually, toroidal strings do all that too, although, I am not at all
sure they are historic, but in gut, I would certainly have been ready
to use them, if I hadn't had access to loaded strings. The problem is
that only Charles Besnainou can tie them. They are fairly easy to
make, I even made one with him. Perhaps silk loaded can also do the
trick, Alexander may be able to tell us.
> 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.
Actually, the thumb is further forward, in the Mace position, by
about 1", in my calculations, but that does not really change the
issue, here.
> 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 quite agree, there doesn't seem to be much detailed discussion of
RH position gained from iconography, compared to the two descriptions
Burwell, Mace, and the marks on lute bellies. During the last few
weeks, I have been engaged in an interesting communication on that
topic with Mathias Rösel.
I also spent some time trying to measure proportionally on screen
with Pixel stick, not very accurate of course, but giving a rough
idea, both the historic lutes on Mimmo's site, and various player's
RH positions . I will perhaps give more detail later, but I can say
now, that at least in the photo of Satoh playing here, his
"pinkie" (little finger) is placed very close to the bridge, closer
than most lute marks that are infront of the bridge. It is pointing
slightly forwards, which means his hand is further back than if the
pinkie was pointing down or backwards.
His thumb is swivelled further backwards (almost level with his
fingers which are at about 45° to the strings), giving a swallow nest
shape to his hand,
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~lsa/old/Cleveland2006/TSatohConcert.html
This makes the thumb a little further back still than with the Mace
or Burwell shape, corresponding to most iconography, showing the
index finger at about 90° to the strings, and the thumb pointing
forward (in the relaxed position) in line with the strings, with the
hand shaped like an arch (prior to making a fist), not like a
swallow's nest. We never (or rarely) see the thumb on the bass
strings, so of course it would go backwards in an arc, swivelling on
the pinkie, but it would still be well in front of the index finger.
Indeed, as Mathias said, the position effects the top strings much
more strongly than it does the basses.
(Mathias suggested that one of the reasons few people adopt this 90°
to the strings index finger position, could be that it is somewhat
guitar like, and this tends to be shunned, but lutenists).
I just repeat these links here for reference:
In front of the bridge:
http://www.aquilacorde.com/mouton5.jpg
Behind the bridge:
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/Ember/brugghen-1628.gif
On the bridge:
http://tinyurl.com/ago2rd
This is not a criticism of Satoh's position, just to point to the
fact that he is really about as far back as you can go. His lute bowl
is large which helps the bass, and he often uses a "Dutch' lute which
benefits from a long bass string length. So there is not much left to
do to help the bass for more lowering of tension.
Any help, now must come from a change of string type, if not loaded,
then say toroidal twine, with only on element of the twine going
through the bridge; perhaps if Damian's high torsion strings give a
similar result they will do the trick.
Of course loading with a wire, could also do that, but demifilé
usually result in oval shape holes, and apparently these are not
observed on old 11c bridges, and not mentioned in Mace or Burwell.
While they might not have been able to notice loading, they could not
fail to notice a thread of wire, either within or without.
All we can ask is for one of the other hypotheses to be able to pass
a suitable string through the smalles bass string lute holes, and on
lutes as short as the Charles Mouton lute. Damain may already have
done this, or thinks he will be able to do this, with his new
strings. I am certainly not going to complain. We should all be happy
at having new solutions to our gut bass string problems.
Note however that at present on a 68cm lute T. Satoh apparently has
11C at 1,82 diameter, and 2,4Kg (see below), which of course would
not pass a historic lute hole. For a 66,5cm lute this diameter would
increase; while the tension would actually need to drop to a little
under 1,5Kg if we are to get anywhere near the hole size.
Regards
Anthony
PS I hadn't realized that "pinkie" (a form I don't usually use) is
the Dutch equivalent of "fingie", borrowed into English.
T. Satoh's string set up according to David van Ooijen:
Baroque lute 68cm 415Hz (standard tension)
For 11 course:
68cm
1) fâ = T40V (3.2kg)
2) dâ = T46V (3.1kg)
3) a = T54 (2.4kg)
4) f = T66 (2.2kg)
5) d = P78 (2.2kg)
6) A = P108(2.4kg)/ & octave a = T54 (2.4kg)
7) G = P122 (2.4kg) & octave g = T60 (2.3kg)
8) F = P136 (2.4kg) & oct. f = T68 (2.4kg)
9) E/Eflat = P/G148 (E2.5/Eflat2.2) & oct. e = T74 (2.5kg/
eb 2.2kg)
10) D = P/G162 (2.4kg) & oct. d = T80(2.3kg)
11) C = P/G182 (2.4kg) & oct. c = T 92 (2.4kg)
For 13 course:
± 76cm.
12) Bâ/Bâflat = G176(2.5/2.2kg) & oct. B/Bflat T88
(2.5/2.2kg)
13) Aâ = G194 (2.4kg) & octave A= T96 (2.3kg)
For 13 course French (Dutch) head:
10) ±72cm D = P 154 (2.4kg) & oct. d = T 76 (2.4kg)
11) ±77cm C = P 160 (2.4kg) & oct. c = T 80 (2.4kg)
12) ±82cm Bâ/Bâflat = P164 (2.5/2.2kg) & oct. B/Bflat = T82
(2.5/2.2kg)
13) ±87cm Aâ = P170 (2.4kg) & oct. A = T 84(2.35kg)
For 14 course French (Dutch) head:
11) ±72cm C = G172 (2.4kg) & oct. C = T 86 (2.4kg)
12) ±77cm Bâ/Bâflat = G 175 (2.5/2.2kg) & oct. B/Bflat = T 88
(2.5/2.2kg)
13) ±82cm Aâ = G180 (2.4kg) & oct. A = T90 (2.4kg)
14) ±87cm Gâ = G190 (2.4kg) & oct. G = T96 (2.45kg)
T = Treble gut (single twist), T&V (varnished)
P = Pistoy gut (triple twist), G = Gimp gut (silver or copper wire
in gut)
Le 1 mars 09 à 02:13, JarosÅaw Lipski a écrit :
> 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 fÄÅ vr. 09 Ä 23:39, alexander a ÄÅ crit :
>>
>>> 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
>>> JarosĹÂaw 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
>>
>>
>> --
>
--
