Re: How to move the 1st course.
Herbert, I see you have gotten all sorts of good advice from lutenists, and I'm reluctant to put in my oar as one who has no lute. But I can speak to experience with bridges and other string anchors. (And to the problems with Pakistani instruments that I'm sure you already know - from harps to whistles and all in between - don't count on the wood being what it purports to be either). I have no idea how your lute (or even a classical lute) has the bridge tie off, but there is more than one way to skin a cat (luckily my cat, Lucky, is not watching me write this - else I might be in trouble). If you want to modify the instrument to be playable you can make a simple grooved hardwood bridge and tie the strings to pins in the base (using a leather chafing piece as they cross the border from base to board) I do that on mountain dulcimers. (Removing the old bridge should be just a matter of heat, most glues used break down at about 200 degrees and a hair dryer, judiciously used, should do that). The classical guitar bridge is a hard bridge (perhaps with a wire inlay). I have to assume that the suggestions as to filing the bridge involve reguiding the strings to filed points in that hard bridge. I'm not comfortable with that, it will lower the clearance of the bridge end and may cause buzzing against some of the lower or intermediate frets (even if they are the tied gut I didn't know about). The redrill is easy, the problem is to support the wood so it doesn't break through into the old hole (as I assume there is a small movement involved). Perhaps you could look to the nut. I don't know the lute but on many other instruments the nut is grooved to angle the dangle. And the limited lute music I know of seems to be low on the neck, so the nut end would be the better one to adjust to make the separation. Just thoughts from a newbie (not even that yet, still trying to learn on a retuned guitar). Best, Jon
Re: String cycles ...
There is a small book (pamphlet) copyright 1979 by a Rick Fogel (latest printing 1996) called Physics, Music Theory and the Hammered Dulcimer. His bibliography has several books, but he attributes most of his work in this 31 page pamphlet to Helmholtz's Sensations of Tone. Fogel's booklet is badly written, probably greatly transliterated from the German (I have penciled notes all over it to figure out the cents from the frequencies, and other such things. But it does get into the aesthetics of tone, including the overtone interference with the tonic that charactarizes the differing timbres of different instruments. And it discusses the implications of equal temperament, Pythagorean and natural tunings - and does so both theoretically (the details of the frequencies and the natural overtones) and aesthetically. It is not easy ( I had to search the pages to find out what a Didymus comma was when it was used in context), but I think anyone interested in the details will be interested. The publisher is Whamdiddle of 1916 Pike Place #906, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 784-1764. But I'm not sure if that is still there. It is available from Jerry Brown's Music Makers on the web (www.musikit.com) for US $6.95 plus SH. It is not a bible, but a damned good guide to the theory. A comment on your question as to string cycles. I don't have a lute yet (as those who have seen my comments before know). I make and play harps and psalteries. On the harp I often have the trouble you mention of the string pitch trailing off over the life of the pluck (although I can't say that of the guitar I played for fifty years, that I tuned with an A fork and my ear - and I wonder why the lutenist needs an electronic tuner - comments from Herb Ward welcomed). My main harp is a 26 string double (meaning 52 strings paralled). The harp is a free string instrument, in that the strings are stretched directly from the soundboard to the tuning pin and each is fixed in pitch. The nature of that instrument, versus the lute or guitar or other bridges instruments, is that there is much more resonant effect of the unplucked strings on the plucked string as the vibration of the soundboard is subtly transmitted to them. Therefore the interference of the quiet overtones of the other strings gets into the electronic tuner as the initial pluck dies out. When I first started tuning harps I had a real problem (and by the way, I could tune it by ear but with 532 strings it would take a day - although I yet finalize a tuning with my ear) I'd sit in my armchair with the TV going, and find the tuner bouncing to wierd notes on the die away (I use a pickup). So I blocked the audio mike and still had the problem (I thought that was shut off when I plugged in the pickup - but what the hell, maybe it wasn't). A bit of experimentation and I found that the sound of the TV was resonating the harp soundboard. I doubt this would happen with a lute, as the soundboard is smaller and not under direct tension, but it makes the point that harmonic interference is there as the plucked string weakens and the other strings react. As Herb said, it is a sine wave - and a sine wave with multiple nodes. So when other sine waves from the sympathetic vibrations of the other strings become strong enough to interfere (or reinforce, that is the nature of waves) then the dying pitch can change. (For the experts, I've kept this simplistic so if you have a quarrel with any of it address me directly). Best, Jon
Re: willow song
With all due respect to the members of this list who have offered sources for Shakespearean songs I have my doubts as their validity. Much of our knowledge of Shakespeare's text comes from later folios. My guess is that the actor (remember, no women on stage at the time, who played Ophelia found a simple melody to fit the song, and if it was accompanied it would have been with simple chords (as the Greek poets were accompanied by a bit of a strum) so as not to diminish the sound of the words. Remember, they had no microphones in those days, the actor had to carry the house, and the words were the play. Best, Jon - Original Message - From: richard BROOK [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 6:10 AM Subject: willow song I am interested in locating a version of the 'Willow Song' from (I believe) Othello, that has the verses and lute tablature. Any help would be appreciated. Dick Brook[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Different note names (was: Baroque pitch)
Ooops, correction, where I said sharp I meant natural. Best, Jon - Original Message - From: Jon Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Schall [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Arto Wikla [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Doctor Oakroot [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 11:11 PM Subject: Re: Different note names (was: Baroque pitch) Arto, A good answer, the hexachord system (I'm not going to look up solmisation in the dictionary) is the probable source. And you correctly point out that the do,re,mi finishes with la. And I'm sure you understand the origin, but I'll take the liberty of explaining it to others. (And in the interest of brevity, and the possibilty that I'm preaching to the choir, we'll not get into the system). There was a hymn used for teaching music as well as prayer, Ut queant laxis, and each phrase begins with a part of the do,re, mi (except the ut was changed to do, probably for euphonics). I have a possible disagreement with you on the form of the scale. But that may also be one of international differences. I have pulled a book from my shelves and am looking at a hexachord scale (same page of Grout's History of Western Music - in the Gregorian Chant and Secular Song in the Middle Ages chapter) - and the modern notation for Ut Queant is on the same page. Oops, left out that the sol and la were added later when we went to the octave. As I see this the second ut is on the fourth, the fa of the first hexachord (and that hexachord starts at G two below middle C - and the designation of that note is the capital Greek Gamma - so the second ut/do is C below middle C. The next time we see ut is also the fourth (the third ut is another fa, which is F below middle C). But now it breaks down. The fourth ut is the re of the third hexachord scale, and is therefore G below middle C. And it is here we get into the dichotomy of B (or H, or whatever). In the 3rd hexachord the B below middle C (and I use this tiring notation as the caps and smalls and 2's and primes for general pitch are inconsistant between harpist and lutenists) is a flat, but in the 4th hexachord it is a sharp, and this is the first time the sharp and flat raise their ugly heads. That low B in the first hexachord is always B. The fifth and sixth hexachords again go back to the original pattern, they start on the fa, or fourth, of their predecessors. And the seventh starts on the re of the sixth, G above middle C,(again giving the dichotomy of the B). The hexachords on C and G use B natural, the one on F uses B flat. The symbol in English notatation for the B flat was a was a round b (b rotundum), and for the natural was a squared b (quadrum), the notation evolved into the our notation. But the same, or similar, evolution of notation could give the h and the other notations mentioned. After all, the hexachord was a big advance over the Greek tetrachord (and no one knows the middle notes, it has been said that they varied by the player, but I have no CDs of Homer on his harp (lyre, whatever). Best, Jon - Original Message - From: Arto Wikla [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Schall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Doctor Oakroot [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 6:43 PM Subject: Re: Different note names (was: Baroque pitch) Dear Thomas and lutenists, on Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Thomas Schall wrote: I've read somewhere that there is a reason why it's not a b c d e f g I think the explanation is to be found in the hexachord solmisation, where they had only the six notes c, d, e, f, g, a; or more properly ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la. And when the melody went over la or under ut, they changed the reference point. But why is that so, exactly? Why the b is missing? In the hexachord, if they wanted the high thing (my h, English b), they changed the former sol to a new ut, and got their new mi as the major third on the g. And if they changed the original fa to a new ut, their new fa was the minor third on the g. But why was the b lacking in the system od the old Europe? ;) Or was it really? Arto
Re: Baroque pitch
For all you younger folk, Pitch is irrelevant (except when it is grossly different). Those of us who are very senior citizens have found that middle C has dropped to about A when we go for the songs. ( And I will leave this list for a few days to spend a long weekend with my fellow dotards singing our group songs of the late fifties. No, not Elvis, the Princeton Tigertones of the late fifties.). As you all know I'm new to lute notation, but as I look at the French notation I see no absolute at to a pitch, nor any key signature (I'm sure I'll be corrected on this). The old German notation had a key called H (and I have a modern fugue written in the sequence BACH, in honor of the composer, I'd have to pull out the music to see what note the H was, but it was in the Western chromatic scale. As I'm playing with string lengths and guages for a new thing I'm doing I'd guess that the change of materials may have changed the base pitches (not on organs, of course). Perhaps what happened was that instruments were made, and stringed with what was available, and the instrument/string combination defined the pitch. But then when ensemble, or orchestral, music came in vogue there had to be a standard made. Pure speculation, interested in comments. Best, Jon
Re: Different note names (was: Baroque pitch)
Arto, A good answer, the hexachord system (I'm not going to look up solmisation in the dictionary) is the probable source. And you correctly point out that the do,re,mi finishes with la. And I'm sure you understand the origin, but I'll take the liberty of explaining it to others. (And in the interest of brevity, and the possibilty that I'm preaching to the choir, we'll not get into the system). There was a hymn used for teaching music as well as prayer, Ut queant laxis, and each phrase begins with a part of the do,re, mi (except the ut was changed to do, probably for euphonics). I have a possible disagreement with you on the form of the scale. But that may also be one of international differences. I have pulled a book from my shelves and am looking at a hexachord scale (same page of Grout's History of Western Music - in the Gregorian Chant and Secular Song in the Middle Ages chapter) - and the modern notation for Ut Queant is on the same page. Oops, left out that the sol and la were added later when we went to the octave. As I see this the second ut is on the fourth, the fa of the first hexachord (and that hexachord starts at G two below middle C - and the designation of that note is the capital Greek Gamma - so the second ut/do is C below middle C. The next time we see ut is also the fourth (the third ut is another fa, which is F below middle C). But now it breaks down. The fourth ut is the re of the third hexachord scale, and is therefore G below middle C. And it is here we get into the dichotomy of B (or H, or whatever). In the 3rd hexachord the B below middle C (and I use this tiring notation as the caps and smalls and 2's and primes for general pitch are inconsistant between harpist and lutenists) is a flat, but in the 4th hexachord it is a sharp, and this is the first time the sharp and flat raise their ugly heads. That low B in the first hexachord is always B. The fifth and sixth hexachords again go back to the original pattern, they start on the fa, or fourth, of their predecessors. And the seventh starts on the re of the sixth, G above middle C,(again giving the dichotomy of the B). The hexachords on C and G use B natural, the one on F uses B flat. The symbol in English notatation for the B flat was a was a round b (b rotundum), and for the natural was a squared b (quadrum), the notation evolved into the our notation. But the same, or similar, evolution of notation could give the h and the other notations mentioned. After all, the hexachord was a big advance over the Greek tetrachord (and no one knows the middle notes, it has been said that they varied by the player, but I have no CDs of Homer on his harp (lyre, whatever). Best, Jon - Original Message - From: Arto Wikla [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Schall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Doctor Oakroot [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 6:43 PM Subject: Re: Different note names (was: Baroque pitch) Dear Thomas and lutenists, on Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Thomas Schall wrote: I've read somewhere that there is a reason why it's not a b c d e f g I think the explanation is to be found in the hexachord solmisation, where they had only the six notes c, d, e, f, g, a; or more properly ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la. And when the melody went over la or under ut, they changed the reference point. But why is that so, exactly? Why the b is missing? In the hexachord, if they wanted the high thing (my h, English b), they changed the former sol to a new ut, and got their new mi as the major third on the g. And if they changed the original fa to a new ut, their new fa was the minor third on the g. But why was the b lacking in the system od the old Europe? ;) Or was it really? Arto
Re: formula
David, by now you may have recognized me as an interloper among the lute expert, but I'll still give you some numbers from my work with harps. But first we have to make a real point of separation between the lute and other fretted instruments (yes, I know the purists fret with gut, and come to think of it sometimes my gut frets at my age). On the lute and guitar, and other instruments of fixed string lengths that are stopped to change notes the problem is a bit different than on the harp, psaltery and other such - where the string is not stopped, each string is its own pitch. But it is not so different as to change much. On the harp the calculation involves the following factors (and I use their terms): Breaking point (tensile strength) Mass (density) Acceleration (a constant that has been variously described to me, it happens to match the 32 feet per second per second of gravity, but I think that is likely a coincidence and the constant has to do with the normal pull by the finger). Percent of tensile strength (a choice, which on the harp has to do with the pull and the sound - normally one picks somewhere between 30 and 70 percent depending on the sound one wants). Pitch desired, in cps. As one who has played guitar for well over fifty years I found the formulas, and the empirical comments, to be ridiculous, until I tested them. Whatever the guage of a monofiliment string (the wound strings are different, their mass increases but the tensile strength doesn't - the core guage is the tensile strength) the pitch at which it will break is almost constant, with regard to length. With the lute (theoretically, I must state, as I don't have one) the fixed length means that you have a limited range of base tuning, the open string. And on the lute there are a lot more courses than the guitar, so there is more to worry about. On the harp one shapes the harp for the length of the strings. Now to the string characteristics, as taken from harp strings: Material Breaking strength(psi)Mass(lbs/in3) Nylon 44600.0383 Gut 52000.047 Bronze125000 .320 Steel325000 .283 Now, there are different nylons, and different guts. Some harps use a concert gut which is brighter than the standard (read that to say a higher tensile strength). The same applies to nylon. But an algebraic readjustment of the formula comes to a surprising result. The Nylon, the gut and the steel come to almost the same number when you factor the mass and tensile strength, the brass doesn't. For an example, the psaltery I'm designing would have a C above middle C of approximately eight inches (and unstopped instrument, remember) with nylon, gut or steel. But the same pitch would be four inches with bronze. On my stopped instruments (not a lute yet, but I'll get there) I do use different guages, but that is within a range of the open string tension. The guitar and lute both approximate 30 inches of vibrating length (a bit more, a bit less depending on the instrument) At that length they can only go so high, or so low on monofiliment But guitars use wound strings for the bass, and I assume lutes do. C below middle C on a harp would require a five foot long string if one didn't put a wound string on it. But remember, the gauge quoted on the label is that of the wound string, not of the underlying core which defines the tensile strength, but not the mass. Hell, got to get up in the morning, long drive to my annual TigerTones reunion, let me know if you lutenists want to hear more about strings in their natural state (unstopped). Best, Jon
Re: Baroque pitch
Note my other answer, what you hear on the lute is more obvious on the harp. Not that it is a better or purer instrument, just that there is no interference by your skills at fretting or playing the harmony. Best, Jon
Re: lute player in blocks
There was a mystery novel written on the topic some few years ago. The title included Crossroads, but I can't remember if it included Old Sratch. Took a quick glance in the shelves but didn't see it, will look when I get back from my trip. When I first bought a guitar (1949) the songs I learned and loved were a bit eclectic. John Jacob Niles with his English, Appalachian from various, and particularly Huddie Ledbetter from the Lomax tapes. B.B. King's blues are beautiful, with the squeezed guitar. But so are the simple sounds of Leadbelly. Best, Jon
Re: Spam, I goofed
Sorry lads and ladies, I was snookered, and may have passed a rather mild virus to you all. I find the same message structure from almost everyone who has sent to me recently. (The legitimate vendors, such as Shop Irish and others, have their names attached to this message). I goofed, I opened it (yeah, it was late at night and I have the arrogance of an expert). Whatever the source you shoukd delete any message that starts This may be spam. If I've infected any of you I deeply apologise, but it doesn't seem to be a destructive virus, merely a disruptive one. I must have a hundred of them tonight, I hope I haven't infected any of you. Best, Jon
Re: formula
David, Forget it. There are formulae for calculating string length, and there are computer programs that will do it. But as one who is designing un-fretted instruments let me give you some input. It is too late at night for me to evaulate the formula below, it might be quite correct. But I've gone through twenty years of harp string calculations (no, I'm new, just two years, but I have the back articles). I have found that there is a constant in the harp string formulae (remember that it is a direct pull off the soundboard in contrast to the lute), there is a constant of 32, which has been called acceleration, and matches the 32 ft/sec/sec acceleration of gravity. And is therefore patently ridiculous. Whatever, in the design I'm doing for a levered psaltery (like the harp, fixed and unstopped strings, but stopped by the levers at each string to give the chromatic scale key changes), I have found that the nylon, gut, and steel strings all have about the same characteristic as to the length to pitch. You got it close, but the harp people kept telling me that the guage of the string didn't matter as to the breaking tension. I didn't believe them, but I've built a test board that confirms it. (Guage of the monofiliment string, not the mass per unit length of a wound string, the harp goes to lower levels that would make the monofiliment impossibly long to reach the bass). If youl'd like (and even if you don't please) I'll send you the formula the harp makers use, but not tonight. And maybe not until I get back from my Tigertone reunion next week (a bunch of singers all over 65). I still can't get a reason why the acceleration factor of gravity should be a constant, but the other constants are the combination of tensile strength and mass per unit length, and the only material that is really out of line is bronze wire (something used very early, they had bronze before steel so it is possible that the lute, like the harp, started with drawn metal strings. Nylon, gut and steel wire each like about eight inches to be in the range of C2 (C6 in regular notation, where middle C is C4). Suffice to say two octaves above middle C. The bronze wires want about four inches for the same note, and that is my design problem. I don't know whether to make it a bass psaltery, or to go with the high C. My string maker says bronze won't ring right if less than eight inches, but my test board (solid wood, no resonance) tells me different. Sorry to get off on a tangent, back to the beginning. The formula is a guide, not a rule. Until some of the information from you all on the list I'd assumed that the lute was a fixed fretted instrument, an ancestor of the guitar. But now I see there are other subtleties, the variable frets with the tied gut frets. But let none of that say that I don't know strings. Strings are crazy (not really), I slide my moveable bridges on my test board and they go lower as I shorten the vibrating length - oops, the level of the bridges and bridge pins I set were such that I increased tension as I shortened the string, the trade off. My mountain dulcimer was designed for .013 steel strings on the doubled treble, but I find .011 carries the sound and balances the tension with the other strings. The choice of guage is more a matter of balancing the tension of the feel than making the pitch, (again, neglecting those lower strings that need the windings to make the mass, and if one were to use monofiliment for those strings they would be so soft as to be out of balance). I'm new to the lute, but not new to strings. I do confess that my string experience is with both harp (direct pull) and psaltery (indirect pull across a bridge, like the lute). I resign for the evening, but welcome any comments on the nature of the strings. Best. Jon (I can give you the nominal mass per unit of the different string materials, excepting the wound strings (and I'll soon test them and make an empirical number). - Original Message - From: LGS-Europe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:58 AM Subject: formula Perhaps one of the rocket scientists (Arto, Taco?) on the list can help me with this. Mersenne and Galileo already found out that: - Frequency is inversely related to String Length. - Frequency is related to the square root of String Tension. - Fequency is inversely related to the square root of the String Mass per unit length. From this I can deduce a formula for calculating string length / frequency / material / diameter, much like Arto's Super String Calculator: T = constant * F^2 * L ^2 * Pi * (0.5 * d)^2 * D T = Tension F = Frequency L = String Length d = String diameter D = Density of String material The constant has to be 0,04 My question is: why 0,04? Coincidence, some fixed constant in nature or just a stupid question because I am missing something obvious? David * David van Ooijen
Newbie to the lute
Hi all, (and pardon the big bold type font, my computer seems to have a mind of its own) I don't yet play the lute, but I'd like to ask for your opinions. A bit of background. I'm retired and making instruments for my own use. So far a couple of harps (one cross strung diatonic and one double strung), a bowed psaltery and a plucked psaltery and a mountain dulcimer. The latter three with kits from MusicMakers in Minn, and the harps from kits by Stoney End (also Minn). I have to use kits as in my area the expense of getting the woods needed is greater than getting the kit (the kit maker can buy in volume and cut a number of instruments from one piece). Also my shop is rather small, being a former 5'x5' closet that holds a band saw, wood lathe, drill press, belt/disk sander and a few other things. So here is my question, or set of questions: Ooops, before the questions a bit more background. Jerry Brown (MusicMakers) offers a kit for a flat back lute. It is 7 courses (13 strings, nylon). The idea of the flat back is to make construction easier and cheaper. I have a picture of it, but although I've visited his shop in MN (I have a grandson in MN) I'm not going to make the trip to check out the instrument. The catalogue photo shows nine full frets to the body, then another five partial frets going into the body. The tuning pegs are classical tapered ebony rather than modern machines. The bridge is glued to the soundboard like a classical guitar (strings tied to the bridge). I have gotten the book on playing lute that he offers (I do some business with him, and he is reliable and honest). The book is The Scottish Lute by Ronn McFarlane. Actually it is two books in one. A book of modern notation with a secondary clef noted for frets, and fingering note - and a book of French tabulature that was apparently used in the Scottish lute books of the early sixteen-hundreds that he used. That French tabulature is purely a notation of the frets and strings (with an indication above the clef as to the timing structure). I've retuned the old classical (wide neck) guitar and played from both notations. Finally the questions: I like making my own instruments, and I'm very tempted to spend the $350 it would cost me for this kit (despite being quite busy learning the other instruments I've built). The flat back would probably change the fullness of the sound, but couldn't be less than the flat back of the guitar. So, do I buy this kit? (Remember I have a certain pride in customizing even my kits, I always have a seagull form for my main soundhole, and it is a different free hand bird on each of the others I made). Secondly, what is the standard lute notation of the olden times? McFarlane's book only speaks to the Scottish lute books of 1600, is that French tabulature a standard in old texts? Finally, knowing myself I'm probably going to build and play the damned thing anyway, so I'll ask for any advice you all can offer. It would seem that one's choice of fingers is more sequential than by shape (as it is on a chorded folk guitar). But I have been able to make some musical sounds, with a bit of effort, using the retuned guitar. And it would seem that the shorter neck length of the lute might make it easier to make some of the placements (I've played guitar for fifty years, but always at the neck end, never had a good barre - that would seem to militate toward good lute practice). Best, Jon Jonathan W. Murphy Englishtown, NJ
