[LUTE] Re: Theorbo Nicki don't lose that number
Praetorius, Mace to name but two. --- On Wed, 18/2/09, howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com wrote: From: howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo Nicki don't lose that number To: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, 18 February, 2009, 2:25 PM On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:26 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: However without troubling yourself to trawl these, you will also see from my recent postings that there's absolutely nothing 'wrong' with small theorboes but just that the use of large theorbo tuning (ie double reentrant in A or G) on the smaller instruments does not tally with the historical record (see archives). So Martyn keeps saying. But if you were to trouble to trawl through the archives that he always refers to generally but never specifically, you'll see one post after another in which Martyn resolutely refused to admit what everyone knows: that there is no evidence tying any specific historical instrument of any specific size to any specific tuning or stringing. Mostly he did this by referring to the archives generally but never specifically. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo Nicki don't lose that number
What about the Castaldi duets? What tuning for the smaller instrument? R -Original Message- From: Martyn Hodgson [mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:58 AM To: lutelist Net; howard posner Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo Nicki don't lose that number Praetorius, Mace to name but two. --- On Wed, 18/2/09, howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com wrote: From: howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo Nicki don't lose that number To: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, 18 February, 2009, 2:25 PM On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:26 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: However without troubling yourself to trawl these, you will also see from my recent postings that there's absolutely nothing 'wrong' with small theorboes but just that the use of large theorbo tuning (ie double reentrant in A or G) on the smaller instruments does not tally with the historical record (see archives). So Martyn keeps saying. But if you were to trouble to trawl through the archives that he always refers to generally but never specifically, you'll see one post after another in which Martyn resolutely refused to admit what everyone knows: that there is no evidence tying any specific historical instrument of any specific size to any specific tuning or stringing. Mostly he did this by referring to the archives generally but never specifically. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: possible scam warning!!!!! be careful.... from Anton Birula
On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Wayne Cripps rattled on the keyboard: I send this kind of people an html email where I'm very interested in the purchase or selling of an instrument. There is also a nice question where I ask their opinion and they have to look at a nice website. In fact it's a super malware website that is hidden in a link with a totally different name. For people interested in a few dangerous names contact me off line. I will not repeat that here because with windows there is a chance you get a nice trojan or whatever if you accidently click on it with IE. Don't know if it worked but gives me some satisfaction. Taco Hello Anton - I got that message too, and I think that everyone selling a lute on my web page got a copy. If you look closely at the guitars pictured (from the Barber and Harris web page) you will see that they are all different! It is a scam. And I don't have a front door in Finland, either! Wayne bradbake...@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: Theorbo Nicki don't lose that number
On Feb 19, 2009, at 6:12 AM, Roland Hayes wrote: What about the Castaldi duets? What tuning for the smaller instrument? R Just like the big one, an octave higher To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo Nicki don't lose that number
Apparently by way of associating a specific historic instrument with a specific tuning, Martyn Hodgson wrote: Praetorius, Mace to name but two. What surviving instrument does Mace describe? What specific measurements associated with what specific tuning does Mace give us? Praetorius' 1620 Theatrum Instrumentorum is an encyclopedic work that shows generic theorbos, not any specific identifiable instrument, but what the heck: Praetorius' Lang Romanische Theorba: Chitarron is 14-course double re- entrant in G, with a length of about 89cm (roughly 3.1 Brunswick Feet multiplied by 28.536cm per BF) for its six fingerboard strings and an extension about twice that. Scaled down for a theorbo in A it would be about 79 cm. Would such an instrument be a toy? Praetorius' Paduanische Theorba is a 16-course instrument, also in G, about 96cm for the eight fingerboard strings, and 128cm on the extension, which goes down to a contra D (i.e. a full octave lower than the ninth course). I'd be interested to know how such low notes at such a short length would work, and how they would balance the long fingerboard strings. The lowest fingerboard string on the Paduan theorbo would have been an E, and thus considerably shorter in relation to its pitch than the lowest G on the fingerboard of the Roman theorbo; to match the pitch/ length proportion of the Roman theorbo's G, the E would need to be about 106cm. Put another way, a theorbo string tuned to A (the sixth course of a theorbo in A) with the same relation of length to pitch as a 96cm E string would be 75cm long. So even the Paduan theorbo has its toyosity problems. Has any such instrument survived? Did anyone else ever mention such a thing? Or was it a short-lived variant? Or was Praetorius' information faulty? And is anyone playing such an instrument now? Praetorius does not mention an absolute pitch level. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo Nicki don't lose that number
On Feb 19, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Roland Hayes wrote: So much for no double reentrant tuning on small theorbos. R. On Feb 19, 2009, at 6:12 AM, Roland Hayes wrote: What about the Castaldi duets? What tuning for the smaller instrument? R Just like the big one, an octave higher Well, if someone wanted to be obtuse about it (not that anyone around here would be obtuse) he could argue that the tiorbino, like the theorbo, was strung in double re-entrant tuning because the instrument was built to such a size that it was impossible to tune it as an octave lute in A. There are such large holes in that argument that we're be none the worse for skipping it. You're right in that the tiorbino shows that someone liked double re- entrant tuning for musical reasons, not because of necessity or practicality. On the other hand, there's not much evidence that Europe was overrun by tiorbinos. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Non-Toy Theorbo for rent
Dear Howard, Thank you for your reply to my email about theorboes. You ask many questions, and I shall do my best to answer some of them. You wrote, Nobody suggested anything of the sort, i.e. expecting a source to tell us, with specific wording, things we need to know about theorboes for a whole range of circumstances. Well, in your message of 17th February, you wrote: Does some historical source say both highest pitch possible and thinnest useable string in discussing theorbos? And if so, is there any reason to believe that every theorbist subscribed to it? That sounds like quite a bit of the sort to me. You were asking Martyn Hodgson to produce a source with specific wording, for circumstances which must apply to every theorbo player. Unfortunately the implication is, that if he fails to do so, his arguments are specious, which is a bit unfair. You ask, Who was THEY?. Well, as far as my message is concerned, THEY was Thomas Mace and the musicians he was writing about. You also ask, When was THEN? Mace's book was published in 1676, so THEN, for me, would be Mace's lifetime up to 1676. You can't really hold him to account for not mentioning a theorbo man playing in one of Handel's operas in 1724. Mace does have a good word to say about Monteverdi though. Your next question was, What is the thinnest useable string? To find your thinnest useable string, simply measure the thickness of all the strings you possess, and pick out the thinnest one. If you find you can use it on the instrument of your choice, you will have found the thinnest useable string. If it breaks, it won't be much use any more, except possibly for smaller instruments or for frets. You seem disappointed that Mace does not mention Pittoni and Castaldi, that he doesn't discuss the tiorbino, that he doesn't give exact measurements of the size of instruments and their strings, and doesn't talk about pitch. The implication is that the information to be gleaned from Musick's Monument, is worthless, because Mace doesn't mention all these things. I think we would do better to consider what Mace actually wrote, not what we think he should have written. In fact he does mention pitch, but there is as much chance of him giving Hertz numbers, as there is of him knowing about theorbo players alive in 1724. He writes about the Pitch of Consort, and says that, if you want to play with other musicians, you have to tune up to their pitch; if that means having to re-tune the 1st string or two down an octave, so be it. It is the pitch of the people you want to play with, which determines the tuning of your theorbo. Mace talks about instruments of different sizes, and says that the size of your instrument will determine whether or not you have to tune the first string, or the first two strings, down an octave. He doesn't need to give exact measurements, because he expects players to use their common sense, and avoid broken strings. So far I have dwelt on the less contentious side of the question: large instruments require a re-entrant tuning, because otherwise there is a risk that their strings will break. I hope we are agreed on that. The more controversial aspect, is whether or not it is appropriate to string smaller instruments with a re-entrant tuning, when their size would allow them to have just one course (instead of two) down an octave, or even all courses at pitch as with an archlute (instead of one course down an octave). To this I would say that there is no law or commandment which tells us how we should tune our instruments. We can do what we like. For Mace to say that our tuning is determined by whether or not we are playing with others at Pitch of Consort, suggests that some players may have had all their strings at the higher octave (or just the 1st course down an octave), but had to change the tuning to match the change in circumstances, i.e. playing with others at a higher pitch. In other words, he is saying that more than one tuning may have been possible for an instrument, depending on pitch. One reason why Mace seems less than enthusiastic about re-entrant tunings, may be seen in his phrase, the Life and Spruceness of such Ayrey Lessons, is quite lost. In other words, have a re-entrant tuning if you must, but if you do, you will lose something valuable in the music. The implication is, that if your instrument is small enough to allow it, it would be better to keep as many strings tuned at the higher octave as possible. My previous message was simply to say that the evidence from Thomas Mace concurs with what Martyn Hodgson had written on 17th^h February, to wit: Of course pitch is relevant to instrument size: as pointed out earlier, it's precisely why the top one, or two, courses
[LUTE] Re: Toyota Theorbo for rent, low mileage
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: howard posner [mailto:howardpos...@ca.rr.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2009 22:52 An: Lute Net Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Toyota Theorbo for rent, low mileage On Feb 19, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Stewart McCoy wrote: Does some historical source say both highest pitch possible and thinnest useable string in discussing theorbos? And if so, is there any reason to believe that every theorbist subscribed to it? That sounds like quite a bit of the sort to me. You were asking Martyn Hodgson to produce a source with specific wording, for circumstances which must apply to every theorbo player. Unfortunately the implication is, that if he fails to do so, his arguments are specious, which is a bit unfair. Sorry, no. I was responding to Mark Wheeler's remark that one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. (I quoted it with his name at the top.) A fair reading of that remark is that it's posited as universal: this is what most players did for centuries. I don't believe it for a moment, and I doubt anybody ever actually said it. Hence my question: did anyone ever say, use the thinnest string you can and crank that sucker? Even if Mace said such a thing, which he didn't, that does not establish such a dubious proposition as one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing. Your lengthy paragraphs oddly suggesting that I fault Mace for not mentioning Pittoni or Handel or Stockhausen are thus beside the point, except insofar as they acknowledge the limited application of Mace's remarks. Your next question was, What is the thinnest useable string? It was kind of a rhetorical question... To find your thinnest useable string, simply measure the thickness of all the strings you possess, and pick out the thinnest one. If you find you can use it on the instrument of your choice, you will have found the thinnest useable string. If it breaks, it won't be much use any more, except possibly for smaller instruments or for frets. Have you ever done this? If you have, no offense intended, but it strikes me as a strange use of time. It's certainly not a recipe for optimum sound. I think historical players began with an idea of what was workable, received from teachers, other players and then their own experience. Why on earth would they be pushing the limits of practicality and constantly flirting with strings breaking in the middle of performances? I know Dowland emphatically prescribed the opposite, saying first set on your Trebles, which must be strayned neither too stiffe nor too slacke, but of such a reasonable height that they may deliver a pleasant sound, and also (as Musitions call it) play too and fro after the strokes thereon, and warning of strings that were too thin: but let it not be too small, for those give no sound, besides they will be either rotten for lacke of substance, or extreame false. So far I have dwelt on the less contentious side of the question: large instruments require a re-entrant tuning, because otherwise there is a risk that their strings will break. I hope we are agreed on that. We're not. There are plenty of big bass lutes out there that aren't in re-entrant tuning (and it appears that the first chitarrones started out as bass lutes). Re-entrant tuning is not a result of having a big instrument, but rather of having a big instrument with a basic A or G lute tuning instead of D or E tuning. Re-entrant tuning was thus always an aesthetic choice, and remains an aesthetic choice. In the 18th century, gallichons/mandoras too big to be tuned to lute pitch in G were tuned in non-rentrant tuning at lower pitches. These instruments were extremely common in Central Europe, probably more so than theorbos. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Toyota Theorbo for rent, low mileage
Sorry All, I accidentally hit the send button before I got round to actually writing anything in the last post...So here is what I wanted to write As far as cranking the string up, there are historical accounts of this Robinson says so high as you dare venter for breaking. As far as Dowland goes, I do not see any problem, he meanes not too stiffe that it breaks. Dowland and Robinson are not contradictory. Mace talks quite a bit about stringing and even using different gauges, but stresses that equal tension among the strings is very important especially when playing in consort so that you can be heard. Taken the limited range of gut stringing, tuning the highest string to the highest possible pitch is necessary to achieve an equal tension. Exactly what this pitch was would certainly have not been exactly the same for every lutenist, but a difference of a fourth, would be pushing it all too far. Just as it is clear that bass lutes were tuned lower than tenor lutes, it seems only logical that small theorbos were tuned higher (or less re-entrant) than larger ones. It seems that the 2 main factors for the trend of toy theorbos (more a definition of usage than size) and single strung archlutes are the availability of modern string materials and the size of car boots. Both of which are not evil, just modern factors that did not exist in the past. All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: howard posner [mailto:howardpos...@ca.rr.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2009 22:52 An: Lute Net Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Toyota Theorbo for rent, low mileage On Feb 19, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Stewart McCoy wrote: Does some historical source say both highest pitch possible and thinnest useable string in discussing theorbos? And if so, is there any reason to believe that every theorbist subscribed to it? That sounds like quite a bit of the sort to me. You were asking Martyn Hodgson to produce a source with specific wording, for circumstances which must apply to every theorbo player. Unfortunately the implication is, that if he fails to do so, his arguments are specious, which is a bit unfair. Sorry, no. I was responding to Mark Wheeler's remark that one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. (I quoted it with his name at the top.) A fair reading of that remark is that it's posited as universal: this is what most players did for centuries. I don't believe it for a moment, and I doubt anybody ever actually said it. Hence my question: did anyone ever say, use the thinnest string you can and crank that sucker? Even if Mace said such a thing, which he didn't, that does not establish such a dubious proposition as one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing. Your lengthy paragraphs oddly suggesting that I fault Mace for not mentioning Pittoni or Handel or Stockhausen are thus beside the point, except insofar as they acknowledge the limited application of Mace's remarks. Your next question was, What is the thinnest useable string? It was kind of a rhetorical question... To find your thinnest useable string, simply measure the thickness of all the strings you possess, and pick out the thinnest one. If you find you can use it on the instrument of your choice, you will have found the thinnest useable string. If it breaks, it won't be much use any more, except possibly for smaller instruments or for frets. Have you ever done this? If you have, no offense intended, but it strikes me as a strange use of time. It's certainly not a recipe for optimum sound. I think historical players began with an idea of what was workable, received from teachers, other players and then their own experience. Why on earth would they be pushing the limits of practicality and constantly flirting with strings breaking in the middle of performances? I know Dowland emphatically prescribed the opposite, saying first set on your Trebles, which must be strayned neither too stiffe nor too slacke, but of such a reasonable height that they may deliver a pleasant sound, and also (as Musitions call it) play too and fro after the strokes thereon, and warning of strings that were too thin: but let it not be too small, for those give no sound, besides they will be either rotten for lacke of substance, or extreame false. So far I have dwelt on the less contentious side of the question: large instruments require a re-entrant tuning, because otherwise there is a risk that their strings will break. I hope we are agreed on that. We're not. There are plenty of big bass lutes out there that aren't in re-entrant tuning (and it appears that the first chitarrones started out as bass lutes). Re-entrant tuning is not a result of having a big instrument, but rather of having a big instrument with a basic A or G lute tuning instead of D or E tuning. Re-entrant
[LUTE] Re: Ruthenicae
Sauvage Valéry wrote: [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU83Wf1_8PM Cantio Ruthenica LXXI by Joannes Leopolita (alias of Roman Turovsky, the ukainian painter and composer living in New York). Unusual melange of romantic guitar and viella both played by Maurizio Manzon. Look at this one... just beautiful... Val Indeed! Roman's sources for this music (or some of them, anyway) seems to be women's choirs in a sort of caller-response format: solo female voice for a phrase and chordal response from collected voices. The music is slow, rubato, pained! with titles beginning Achh! ... So a realisation on a plucked instrument is quite a challenge. A bowed instrument can at least seethe a bit. I wonder why, along with the bowed thing, Maurizio used a 19th century guitar since he has played this music on lutes. (And how did he get that video effect? I'd like to have a go at that!) Stuart -- References 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU83Wf1_8PM 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 - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1958 - Release Date: 02/18/09 08:57:00
[LUTE] Re: Toyota Theorbo for rent, low mileage
Everyone, Has it occurred to anyone that, in the contexts of density and tensions, we're missing one other important component in order to say anything certain about how stringing was done then or how we can re-create those conditions now? How 'bout some actual surviving strings? Chris --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Mark Wheeler l...@pantagruel.de wrote: From: Mark Wheeler l...@pantagruel.de Subject: [LUTE] Re: Toyota Theorbo for rent, low mileage To: 'howard posner' howardpos...@ca.rr.com, 'Lute Net' lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 5:59 PM Sorry All, I accidentally hit the send button before I got round to actually writing anything in the last post...So here is what I wanted to write As far as cranking the string up, there are historical accounts of this Robinson says “so high as you dare venter for breaking”. As far as Dowland goes, I do not see any problem, he meanes not too stiffe that it breaks. Dowland and Robinson are not contradictory. Mace talks quite a bit about stringing and even using different gauges, but stresses that equal tension among the strings is very important especially when playing in consort so that you can be heard. Taken the limited range of gut stringing, tuning the highest string to the highest possible pitch is necessary to achieve an equal tension. Exactly what this pitch was would certainly have not been exactly the same for every lutenist, but a difference of a fourth, would be pushing it all too far. Just as it is clear that bass lutes were tuned lower than tenor lutes, it seems only logical that small theorbos were tuned higher (or less re-entrant) than larger ones. It seems that the 2 main factors for the trend of toy theorbos (more a definition of usage than size) and single strung archlutes are the availability of modern string materials and the size of car boots. Both of which are not evil, just modern factors that did not exist in the past. All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: howard posner [mailto:howardpos...@ca.rr.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2009 22:52 An: Lute Net Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Toyota Theorbo for rent, low mileage On Feb 19, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Stewart McCoy wrote: Does some historical source say both highest pitch possible and thinnest useable string in discussing theorbos? And if so, is there any reason to believe that every theorbist subscribed to it? That sounds like quite a bit of the sort to me. You were asking Martyn Hodgson to produce a source with specific wording, for circumstances which must apply to every theorbo player. Unfortunately the implication is, that if he fails to do so, his arguments are specious, which is a bit unfair. Sorry, no. I was responding to Mark Wheeler's remark that one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. (I quoted it with his name at the top.) A fair reading of that remark is that it's posited as universal: this is what most players did for centuries. I don't believe it for a moment, and I doubt anybody ever actually said it. Hence my question: did anyone ever say, use the thinnest string you can and crank that sucker? Even if Mace said such a thing, which he didn't, that does not establish such a dubious proposition as one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing. Your lengthy paragraphs oddly suggesting that I fault Mace for not mentioning Pittoni or Handel or Stockhausen are thus beside the point, except insofar as they acknowledge the limited application of Mace's remarks. Your next question was, What is the thinnest useable string? It was kind of a rhetorical question... To find your thinnest useable string, simply measure the thickness of all the strings you possess, and pick out the thinnest one. If you find you can use it on the instrument of your choice, you will have found the thinnest useable string. If it breaks, it won't be much use any more, except possibly for smaller instruments or for frets. Have you ever done this? If you have, no offense intended, but it strikes me as a strange use of time. It's certainly not a recipe for optimum sound. I think historical players began with an idea of what was workable, received from teachers, other players and then their own experience. Why on earth would they be pushing the limits of practicality and constantly flirting with strings breaking in the middle of performances? I know Dowland emphatically prescribed the opposite, saying first set on your Trebles, which must be strayned neither too stiffe nor too slacke, but of such a reasonable height that they may deliver a pleasant sound, and also (as Musitions call it) play too and fro after the
[LUTE] Re: Ruthenicae
February 19th, 2009 Dear Lutenists and Roman: What a wonderful presentation of Roman's music. Quiet and beautiful, haunting presence, as if Russian steppes in the background. I am trying to get back in the studio again, struggling artist syndrome. The Lute goes slowly, the guitar less so . . . love, Rebecca Tea at Tympani Lane Records [1]www.tympanilanerecords.com __ So many new options, so little time. [2]Windows Live Messenger. -- References 1. http://www.tympanilanerecords.com/ 2. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/messenger.aspx To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Toyota Theorbo for rent, low mileage
On Feb 19, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Mark Wheeler wrote: I accidentally hit the send button before I got round to actually writing anything in the last post... I thought you were just being extremely concise. As far as cranking the string up, there are historical accounts of this Robinson says so high as you dare venter for breaking. As far as Dowland goes, I do not see any problem, he meanes not too stiffe that it breaks. Dowland and Robinson are not contradictory. They probably were not disagreeing, but they said different things that can be construed as disagreement. Dowland was clear enough: not too stiff and not too slack, so they can vibrate freely, and don't use strings that are too thin, because they don't give much sound, have insufficient structural integrity, and go false. If I told you to put a string on your instrument so as to comply with Dowland, you wouldn't say, Right! I'll get a string and crank it until I'm afraid it will break! But you might say that if told you to string your lute according to Robinson's instructions. Interpreting what Robinson means involves deciding what's reasonable, remembering that Robinson was a musician, not a literary giant famous for his precision with words. And consider that Robinson's instructions appear to be addressed to a beginner who doesn't have a teacher (so do Dowland's, of course). Neither an experienced player nor a beginner with a teacher would need them. So the writer is fishing for words to explain something that the reader has never experienced. (He would also be addressing someone incapable of playing the music in the book, but this is a problem with most historical instructions.) Perhaps Robinson's own experience was that beginners tended to string their lutes too slack. Who knows? In any event, Crank it to just before the breaking point is not a reasonable reading: you'd break a lot of strings doing it. Make it tight but don't crank it to the point where you're actually worried that it will break makes more sense, and also brings it more into line with the Big D's not-too-stiff-or-slack instruction. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
