Dear Matthew, Thanks for your quotation. There are two separate points:
1. The historic recommendation to tune the top-course as high as it will go without breaking, and 2. equal tension / proportionality of strings (Mace) To 1: This recommendation is typical for the 16th century. But not for the 17th and 18th century. We can observe that continuo instruments are constucted as long as possible: see the arciliuto Romano with 73 cm for the g' (and in the Roman pitch) or the tiorba with at least 87 cm. The solo instruments can be shorter (and in consequence the chanterelle is not so close to the breaking point) and so it's possible to use f.ex. the d-major tuning and to tune the chanterelle and the 4th course one semi tone higher without changing a string or tune all other strings one semi tone lower. To 2: We know "special tunings" from the 16th century up to the Mandora literature of the end of the 18th century (and even for baroque guitar). In the 16th century we know for instance the tuning for the "Judentanz" with the splitted 4th course: Quint sayten: 1. course, normal, f.inst. a1 = a1 Gesang sayten: 2. course, normally e1 = e1 Mittel sayten: 3. course, normally b = b klein Brumer: 4. course, normally g = e/g#' -3/+1 ST Mitl Brumer: 5. course, normally d = e +2 ST Groß Brumer: 6. course, normally A = not used see: http://www.accordsnouveaux.ch/de/Autoren/Schlegel/Judentanz/Judentanz.html The translation will come... Or Heckel's "Leyrer zug" with ffdef Quint seyten: 1. course, normal, f.inst. a1 = a1 Gesang seyten: 2. course, normally e1 = e1 Mittel seyten: 3. course, normally b = b klein Bumhart: 4. course, normally g = g# +1 ST Mittel Bumhart: 5. course, normally d = e +2 ST Groß Bumhart: 6. course, normally A = H +2 ST As already said: +/- 2 ST is "normal" - and we can't read from "change your string", but "ziech Erstlich den Mitlern Brumer…" etc. So the normal string will be tuned to a different tone. In the period from 1624 until at least 1650 (in some regions also later) it was a normal thing to use different tunings. Not only on the lute: The Lyra viol and the Mandore and even later the baroque guitar are tuned in very different ways. See: http://www.accordsnouveaux.ch/de/DownloadD/files/Stimmungsdatenbank_kurz.pdf or - more detailled: http://www.accordsnouveaux.ch/de/DownloadD/files/Stimmungsdatenbank_ganz.pdf And I don't know any advice to change strings. The statement of Mace was written in 1676, when the nouvel accord ordinaire (NAO) became the "normal" tuning and the other tunings were no longer in use. Mace was a "fan" of the dedff tuning (Flat-French-Tuning) and defended it against the NAO. If you choose one single tuning, it's very simple to oberve the basic idea of equal tension / proportionality of strings. I can read Mace's statement as a quintessence of the time, when the change of tunings led to different tensions: Take one tuning - and you can observe the equal tension. But the fact remains: There was a time in which the use of different tunings was normal. And I don't know any advice from that period to change strings for the different tunings. So I had to ask me: How is it possible to play with different tunings without changing strings? And I detected that the historically correct playing technique with thumb out and the little finger really at the bridge is a very big help - at least for me - to handle the different tensions. Mace is of course right: It's much more comfortable to play on a lute with equal tension (or is it feeling?). But there was a time in which different tunings and their possibilities were more important than equal tension. All the best, Andreas Am 30.08.2017 um 11:44 schrieb Matthew Daillie <dail...@club-internet.fr>: > Dear Andreas, > Here is what Mace had to say in 1676: > '... if you be to use your Lute in Confort, then you must String it, with > such siz'd Strings, so as it may be Plump, and Full Sounded, that it may bear > up, and be heard, equal with the other Instruments, or else you do Little to > the purpose. > Another General Observation must be This, which indeed is the Chiefest; viz. > that what siz'd Lute soever, you are to String, you must so suit your > Strings, as (in the Tuning you intend to set it at) the Strings may all > stand, at a Proportionable, and even Stiffness, otherwise, there will arise > Two Great Inconveniences; the one to the Performer, the other to the Auditor. > And here Note, that when we say, a Lute is not equally Strung, it is, when > some Strings are stiff, and some slack. > Nor can any man play so Evenly, or Equally well, upon such a Strung > Instrument, as upon one well Strung; especially when he is to Run Division: > For it will be, as if a man were to shew Nimble Footsmanship, and were > confined to Run over a piece of uneven Ground, with hard, and soft Places > mix'd together. > Sure, he must need needs Run unequally, in Those places, or slack his Pace, > or else stumble and fall. Even so is it with such an unequal Strung > Instrument. > Then again, it must needs be perceivable by the Auditor; for whensoever such > unequal performance is made, the Life and Spirit of the Musick is lost.' > > Best, > Matthew > > > On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:49, Andreas Schlegel <lute.cor...@sunrise.ch> wrote: > >>> historic recommendation to tune the top-course (in gut) as high as it will >>> go without breaking? >> When was it said? In the period of accords nouveaux and later? >> What's with the D-major tuning? Tune (or change) 16 strings to hold 3 >> strings (with the chanterelle at its breaking point)? >> >> Best, >> Andreas > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Andreas Schlegel Eckstr. 6 CH-5737 Menziken +41 (0)62 771 47 07 lute.cor...@sunrise.ch
