On Oct 7, 2012, at 4:23 AM, Jaros³aw Lipski <jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> wrote:
> There is also quite a lot of speculation in your answer, So I said at the beginning. > however I doubt very much if Mace could be so poetic and enigmatic in the > book which was to simplify things. He was defending lute's position amongst > instruments so he tried to make explanations as easy as possible. For us it's > not easy because we didn't live at that time. IMO he talks about most common > things (obviously except his dyphone, but in this case he wanted to show > people his invention). I really doubt very much that he would be inclined to > make generalization after examining just a one string and immediately wanting > to share his discovery with the whole world. In this case the whole book > would be of little value for anyone. But I don't thing this is the case. He > clearly explained that many kinds of strings were commonly dyed. Then he > proceeded to give his opinion on which ones were good, and which he found > commonly faulty. This would be quite a normal thing to write in a handbook. Obviously, I'm less inclined to take Mace seriously than you are. You're writing here about what you would mean if you wrote what Mace wrote. I'm writing about what an oddball who may have been an inaccurate observer or someone quick to jump to odd conclusions may have meant. And remember, when he wrote the book he was so deaf he had to put his teeth on a lute to hear any sound from it, so the details of strings' actual sounds may have been a different memory. If you're inclined to take everything Mace says as practical and workable, try building his dyphone, and then try playing it. > As far as your objections concerning unusual colors are concerned please have > a look at the 12c lute's bridge detail of Bilcius painting (2nd half of the > 17th c). It shows string colors from bright yellow, orange, till various > shades of blue. Where? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
