I don't know if I would write the same thing today, hopefully something better, but it would probably be pretty close. I think the conclusion, that it all gets softer as you head for the bass, is right. But maybe they had special strings that evened it out a bit, but the top string would have had to be the loudest, I think. Remember that was written in 1988, now 22 years later, so it is kind of past the expiration date :) You can still put it in pancakes, but not coffee.
There are so many references to cranking up the top string that we can't ignore them, and Besard's comment seems totally reasonable, which is, well, if it starts to sound bad, stop cranking. That would seem to imply that for most players, the top string HAD to go up, and that for professionals working at the end of the century, who might have acess to slightly better strings, or even by 1604 or so double necked lutes, there was some leeway. But even in Capirola's time they must have noticed that there was a sweet spot before the tippy-top tension, it is just that the lowest course had to be factored in. The main thing is that for most instruments, renaissance and baroque, the notes became softer as they went lower, and that is basically the opposite of the situation today. A "baroque baroque" cello or violin would produce much less sound, and much less bass, than a modern "baroque" cello or violin. I've yet to play in an orchestra where the violins used all gut strings on all four strings, as was the practice of the time, but it will happen, I think. It just isn't where we "wound up" when the Early Music movement went mainstream. It may be where some are headed. Quite a few of my colleagues would prefer to go back to the basic principles--get close to the original. dt At 11:25 AM 3/24/2010, you wrote: >On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:36 AM, nedma...@aol.com wrote: > > > In working my way through David Talyer's graduate thesis on Dowland > > (great fun) I came across the statement regarding Dowland's stringing > > (p.82): "The very highest string, tuned as high as it could stand > > (modern players, incidentally tend to make do with one half to two > > thirds this tension), was by far the loudest string, each string below > > sounded softer." > >And the next sentence reads, "The lowest strings were >barely able to sound, until the advent of the lutes with extended >necks." This all assumes rather a lot, and I wonder if David would >write the same thing now, 18 years later. > >The "highest tension possible" idea gets my skepticism circuits humming. > >What Dowland writes in the "Necessarie Observations" section of >Varietie of Lute Lessons (it's actually attributed to Besard, though >the reference to "here in England," where Besard never set foot, >shows that Dowland must have at least adapted it) is: > >"...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, also (as Musitions call it) play too and >fro after the strokes thereon. Secondly, set on your Bases, in that >place which you call the sixt string, or vi; these Bases must be of >one bignes, yet it hath beene a generall custome (although not so >much used any where as here in England) to set a small and a great >string together, but amongst learned Musitions that custome is left, >as irregular to the rules of Musicke. But to our purpose: these >double Bases likewise must neither be stretched too hard, nor too >weake, but that they according to your feeling striking with your >Thombe and finger equally counterpoyse the Trebles, yielding from >them a low or deepe sound, distant from the Trebles an Intervall >called Disdiapason. Now the Base being ordered, proceede to the >Tenor, which strings must be so much smaller than the Base, that >they reach a Diatessaron higher, that is, a fourth...Thus as the >sounds increase in height, so the strings must decrease in greatnesse." > >So the Big D/Besard is not talking about cranking the string as high >as it will tolerate, but rather a "reasonable height" (is he using >"height" to mean both "pitch" and "tension," or perhaps not >distinguishing the two?) on the first course, and something similar >on the others, depending on how literally you want to take "equally >counterpoyse." There is no mention of absolute pitch or string >diameter, and he's not sitting there with a tension meter, so we >have to interpret what he means. > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
