Sorry, meant to send this to the list as well.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Gut string diameters
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 22:31:19 +0200
From: Martin Shepherd [1]<mar...@luteshop.co.uk>
To: Sean Smith [2]<lutesm...@mac.com>
I think stringmaking is/was always too difficult for the amateur. By the
16th century, the manufacture of gut strings had been a highly
professional activity for hundreds of years. Any 16th century lutenist
would have been in the same position as a guitarist is now - if they
want a 3rd string, they just buy one of a well-known brand. This is one
reason why we know next to nothing about how strings were made, what the
difference was between bass strings and treble strings, etc, because
even then the only people who needed to know were the string
manufacturers (never mind the fact that they probably regarded their
methods as "trade secrets".
M
On 18/05/2015 22:15, Sean Smith wrote:
> Thanks, Martin. The idea that in a bundle you'll have an average and outliers
makes sense.
>
>> ...if you're going to make a homemade roped string (3 strands) the second cou
rse is what you use to make a 5th course and the 3rd is what you use to make a 6
th course, but I don't think anybody did this in the 16th century.
> What then would have been the procedure instead? The stringmaker has a better
finished product (as nowadays) perhaps using custom diameters? Or maybe the leng
ths sold would not have been conducive to amateur stringbuilding? Solid gut? If
it was indeed more springy then solid may have been more acceptable.
>
> The nice thing about the roped strings is that while they can be expensive the
y do last well. If they sound _too_ dead, it's time to change the octave.
>
> The reason I bring this up is that I'm pretty parsimonious when it comes to st
rings and that would have been an issue for many lutenists without a supportive
patron. Would there have been some players who had a deal w/ the local butcher f
or materials and made their own?
>
> There's an old Japanese saying that when the winds come up the cats disappear!
>
> Sean
>
>
> On May 18, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Martin Shepherd wrote:
>
> Hi Sean,
>
> Your friend was right - if you're going to make a homemade roped string (3 str
ands) the second course is what you use to make a 5th course and the 3rd is what
you use to make a 6th course, but I don't think anybody did this in the 16th ce
ntury.
>
> My suspicion is that they bought a bundle of strings labelled "3rd course" or
whatever, then selected their 3rd course strings from amongst them. The bundle
would have included strings of various diameters, around a mean which was determ
ined by the way they were made (how many guts, how they were twisted etc). This
kind of system persisted until the 20th century for violin strings.
>
> If I'm right, this also means that when Dowland says use a 4th course string f
or the first two frets he doesn't necessarily mean two frets of exactly the same
diameter. He could have graded all the frets very precisely by choosing slight
ly bigger or smaller strings from each bundle.
>
> M
>
> On 18/05/2015 21:18, Sean Smith wrote:
>> In buying and using our lute strings we place an awful lot of faith in our mi
crometers. I see people changing strings for going up or down a tone or even a s
emitone. Yes, I think I can feel the tension change and hear it to some degree b
ut we're often talking a difference of microns in string difference.
>>
>> For example, a change of .42 to a .43 is 10 microns which is not repeatable o
n my smaller micrometers (even digital) but is on the 6" digital micrometer. For
rougher measurements, say, between 1st, 2nd and 3rd courses, the delta is easil
y seen/felt and I think that even I could make a measurement device for that for
further refinement.
>>
>> In the 16th century, of course, there were no micrometers although I'm sure t
here were fairly accurate (and perhaps, secret?) methods of fine measurement. I'
m wondering how they worked out the diameters. Any place I could read up on this
?
>>
>> Years ago, a friend did some experiments in roped bass strings and found that
5th and 6th courses could be made from combinations of the 1st, 2nd or 3rd cour
ses. From this we concluded that nearly all sizes of 6c instruments could be str
ung with a total of 3 diameters of strings. The 4th course is a little iffy in t
hat it could be made from a thicker 4th size or possibly a combination of 2 chan
terelles.
>>
>> I'm just thinking that by keeping the choices fewer they were able to be more
efficient in string technology. On the other hand, I wonder if this tended to k
eep the lute technology at a halt: ie, you can play anything you want as long as
it has the 6 courses of those sizes.
>>
>> No, nothing was published and the theories are not ready for primetime but I
was wondering what other string scientists have come up with. I realize there ar
e the notes in Capirola but I'm thinking by mid-century there had to have been a
larger industry at work, judging from the number of books being published and l
ute inventories.
>>
>>
>> Sean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>> [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> [4]http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
[5]Avast logo
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
[6]www.avast.com
--
References
1. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
2. mailto:lutesm...@mac.com
3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
4. http://www.avast.com/
5. http://www.avast.com/
6. http://www.avast.com/
