In a message dated 02/04/2010 19:32:58 GMT Daylight Time,
vidan...@sbcglobal.net writes:
Best I can do is perhaps ask some of my friends in Sweden, or
perhaps you know some of the string players in the Baroque orchestra
there.
Come to think of it I do know a Swedish baroque violinist (who also
plays on all gut, equal tension!) who may know about it. I'll ask her
next time I'm in touch.
My impression of the painting is that there were four gut strings,
all different in texture and different in color, no metal. The 4th
string is not much thicker than the third string, as is often the
case for lute strings that reach a kind of size limit in the bass.
Yes...I guess a possible explanation might be a loaded string (though I
have never been convinced of the need for them on bowed stringed
instruments); if the C is too close in diameter to the G it will just
flap about like a rubber band. But it certainly doesn't look as if
there's any metal involved.
Unbleached gut gets significantly darker the thicker the string (but
then there's not much difference between 3rd and 4th strings...); it
could also be dyed.
The other thing is the two conjunct spheres on the top string below
the bridge. This could be a knot, such as when a broken string is
reused, but I must say I really did consider that it was a fine
tuning mechanism when I was in the museum. Looking at an enlargement
of the photo, it does not appear to be a typical knot, because the
texture and thickness is different than the string. So it could be
that it is either a fine tuning mechanism, or a device to control a
wolf tone, or a clasp to serve as a knot to retie a string.
Because the object looks like two pearls, I can't rule out that it
is
an ornament.
If it is a fine tuner, it would have to work, I think, that the ends
of the strings were enclosed in two round holders joined by a simple
screw mechanism.
I try to keep an open mind, but can't help thinking a fine tuner is
unlikely; today these are used for metal strings because the same peg
movement makes so much more difference to the pitch of a metal E string
than a gut one (because it is so much denser). My initial thought was a
knot, but I agree it doesn't look typical. So maybe an ornament?
Then again, maybe it is a knot! Just a double knot.....How annoying.
Should have brought the Zeiss lens.
An excuse for another trip, I think!
The other thing that is interesting about this painting is you can
see the width of the bow is 1/3 the distance between the strings, as
a rough guess, and the top of the bridge is about two thicknesses of
the third string.
Yes - illustrative of 2 very common modern
compromises/misunderstandings. I always have to ask for bows to be
given less hair (I can actually do my fixed frog bows myself now,
though not yet with great refinement!). Even Spohr, writing of the
Tourte bow around 1830, says the bow should have 100-110 hairs - a
little over half what a typical Tourte model bow is given today.
Similarly, so many "baroque" bridges are razor sharp at the top, in
what I can only assume is a reluctance to depart too far from the
modern comfort zone.
Lastly, if you look at the very end of the low C string, you can see
that it is slightly curved. This could only be possibly if the
string
had an inner core, possibly of wire, or of the string were twisted
in
such a way that it caused some bunching in the twists, such as you
see in a telephone handset cord. I don't think the curve is artistic
license, but of course there is no way to know.
I wonder - actually, the A does not take a straight line from bridge to
tailpiece either. Could it be not so much artistic licence as artistic,
er, haste? the C seems to have the end twisted round to fasten it, so
that area is a bit of a mess anyway.
Many thanks for all this - most interesting. I'll let you know if my
Swedish friend can enlighten us.
Best wishes,
Oliver
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
