[LUTE] was gut now nut
It's true. My bad. Has anyone recently tried a material other than bone that is better at minimizing string fraying over the nut? dt -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Spinacino 1507-2007
A two-day conference celebrating the 500th anniversary of the first printed lute tablature. 30 November-1 December, Tours This conference will also mark the reactivation of the "Corpus des Luthistes" series, and the launch of its new website featuring a full colour facsimile of the Spinacino lutebook, by courtesy of the Jagellionian University in Cracow. A poster is available at: http://193.52.215.193/Epitome/ Spinacino.pdf.zip Centre d'Etudes Superieures de la Renaissance Projet << Corpus des luthistes >> Dirige par Dinko Fabris, John Griffiths & Philippe Vendrix Colloque international (Vendredi 30 novembre 2007 - Samedi 1er decembre 2007) Spinacino : 1507-2007 Vendredi 30 novembre 14h : Philippe Vendrix (CESR) Accueil des participants 14h30: Stanley Boorman (New York University) Why Spinacino? 15h15 : Philippe Canguilhem (Universite de Toulouse) Les premi=E8res tablatures et l'art de la memoire 16h30 : John Griffiths (Melbourne University) Predictability and irrationality in the music of Spinacino 17h15 : Victor Coelho (Boston University) Historiography and chronology in Spinacino Samedi 1er decembre 9h30 : Sabine Meine (Institut historique allemand de Rome) Les frottole de Spinacino 10h15 : Tim Crawford (University of London) Dance music for the lute 11h30 : Gianluigi Bello A close reading and new meaning of Spinacino vocal models 14h30 : Vladimir Ivanoff Spinacino's lute duos as sources for previous performance practice in lute duos 15h15 : Keith Polk Solo lutenists, lute duo- Foreign and domestic in Italy, c.1500 16h30 : Camilla Cavicchi (CESR) Luths et luthistes =E0 Ferrare 17h15 : Dinko Fabris (Universit=E0 de Basilicat=E0) Les tablatures italiennes de luth: etat des connaissances et prospectives pour le Corpus des Luthistes Pour toute information complementaire : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lieu du colloque : CESR, 8 rue Rapin =E0 Tours http://193.52.215.193/cesr/plancesr.asp ~ Professor John Griffiths Faculty of Music =95 The University of Melbourne 3010 =95 Victoria =95 Australia tel (61+3) 8344 8810 =95 fax (61+3) 8344 5346 =95 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ This e-mail and any attachments may contain personal information or information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of copyright. Any use, disclosure or copying of any part of it is prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this e- mail is received in error please delete it and notify us by return e- mail. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
I am deeply distressed to learn that Pliny, or Caius Plinius Secundus, author of Naturalis Historia, is guilty of faulty Latin. I shall write to his friend Catullus and mentor Seneca directly, though the post will be slow due to the enormous traffic through Verona and parts of the Appian Way. I blame my own teachers as well, had we studied Didymus instead of Catullus I might have spotted it. Sic crustulum fortunae disintegrat. Here is the text of my letter to Seneca. An nescis quantilla sapientia mundus regatur. dt "Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sorry, this has become so off-topic, yet I cannot resist. >> For me, nullum (in this case nulla) has more the sense of nothing or >> none, Nothing in Latin is NIHIL. Nullus (-a, -um) is an adjective, compound of ne + ullus and usually followed by a related noun, which means: not one, noone. That is why... >> nullum quod tetigit non ornavit. .is rather faulty Latin. "Nullum" should be followed by a noun. Suggestion: Nihil, quod movit, non ornavit (better avoid discussions about sense here). > OK, I'm no Latin scholar but isn't nulla in some senses used for no, as in > nullatenus, in no wise? Yes. nulla- in nullatenus is ablative case (pronounce nullâtenus), you have to complement "parte" >> "no" in this sense seems more like sine than nullum. No. "Sine" means "without". >> As in Sine sole sileo Which translates as Without Sun I Am Silent, no? >> But how about sine qua non, without which, nothing? Yes, how about that? Res sine qua non datur, a thing without which another thing isn't given (the necessary minimum)--that should make it clear. So much about that. > It seems to me that, vis a vis Latin, the translation is often going to be > approximate rather than literal. That applies to any translation *sighs*. Italian has it, that traduttore e traditore, translators are traitors. >> But perhaps the sense of the thread is >> Nullum est iam dictum quod non dictum sit prius >> - Nothing is said that hasn't been said before. You might want to look up "nullus", once again. Suggestion: Nihil dicitur, quod non dictum est prius. (I don't agree to that opinion, though, but that's yet another topic). -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
Dear Mathias,
Do you think that "to ergon" is really the best translation for "reality"?
Is "Wirklichkeit" used in German to translate it? In my mind, "to ergon"
(das Werk) is a human artifact and therefore a product of art ("he techne")
and thus not a term for reality as a whole. My first inclination would be to
translate "reality" with "to on" or "to einai," or perhaps with the Platonic
"to ontos on." I think that it is interesting that "realitas" does not
appear in my classical Latin dictionary and that St. Thomas does not seem to
use it either, though, of course, he uses the noun "res," the adjective
"realis," and the adverb "realiter." I am not sure that either the Greeks or
the Latins had a word for the abstract term "reality" understood as the
totality of what is. My suspicion is that it entered academic Latin during
the Renaissance or later. In any event, perhaps "ta onta" or "ta pragmata"
would give the sense of "reality" as the totality of what is. What do you
think?
Stephen
P.S. O.k. this is really off topic but interesting to me. I apologize.
- Original Message -
From: ""Mathias Rösel"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lute List"
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
>can all think up to say "Blissfully out of touch with
>reality" in ancient Greek. I look forward to a
>wonderfully fascinating discourse.
Best I can do with an online dictionary and no knowledge of spoken Greek,
ancient or modern.
Eutuchps ek omilin aletheia
Ancient: eudaimones tou ergou apechomenoi chairomen
Mathias
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
Yeah man...Dis course is really humming! I look forward to a wonderfully fascinating discourse. - Chris Wilkie __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
Mathias wrote: > >Ancient: eudaimones tou ergou apechomenoi chairomen I knew I could count on you. :) Craig _ Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
> >can all think up to say "Blissfully out of touch with > >reality" in ancient Greek. I look forward to a > >wonderfully fascinating discourse. > > Best I can do with an online dictionary and no knowledge of spoken Greek, > ancient or modern. > > Eutuchps ek omilin aletheia Ancient: eudaimones tou ergou apechomenoi chairomen Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
Chris wrote: > >Now let's see how many correct or incorrect ways we >can all think up to say "Blissfully out of touch with >reality" in ancient Greek. I look forward to a >wonderfully fascinating discourse. Best I can do with an online dictionary and no knowledge of spoken Greek, ancient or modern. Eutuchps ek omilin aletheia Regards, Craig _ Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
Dear all, Wow, the scope of this list astounds me... When we're not spending days talking about how great gut strings are, we're spending days talking about how to talk about how great gut strings are in lingua mortua. Now let's see how many correct or incorrect ways we can all think up to say "Blissfully out of touch with reality" in ancient Greek. I look forward to a wonderfully fascinating discourse. Chris __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
Mathias writes linguistically; > >Sorry, this has become so off-topic, yet I cannot resist. Don't apologize. It's a fun diversion to get, *ahem* strung out on. >> It seems to me that, vis a vis Latin, the translation is often going to be >> approximate rather than literal. > >That applies to any translation *sighs*. Italian has it, that traduttore >e traditore, translators are traitors. I have always maintained that if one wants to get a more precise translation from another language one shoul study the culture that language derives from. And also why a very religious friend of mine many years ago began studying Greek to better understand the Bible. I think that had he lived he'd have also studied Aramaic to compare those versions to the Greek. Regards, Craig _ Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
Sorry, this has become so off-topic, yet I cannot resist. >> For me, nullum (in this case nulla) has more the sense of nothing or >> none, Nothing in Latin is NIHIL. Nullus (-a, -um) is an adjective, compound of ne + ullus and usually followed by a related noun, which means: not one, noone. That is why... >> nullum quod tetigit non ornavit. ..is rather faulty Latin. "Nullum" should be followed by a noun. Suggestion: Nihil, quod movit, non ornavit (better avoid discussions about sense here). > OK, I'm no Latin scholar but isn't nulla in some senses used for no, as in > nullatenus, in no wise? Yes. nulla- in nullatenus is ablative case (pronounce nullâtenus), you have to complement "parte" >> "no" in this sense seems more like sine than nullum. No. "Sine" means "without". >> As in Sine sole sileo Which translates as Without Sun I Am Silent, no? >> But how about sine qua non, without which, nothing? Yes, how about that? Res sine qua non datur, a thing without which another thing isn't given (the necessary minimum)--that should make it clear. So much about that. > It seems to me that, vis a vis Latin, the translation is often going to be > approximate rather than literal. That applies to any translation *sighs*. Italian has it, that traduttore e traditore, translators are traitors. >> But perhaps the sense of the thread is >> Nullum est iam dictum quod non dictum sit prius >> - Nothing is said that hasn't been said before. You might want to look up "nullus", once again. Suggestion: Nihil dicitur, quod non dictum est prius. (I don't agree to that opinion, though, but that's yet another topic). -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
David wrote" : >For me, nullum (in this case nulla) has more the sense of nothing or >none, as in >nullum quod tetigit non ornavit. OK, I'm no Latin scholar but isn't nulla in some senses used for no, as in nullatenus, in no wise? >"no" in this sense seems more like sine than nullum. > >As in >Sine sole sileo But how about sine qua non, without which, nothing? It seems to me that, vis a vis Latin, the translation is often going to be approximate rather than literal. >and a periphrastic would add something >But perhaps the sense of the thread is >Nullum est iam dictum quod non dictum sit prius >- Nothing is said that hasn't been said before. > >It's got a prius in it anyway. And in this case I prefer Honda to Toyota. :) Regards, Craig _ Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Rép : [LUTE] theorbo strings
Nigel The problem is that Mimmo Peruffo has not yet commercialised his new loaded gut. Nor has he commercialised his open-wound strings. Perhaps you could try gimped strings, but if the tubbiness is tonal, you could try the Venice equivalent by Aquila, they are definitely more rich in the high frequency harmonic component (Venice are twin, most Pistoy are tress). Indeed, my lowest gimped diapason on a Renaissance lute sounded a little tubby, until I swapped a number of the middle ones with Venice, and somehow it lightened up the sound even of this lowest bass string. In fact this was to such an extent that a person who plays my lute regularly thought I had changed the bass string too. Regards Anthony Le 23 oct. 07 à 23:24, Nigel Solomon a écrit : I have just put gut strings on the long basses on my theorbo (170 cm), they all sound great except the 13th and 14th courses which sound a bit "tubby" The diameter is 1.24 (14th) and 1.12 (13th) (4 kg per string) . Perhaps they are a bit thick, should I use some sort of loaded gut for the bottom 2? Nigel To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
For me, nullum (in this case nulla) has more the sense of nothing or none, as in nullum quod tetigit non ornavit. "no" in this sense seems more like sine than nullum. As in Sine sole sileo and a periphrastic would add something But perhaps the sense of the thread is Nullum est iam dictum quod non dictum sit prius - Nothing is said that hasn't been said before. It's got a prius in it anyway. dt At 07:46 PM 10/23/2007, you wrote: >As something of a Latinist, I think that Mathias' translation is >about as close to perfect as one can get. "Nervus" has the literal >sense of sinew or tendon, the transferred meaning of a string on a >musical instrument, and in the plural the figurative meaning of >strength, vigor, and effort. It captures all the semantic nuances it >needs to. Syntactically, it is quintessentially Latinate in its >pithiness, building suspense in the first three words and resolving >it in the last. The contrast, moreover, between the material, >corruptible, and temporal "nervi" and the spiritual, incorruptible, >and eternal "gloria" is quite powerful. I am thankful that my hurry >to get to work this morning prevented me from posting my >spur-of-the-moment translation. Now that I have read Mathias', I >realize that I would only have embarrassed myself. > >Stephen Arndt > > >- Original Message - From: "David Tayler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" >Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:12 PM >Subject: [LUTE] Re: No guts no glory > > >>I think the words are ok but the grammer not forcefull enough >>Something cast in the mold of >>potius mori quam foedari >>would have a bit more zing >> >>dt >> >> >>At 12:03 PM 10/23/2007, you wrote: >>>After consulting my Latin dictionary, I completely agree with Mathias on >>>"Nulla sine nervis gloria". That captures all the aspects of "no guts no >>>glory" including the lute connection. >>> >>>(I was mistaking nervus for nervulus before). >>> >>> > "Ray Brohinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >>> >> haud ovis ile , haud palma >>> >> (no [sheep] guts, no glory.) >>> > >>> > Haud negates the respective nouns. Put that way, it means neither ... >>> > nor. Ile, when referring to animals, is used in its plural form, ilia. >>> > Ilia means stomach, intestines, but neither gut, string, nor guts. >>> > >>> >> If you really want to go for the pun, haud ile, haud palma works, but >>> >> whether there was a Roman association between actual intestines and >>> >> 'guts' is beyond my paltry four years of study (35 years ago). >>> > >>> > Guts in the sense of audacity, boldness, bravery, courage, is in Latin >>> > conveyed with _animus_, rarely also with alacritas. >>> > >>> > Suggesting Nulla sine nervis gloria, I tried to keep the ambiguity of >>> > nervus = tendon / gut / string / strength / force / vitality. >>> > >>> > Mathias >>> > >>> >> On 10/23/07, Ron Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> > I had thought David meant 'No intestinal fortitude, no acclaim' >>> >> > >>> >> > But I would go along with the notion that without gut >>> strings there >> > is >>> >> no >>> >> > glory. >>> >> > >>> >> > Could this become the motto for the elite of our lute-players? >>> >> > >>> >> > What's that in Latin? >>> >> > >>> >> > Ron (UK) >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -Original Message- >>> >> > From: LGS-Europe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:47 PM >>> >> > To: Edward Martin; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu >>> >> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: lute reaches mases >>> >> > >>> >> > > No guts no glory? >>> >> > >>> >> > Come on Ed, of all the glorious lute jobs in the world (...). Of >>> >> course I >>> >> > used gut strings! I had 20 guts on my lute. Not a fishing line in >>> >> sight. >>> >> > >>> >> > David >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > You of all people did not use gut? >>> >> > > >>> >> > > What strings did you use - fishing line? >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > At 08:26 AM 10/23/2007 +0200, LGS-Europe wrote: >>> >> > >>Last Saturday I had to play my lute during a royal baptism here in >>> >> the >>> >> > >>Netherlands. 850 people in church, cool enough, but it was live on >>> >> tv. The >>> >> > >>> >> > >>newspaper writes 787000 people watched. That's a large >>> audience >> > >>for >>> >> a >>> >> > >>lute. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >>David - No guts no glory. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >>David van Ooijen >>> >> > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> > >>www.davidvanooijen.nl >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >>To get on or off this list see list information at >>> >> > >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >>-- >>> >> > >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>> >> > >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: >>> >> > >>269.15.6/1086 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 7:57 PM >>> >>
[LUTE] Re: theorbo strings
Loaded or Crimped will give you more core to the sound, less tubby, but part of it is the way the instrument is built, part of it is that those low notes using historical strings sound less. Historical strings get softer as they go lower; modern strings get louder. Of course the string length is a factor and whether you choose a low F or not. But at 170 cm you should get enough sound, so it is then the break in time or the way the soundboard is registering the low notes. For continuo I have to have a low F. BUT Those low theorbo gut strings really need quite a while to settle in. Let them stretch out first. I myself put overspun on the bottom two, but when I got the instrument it had two crimped gut on the lowest notes (G & F) and they were delightful. dt 4 kg is whatAt 02:24 PM 10/23/2007, you wrote: >I have just put gut strings on the long basses on my theorbo (170 >cm), they all sound great except the 13th and 14th courses which >sound a bit "tubby" >The diameter is 1.24 (14th) and 1.12 (13th) (4 kg per string) . >Perhaps they are a bit thick, should I use some sort of loaded gut >for the bottom 2? > >Nigel > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: theorbo strings
Nigel I agree with Ed, it takes a few months for Pistoy an Venice to come up/down to their final thickness. The more supple a string, the more it will finally stretch and end up slightly thinner. The surface texture will also change slightly over that period, so that such a string may improve even over a year or so. Ed was speaking about the advantage of low tension-thinner strings, just a few weeks ago. Perhaps that is another area to investigate, but I think it means playing closer to the bridge. I have not tried that myself, so I really just throw that out as a suggestion. Just a few weeks ago, I heard a young player with a lute strung in gut; and to me it sounded excellent. The player was completely new to gut and could not stand the touch or the sound of it. I think it is like many things, you come to expect a particular feel and sound, and anythig which is slightly different seems abnormal (just think of people's habits with tea and coffee). Regards Anthony Le 24 oct. 07 à 00:08, Edward Martin a écrit : Nigel, That is interesting, that a 1.24 and 1.12 string seem too thick, as on my much shorter baroque lute, 13 course with a bass rider, I use a 2.0 for the 13th course! Perhaps you are unaccustomed with the use of gut, and it sounds "tubby" to your ear. Give it 10 days to 2 weeks. After the gut settles in, it does tend to sound clearer, after stretching. After 2 weeks, if you are still dissatisfied, you could try metal, such as a gimped string. When I switched to gut, about 12 years ago, my baroque lutes sounded tubby, but after one gets used to it, and also knows how to play it, it sounds better. With a major change in string material, a change in your perception of clarity of sound will come. My 2 cents worth. ed At 11:24 PM 10/23/2007 +0200, Nigel Solomon wrote: I have just put gut strings on the long basses on my theorbo (170 cm), they all sound great except the 13th and 14th courses which sound a bit "tubby" The diameter is 1.24 (14th) and 1.12 (13th) (4 kg per string) . Perhaps they are a bit thick, should I use some sort of loaded gut for the bottom 2? Nigel To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 7:57 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: No guts no glory
Hi Stewart, Yes, there is an English saying, "I have a gut feeling" - Having a feeling deep down inside, instinct, intuition, sense of foreboding etc. "Having the guts" usually means - Having the boldness, bravery, nerve, colloquially - Having the bottle, balls etc. Hence, "No guts, no glory" For us lute-players, we would like to resolve, "No guts" (having no gut strings), (there can be) no glory. The truth is out there... Many thanks for the responses so far Ron (UK) -Original Message- From: Stuart LeBlanc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:32 AM To: 'lute@cs.dartmouth.edu' Subject: [LUTE] Re: No guts no glory I thought that the word we are endeavoring to translate is guts. I'm no Latin scholar, but Webster defines the English visceral as "felt in or as if in the viscera : deep" -Original Message- From: "Mathias Rösel" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:40 AM To: Stuart LeBlanc Cc: 'lute@cs.dartmouth.edu' Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: No guts no glory "Stuart LeBlanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > I like VISCERA best. Viscera can mean bowel, meat, children, inner parts, or funds, but not strings. -- Mathias > -Original Message- > From: Roman Turovsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:49 AM > To: "Mathias Rösel"; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > Subject: [LUTE] Re: No guts no glory > > How 'bout INTESTINIS, rather than NERVIS? > RT > > "Ron Fletcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > >> I had thought David meant 'No intestinal fortitude, no acclaim' > >> > >> But I would go along with the notion that without gut strings there > >> is no glory. > >> > >> Could this become the motto for the elite of our lute-players? > >> > >> What's that in Latin? > > > > Nulla sine nervis gloria > > -- > > Mathias > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > >
