Also worth mentioning that Mace's compositions aren't that bad either.
Tony Bailes has recorded some of them.
Bill
PS After trying everything, I'm drifting back to nylon strings as
being the least troublesome and certainly least expensive. [ducks for
cover . . .]
From: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; JarosAA'aw Lipski <jaroslawlip...@wp.pl>
Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012, 8:43
Subject: [LUTE] Re: the point of synthetics - Rather the movement of
the whole lute
Dear Jaroslaw,
I don't think you need be dismayed by Howard Posner's comments: he
seems only willing to accept evidence if given under cross
examination
in his local criminal law court.
For most of us this degree of scepticism is not necessary and we are
prepared to take historical sources at face value unless and until we
find compelling reasons to suggest otherwise - indeed, the study of
early sources is a cornerstone of historical research. It is not
really
credible that Mace would have filled this major life's with
unsubstantiated personal, and incorrect, opinion: even in 1676 there
would have been people around to draw attention to any blatant
inaccuracies.
In short, I think you're quite right to use Mace as a good source of
contemporary English practice.
MH
--- On Sun, 7/10/12, JarosAA'aw Lipski <[1]jaroslawlip...@wp.pl>
wrote:
From: JarosAA'aw Lipski <[2]jaroslawlip...@wp.pl>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: the point of synthetics - Rather the movement
of
the whole lute
To: [3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Sunday, 7 October, 2012, 23:52
Howard,
No offence I hope? I really wouldn't like to take part in an exchange
of arguments that go far from the subjects most of the lute-listers
are
interested in. However I am forced to answer some of your arguments.
Firstly, most of the expressions I used were exact quotations of your
post. I only added some that were logical consequences of what you
wrote, but I am sorry if you didn't mean it.
Secondly, Mace had built the dyphone. Please read carefully on page
203:
"The only instrument in being of that kind; and but lately invented,
by
myself, and MADE WITH MY OWN HANDS, in the year 1672" Then he
describes
why he had built it and how it sounded etc.
Thirdly, having an assumption that so many people lack credibility
and
therefore one can not seriously take into consideration books from
the
past written by a man who showed some signs of eccentricity is rather
not practical IMO as musicology doesn't equal law. We can't call
witness Mace.
And finally, yes the whole discussion began from Benjamin and his
observations on behavior of gut strings versus synthetics, but I
think
he explained recently that he was misunderstood, because he meant
that
synthetics are in fact more stable, however gut reaches certain, lets
call it a state of equilibrium faster. I can confirm this opinion. I
play both gut and synthetics. It takes more time for synthetics
before
they start to behave normally, but then, they do not react to changes
of humidity, only temperature. The only thing that I would add to his
post is that gut strings don't go out of tune because of high
humidity,
but because of the changes of humidity. So practically there may be a
situation that you kept your lute 2 hours before the recital in the
place where you are supposed to play, then you enter a stage and it
happens that there came quite a lot of people to listen to you
(obviously they all breath exhaling a lot of moisture), the hall is
not
very spacious, and!
your very carefully prepared tuning goes to pieces. The assumption
is
though that you have a big audience, ha, ha :). Another thing that I
would like to add is that wire wounds in fact go out of tune because
they are made of 2 different materials which behave differently - a
synthetic core and a wire. The good news is that its movement is very
predictable, so once you get used to it, it takes only seconds to
correct.
Hope we safely came into some conclusions.
Best
JL
WiadomoAA>Ae/= napisana przez howard posner w dniu 7 paAA-o 2012, o
godz. 23:25:
> On Oct 7, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Jaros"aw Lipski
<[1][4]jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>>>> So you see Mace as an oddball, inaccurate observer, someone
quick
to jump to odd conclusions, old deaf man who had lost touch with
reality, an idiot who constructed an instrument impossible to play
etc
>>>
>>> What I said was: "I'm not inclined to regard Mace as a scientific
observer; more like the eccentric uncle who makes dubious sweeping
pronouncements at family dinners."
>>>
>> Well, I've quoted your own words, but maybe you had something else
on mind, sorrya^`a^`.
>
> No, *I* quoted my own words, which did not include "idiot," "old,"
"lost touch with reality," or "etc." I didn't opine about how
quickly
he reached his conclusions (he doesn't strike me as a man who did
anything quickly). I also didn't say "mentally ill." I certainly
didn't say he actually had a dyphone built, notwithstanding what he
wrote.
>
> I spend a lot of time professionally evaluating whether things
witnesses tell me are credible; many are not, for all sorts of
reasons,
the most common being triumph of vantage point over all other
considerations (just this morning I read through 18 "character"
letters
written to convince me that a person was honorable and honest; none
of
them mentioned his felony fraud conviction, leaving me to wonder if
the
writers even knew why they were writing).
>
> We all know the world is full of ostensibly normal and sane persons
who reach positions of prominence and responsibility saying things
that
are not credible; in my country they tend to get nominated for public
office a lot.
>
> Although we seem to have "pivoted," as Mitt Romney might say, into
a
discussion of how reliable a witness Mace was, this thread began when
Benjamin Narvey -- a person normally given to reasonable observations
and conclusions -- said he'd had an experience from which he
concluded
(or re-concluded) that synthetic strings are harder to keep in tune
than gut, and carbon fiber are particularly difficult. I think he's
extrapolating too much from too small a sample, and his experience is
atypical of most experiences with synthetics and gut; certainly it's
different from mine. I think a musicologist of the 23rd century
reading Musick's EMail Monument, a collection of Narvey messages on a
hard drive that survived the Great Warming Catastrophe of 2089, would
likely be misled on that particular point, even though Benjamin is
not
an "old deaf man who had lost touch with reality," although he may be
one if he's still around in 2089.
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> [2][5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
--
References
1.
[6]http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jaroslawlip...@wp.pl
2. [7]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:jaroslawlip...@wp.pl
2. mailto:jaroslawlip...@wp.pl
3. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
4. mailto:jaroslawlip...@wp.pl
5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
6. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jaroslawlip...@wp.pl
7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
