[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
>If you only have the pinky down, there is a limit on the color range. dt > > I think that the "little finger down" thing has become a > religion, these days. It is likely that there were as many styles > of play as there were players in the "old times." It's interesting > that not all surviving instruments have the "smudge." Were they > cleaned up? Were they repaired with new soundboards? Were they > played without that pinky on the face? > > > > Guitarists do not play with the pinky on the face and play fairly > fast and acurately. It seems a somewhat unnecessary bit of the > "Orthodox Lute technique." > > > > Just my $.02 > > > > Joseph Mayes > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
And what I'm suggesting is that, by obliging the hand to be disposed
in a particular way, it does affect the sound produced. Whether it is
'beneficial' is not quite the point (and as you say whether you are a
modern guitarist): it's what was generally done at the time. MH
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Mayes, Joseph wrote:
From: Mayes, Joseph
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
To: "Martyn Hodgson" , "alexander"
Cc: "Herbert Ward" ,
"lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 15:50
All of the players who learned to play their instrument with the
little
finger down will agree with you. There is copious evidence for this
method being used in the 16th and 17th centuries. Early guitar
tutors
also suggest planting the little finger. What I am saying is that it
is
unnecessary, and has little or no beneficial effect on the sound
produced. Also - it was obviously not universal for lutes,
archlutes,
guitars, what have you.
Joseph Mayes
On 4/1/11 6:59 AM, "Martyn Hodgson"
<[1][1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
You are quite right - your email attached one of Jospeh Mayes to
whom I should have directed that particular observation. I'm
pleased
you agree the little finger resting on the belly is a necessary
part
of historical lute technique.
MH
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, alexander <[2][2]voka...@verizon.net> wrote:
From: alexander <[3][3]voka...@verizon.net>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[4][4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "JosephMayes" <[5][5]ma...@rowan.edu>, "Herbert Ward"
<[6][6]wa...@physics.utexas.edu>, "[7][7]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
<[8][8]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 11:04
Oh, yes, another thing, how did you come to a conclusion that i am
arguing against the little finger support while i am arguing that
only such a support allows to produce a decent sound on a lute?..
al
ray
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0100 (BST)
Martyn Hodgson <[9][9]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
<[10][10]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmartyn@yah
o
o.co.uk> > wrote:
>
>Dear Alexander,
>
>What evidence do you have that early lutes (I presume you're
referring
>to 16th century instruments) were strung at a lower tension
than
>similar size later lutes?
>
>And what evidence do you have that the tension of a guitar
around 1800
>was 7 Newtons?
>
>Early evidence on the use of placing the little finger on the
belly is
>unequivocal - if we wish to attempt to reproduce what the Old
Ones
>themselves heard it is clearly necessary to adopt the same
techniques.
>
>MH
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
[11][11]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1.
file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/[12]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/[13]voka...@verizon.net
3. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/[14]voka...@verizon.net
4.
file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/[15]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
5. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/[16]ma...@rowan.edu
6. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/[17]wa...@physics.utexas.edu
7. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/[18]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
8. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/[19]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
9.
file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/[20]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
10.
[21]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co
.uk
11. [22]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=voka...@verizon.net
3. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=voka...@verizon.net
4. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
5. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ma...@rowan.edu
6. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wa...@physics.utexas.edu
7. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
8. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
9. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
10. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
> -Original Message- > From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On > Behalf Of alexander > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:40 AM > To: Martyn Hodgson > Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast. > > My apologies, my interest in 19th century guitars is long gone. The lack > of time reduces the interest even farther. 685 mm is the longest guitar > from circa 1810s i have measured, from collection of Leningrad Museum of > musical instruments (in 1970s). 635 mm as far as i remember were more > often the case, with some from 65 to 67 cm. Then, the ladies, or terz- > guitars, quite a bit shorter and smaller. The younger guitar loving people > should be the ones concerned with this though... [Eugene C. Braig IV] Well, I have no idea how my age compares to yours, Alexander, but this is a topic that appeals to me. Who were the makers of the instruments you measured in Leningrad? These lengths do seem to favor the long side and seem more typical of what I would expect of 5-course guitars into the 18th c. Is it possible you're remembering measurements associated with 5-course guitars? Is it possible they were early "Russian" guitars for 7 strings? There are abundant extant 19th-c. guitars from all across Europe. I have measured many (and own more than one) myself. As Martyn cites, ranges from 60 up to 64 c. seem quite common amongst European makers. Those longer, less so. Those shorter (possible "terz", also less so. A fair number of Viennese builders, e.g., seemed to favor just over 60 cm on their standard instruments, at least early in the century; under the influence of Staufer/Stauffer protégés (like Scherzer) Viennese builders climbed to more like 64 cm. later in the century. Europe-wide, consider, e.g., the well documented pieces by Stauffer/Staufer, Lacote, Panormo, et al. Best, Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
This discussion of little finger on the top is most timely for me. I have recently been changing the angle at which I hold my right hand so as to get the thumb striking the strings of each course together. I've also moved the position of my hand to just behind the rose (rather than over the rose). Both of these adjustments have an audible effect on the sound; a positive effect, as I hear it. I have also been trying to keep my little finger resting on the top in the same spot as long as I am on a given course (it naturally has to move when the hand moves to another course). The advantage of this is not obvious to me, but I intend to keep listening to myself and seeing how my hand feels as I get more used to this technique. Up until now I have let the little finger brush the top but not anchored it in one spot. Whatever technique gives the best sound and feels most comfortable is ultimately what I will adopt. I have been curious as to why the anchored little finger is! so much advocated, from a strictly pragmatic point of view. As I have said here before, historical practices are naturally of interest. But I'm not convinced that the evidence is complete enough for us to fully understand them. And also, as I believe both luthiers and string makers today have admitted, our knowledge there is incomplete also. Gut strings today are not exactly the same as they were in the 16th century; synthetic strings are totally modern. And today's instruments are probably not exact replications either. So, might we not take what we think we know about historical techniques and adapt them to what best seems to suit our contemporary instruments and strings? Ned On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Mayes, Joseph wrote: > All of the players who learned to play their instrument with the little > finger down will agree with you. There is copious evidence for this > method being used in the 16th and 17th centuries. Early guitar tutors > also suggest planting the little finger. What I am saying is that it is > unnecessary, and has little or no beneficial effect on the sound > produced. Also - it was obviously not universal for lutes, archlutes, > guitars, what have you. > Joseph Mayes > On 4/1/11 6:59 AM, "Martyn Hodgson" <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: > > You are quite right - your email attached one of Jospeh Mayes to > whom I should have directed that particular observation. I'm pleased > you agree the little finger resting on the belly is a necessary part > of historical lute technique. > > MH > --- On Fri, 1/4/11, alexander <[2]voka...@verizon.net> wrote: > > From: alexander <[3]voka...@verizon.net> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast. > To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> > Cc: "JosephMayes" <[5]ma...@rowan.edu>, "Herbert Ward" > <[6]wa...@physics.utexas.edu>, "[7]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" > <[8]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 11:04 > Oh, yes, another thing, how did you come to a conclusion that i am > arguing against the little finger support while i am arguing that > only such a support allows to produce a decent sound on a lute?.. al > ray > On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0100 (BST) > Martyn Hodgson <[9]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk > <[10]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmartyn@yaho > o.co.uk> > wrote: >> >> Dear Alexander, >> >> What evidence do you have that early lutes (I presume you're > referring >> to 16th century instruments) were strung at a lower tension > than >> similar size later lutes? >> >> And what evidence do you have that the tension of a guitar > around 1800 >> was 7 Newtons? >> >> Early evidence on the use of placing the little finger on the > belly is >> unequivocal - if we wish to attempt to reproduce what the Old > Ones >> themselves heard it is clearly necessary to adopt the same > techniques. >> >> MH >> > To get on or off this list see list information at > [11]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > > References > > 1. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk > 2. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/voka...@verizon.net > 3. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/voka...@verizon.net > 4. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk > 5. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/ma...@rowan.edu > 6. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/wa...@physics.utexas.edu > 7. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > 8. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > 9. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk > 10. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk > 11. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Hello Louis You observations seem right to me. At the end of a three hour set my wrist if fine - my butt hurts. Joe On 4/1/11 9:37 AM, "Louis Aull" wrote: >Hi Joe, > > > >The continued discussion of finger position brought to mind some of the >mechanical aspects of the lute as well as well. Robert Lundberg in his >wonderful book on lute construction insists that the bowls of >historical lutes were shaped down on the sides from in front of the >bridge to the rose to allow more clearance for the strings. I know that >this lowering of the sides could also have been due to repair or >correction of the neck angle. Raising the neck angle without removing >the neck causes the sides of the bowl to bow out and lower slightly. >But in looking at pictures of players hand's and instruments of of all >kinds, guitars, lutes, banjos, a perfectly made instrument may wind up >in the hands of anyone. A bridge low enough to allow the pinky to rest >on the soundboard will find itself torn to shreads by the pick of a >strum player (see Willie Nelson). Perhaps Robert was actually seeing >the truth here. Look at the finger rest that Chet Atkins used to get >the rest point up to his very short pinky, yet keep the clearance for >pick work. > > > >As the necks got longer and peg boxes got heavier, the neck angle >naturally rises to reduce this weight. At 45 degrees, the weight is >half that of 90 degrees. As the neck comes up, the right wrist rotates >to a position more in parallel with the strings and the pinky has a >natural tendancy to come off the sound board. This allows the builder >to raise the bridge to get more sound and protect the soundboard from >pick damage. Lutes in the 18th century tend to have higher bridges. >Once the bridge is raised, it's over for the pinky without a finger >rest or placing the pinky on the bridge. The smudge would have been >left on some strings. (could the smudgeless soundboards have had a Chet >Atkins finger rest?) > > > >At the end of a three hour set, hows your wrist? > > > >Louis Aull > >Phone: 770.978.1872 > >Fax: 866.496.4294 > >Cell:404.932.1614 > > > >-- > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
All of the players who learned to play their instrument with the little
finger down will agree with you. There is copious evidence for this
method being used in the 16th and 17th centuries. Early guitar tutors
also suggest planting the little finger. What I am saying is that it is
unnecessary, and has little or no beneficial effect on the sound
produced. Also - it was obviously not universal for lutes, archlutes,
guitars, what have you.
Joseph Mayes
On 4/1/11 6:59 AM, "Martyn Hodgson" <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
You are quite right - your email attached one of Jospeh Mayes to
whom I should have directed that particular observation. I'm pleased
you agree the little finger resting on the belly is a necessary part
of historical lute technique.
MH
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, alexander <[2]voka...@verizon.net> wrote:
From: alexander <[3]voka...@verizon.net>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "JosephMayes" <[5]ma...@rowan.edu>, "Herbert Ward"
<[6]wa...@physics.utexas.edu>, "[7]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
<[8]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 11:04
Oh, yes, another thing, how did you come to a conclusion that i am
arguing against the little finger support while i am arguing that
only such a support allows to produce a decent sound on a lute?.. al
ray
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0100 (BST)
Martyn Hodgson <[9]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
<[10]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmartyn@yaho
o.co.uk> > wrote:
>
>Dear Alexander,
>
>What evidence do you have that early lutes (I presume you're
referring
>to 16th century instruments) were strung at a lower tension
than
>similar size later lutes?
>
>And what evidence do you have that the tension of a guitar
around 1800
>was 7 Newtons?
>
>Early evidence on the use of placing the little finger on the
belly is
>unequivocal - if we wish to attempt to reproduce what the Old
Ones
>themselves heard it is clearly necessary to adopt the same
techniques.
>
>MH
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
[11]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/voka...@verizon.net
3. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/voka...@verizon.net
4. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
5. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/ma...@rowan.edu
6. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/wa...@physics.utexas.edu
7. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
8. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
9. file://localhost/net/people/lute-arc/hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
10. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
11. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Ah...I knew there would be push-back. I'm not certain how little finger up became equated with tense wrist and arm muscles, or how those performers appreciated for their "best sound" became those with the little finger down, or how finger down became associated with volume. I think some stretching is going on, here. Joseph Mayes On 3/31/11 10:29 PM, "alexander" wrote: > Thinner strings of the earlier lute, lighter tension leave a little chance of > producing timbrally rich and interesting sound, with any sort of body to it, > without being able to push away from something. A tense wrist - arm muscles > are in no way a solution, so grounding the little finger (either quite > permanently or at the moment of plucking) allows for support while keeping the > arm relaxed. Anyone who will attempt to produce any sort of volume close to > the bridge with fingers moving along the string without anchoring against the > lute plate or the bridge, will realize this immediately. The sound production > is what counts first of all in use of this "unnecessary technique". With the > later lutes and strings growing in diameter and tension, or the mass (the > length) somewhat different needs arise. However, even on a guitar of the > classical period, with its' 7 newtons of tension on the top string, the > performers being appreciated for the best sound, like Aguado and Giuliani were > the ones lodging their pinkie to the bridge and the top, respectively. The > speed and "a proper" accentuation of the running notes, are just additional > part of it. They are not determining the need for support. al ray > > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:36:36 -0400 > "Mayes, Joseph" wrote: > >> I think that the "little finger down" thing has become a religion, these >> days. It is likely that there were as many styles of play as there were >> players in the "old times." It's interesting that not all surviving >> instruments have the "smudge." Were they cleaned up? Were they repaired with >> new soundboards? Were they played without that pinky on the face? >> >> Guitarists do not play with the pinky on the face and play fairly fast and >> acurately. It seems a somewhat unnecessary bit of the "Orthodox Lute >> technique." >> >> Just my $.02 >> >> Joseph Mayes To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Hi Dan Good to hear from you - we seem to agree. (or is that just a symptom of a miss spent youth?) Joe On 3/31/11 10:07 PM, "Daniel Winheld" wrote: > Hi Joe- > > I'll take that 2¢ and put in my bank account. > Need all I can get these days- NO SMUDGES ON MY > LUTES! There are other branches in Lutedom > besides Orthodox. There is Conservative- finger > down, but flexible and moves up and down with the > hand. There is Reform, sometimes off the > soundboard, sometimes on. I am > Reconstructionist/Atheist- that little finger is > out, but mostly no solid contact; a bare touch > like the feeler gauges on old cars for sensing > the curb when parking - sometimes light contact > for fast thumb-index runs for thumb under, and > off for chordal play. I think it is always off > when playing thumb out (Baroque & archlute, > usually also vihuela) but will have to watch > myself next time to see for sure. > > Modern guitars have an elevated fingerboard, > which puts the top enough further out of reach of > the fingers to make little finger down a complete > disaster (at least for me) and the extensive use > of the 3rd finger means the pinky cannot ever be > tied down- esp. if the distance from strings to > soundboard is another 1/2 centimeter or so. Some > of the pick guards on archtop guitars function as > much as a platform for the pinky (plectrum > players) as top protection- location here, as in > real estate, is everything. > > And that's my 2¢ back- don't spend it in one place. > > >> I think that the "little finger down" thing has >> become a religion, these days. It is likely that >> there were as many styles of play as there were >> players in the "old times." It's interesting >> that not all surviving instruments have the >> "smudge." Were they cleaned up? Were they >> repaired with new soundboards? Were they played >> without that pinky on the face? >> >> Guitarists do not play with the pinky on the >> face and play fairly fast and acurately. It >> seems a somewhat unnecessary bit of the >> "Orthodox Lute technique." >> >> Just my $.02 >> >> Joseph Mayes >> >> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu >> [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Herbert >> Ward [wa...@physics.utexas.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:43 PM >> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu >> Subject: [LUTE] Stability of lute in playing fast. >> >> Below I use the word "jerk" several times. I suspect >> there may be a more elegant and accurate verb. If >> so, please excuse me. >> >> A few weeks ago I watched a bluegrass mandolin player. >> This man had won a (Texas?) state bluegrass mandolin >> championship, and, as one might suppose, he could quite >> fast. >> >> In watching him play, I immediately noticed the large >> degree to which his mandolin "jerks around" (for lack >> of a better phrase) while he's playing, with no tendency >> to jerk less during the fastest and most intricate >> passages, or indeed even during the quieter passages. >> >> This contrasts starkly with my modus operandi, which >> is to stabilize the lute as much as possible, in order >> to give myself a stationary target, especially for >> my right hand. >> >> The obvious explanation for this is to suppose that >> the mandolin player's hands, and in particular his >> right hand, move with the mandolin while he's playing, >> and thus negate the effect of the "jerking". But, in >> playing the lute, my right hand is, more or less, >> glued to the lute in that my little finger rests >> on the soundboard and my forearm rests on the lute's >> edge close to the strap button. >> >> All this leaves me fairly confused. Do all elite >> lute players keep their little fingers and forearms >> solidly on the lute? Do they stress this in >> their teaching? Do they present this as part >> of the technique needed to play fast? Do any of >> them play with "jerking" lutes? Have any of this >> list's readers worked through this issue personally? >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Thank you Alexander,
I fear I didn't explain the position clearly enough: what is the
historical evidence for your assertions?
What evidence do you have that 'musicians bought the strings from the
same makers year after year.'
Finally you seem to be confusing the issue of Tension with Stress.
Strings will break at the Breaking stress which is a constant for a
given material and is independent of the string's diameter for a given
pitch and string length. Thus one may have a thick or a thin string on
the same instrument and both will break at the same pitch. Thus,
without begging the question (ie what tensions were used historically
on various lutes), this in itself tells us nothing about the diameter
of strings that may have been used.
The way in which re-entrant tuning was required by the exigencies of
pitch, string length and tensile strength was first described by
Piccinini in 1623, later by Mace (1676) and others.
MH
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, alexander wrote:
From: alexander
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
To: "Martyn Hodgson"
Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 14:39
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:54:25 +0100 (BST)
Martyn Hodgson <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Thank you for this.
>
> Well, without wanting to be pedantic I think we need to ask: what
evidence do you have that 'The top string was made from the same number
of guts while the mensura increased'?
The smallest number of guts, two, arranged thin end to thick end for
evenness. There was no use of splitting horn, and no polishing the top
string, to keep it strong. Such a string comes out to about .43 mm,
according to E. Segermann.
I recall P. O'Dette describing his idea of reentrant tuning creation -
lute longer - top string the same. Lutanist trying to tune it up to
where it is supposed to be - damn! snap! Oh well, let's tune it an
octave lower. Humorous, yes, but very true. Can not argue with the
calculator and material physics. Sorry. The tension is directly
proportional to the string length and the pitch.
> Moreover, even if the highest pitched string of, say, a large bass
lute with string length of, say, 95cm had the same number of gut
filaments as that of a small lute, say string length 55cm, which I very
much doubt, the width of each gut filament/strand might well not be the
same.
TO avoid unpredictable variations in gut quality, musicians bought the
strings from the same makers year after year. The splitting horn was
invented only in the 18th century. This restricted the possible
variations on the thinnest strings up to that point (and after...).
>
> I'm aware of Mimo Peruffo's excellent work on historical strings but
I think even he would admit that there's still much to be done and to
determine. The relationship between violin strings and strings for the
guitar clearly depends on the size of violin strings; but there is
still no concencus on early 19th century violin stringing. Indeed, as
has been suggested, it's likely that earlier national preferences
continued, so that string sizes varied significantly accross Europe.
Earlier, the fragmentary record of Stradivari's strings tells us that a
simple equivalence with violin strings was only approximate and I see
no reason to think it became permanently fixed to the sizes you suggest
were standard in the early 19th century. In any event, as explained
above, the number of guts and resulting string diameter depends on the
sizes to which the individual guts are split - we cannot assume the
strands were all of a near uniform size; indeed I'd think
> this most unlikely.
>
> Incidentally, typical sizes for early 19th century guitars indicate
a smaller string length than you think: in the range 60 - 64cm for the
majority of extant instruments. An instrument with a string length of
69cm is most unusual - could you kindly let us have some further
details?
My apologies, my interest in 19th century guitars is long gone. The
lack of time reduces the interest even farther. 685 mm is the longest
guitar from circa 1810s i have measured, from collection of Leningrad
Museum of musical instruments (in 1970s). 635 mm as far as i remember
were more often the case, with some from 65 to 67 cm. Then, the ladies,
or terz-guitars, quite a bit shorter and smaller. The younger guitar
loving people should be the ones concerned with this though...
>
> MH
>
--
References
1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:54:25 +0100 (BST) Martyn Hodgson wrote: > Thank you for this. > > Well, without wanting to be pedantic I think we need to ask: what evidence > do you have that 'The top string was made from the same number of guts while > the mensura increased'? The smallest number of guts, two, arranged thin end to thick end for evenness. There was no use of splitting horn, and no polishing the top string, to keep it strong. Such a string comes out to about .43 mm, according to E. Segermann. I recall P. O'Dette describing his idea of reentrant tuning creation - lute longer - top string the same. Lutanist trying to tune it up to where it is supposed to be - damn! snap! Oh well, let's tune it an octave lower. Humorous, yes, but very true. Can not argue with the calculator and material physics. Sorry. The tension is directly proportional to the string length and the pitch. > Moreover, even if the highest pitched string of, say, a large bass lute with > string length of, say, 95cm had the same number of gut filaments as that of a > small lute, say string length 55cm, which I very much doubt, the width of > each gut filament/strand might well not be the same. TO avoid unpredictable variations in gut quality, musicians bought the strings from the same makers year after year. The splitting horn was invented only in the 18th century. This restricted the possible variations on the thinnest strings up to that point (and after...). > > I'm aware of Mimo Peruffo's excellent work on historical strings but I think > even he would admit that there's still much to be done and to determine. The > relationship between violin strings and strings for the guitar clearly > depends on the size of violin strings; but there is still no concencus on > early 19th century violin stringing. Indeed, as has been suggested, it's > likely that earlier national preferences continued, so that string sizes > varied significantly accross Europe. Earlier, the fragmentary record of > Stradivari's strings tells us that a simple equivalence with violin strings > was only approximate and I see no reason to think it became permanently fixed > to the sizes you suggest were standard in the early 19th century. In any > event, as explained above, the number of guts and resulting string diameter > depends on the sizes to which the individual guts are split - we cannot > assume the strands were all of a near uniform size; indeed I'd think > this most unlikely. > > Incidentally, typical sizes for early 19th century guitars indicate a smaller > string length than you think: in the range 60 - 64cm for the majority of > extant instruments. An instrument with a string length of 69cm is most > unusual - could you kindly let us have some further details? My apologies, my interest in 19th century guitars is long gone. The lack of time reduces the interest even farther. 685 mm is the longest guitar from circa 1810s i have measured, from collection of Leningrad Museum of musical instruments (in 1970s). 635 mm as far as i remember were more often the case, with some from 65 to 67 cm. Then, the ladies, or terz-guitars, quite a bit shorter and smaller. The younger guitar loving people should be the ones concerned with this though... > > MH > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Hi Joe, The continued discussion of finger position brought to mind some of the mechanical aspects of the lute as well as well. Robert Lundberg in his wonderful book on lute construction insists that the bowls of historical lutes were shaped down on the sides from in front of the bridge to the rose to allow more clearance for the strings. I know that this lowering of the sides could also have been due to repair or correction of the neck angle. Raising the neck angle without removing the neck causes the sides of the bowl to bow out and lower slightly. But in looking at pictures of players hand's and instruments of of all kinds, guitars, lutes, banjos, a perfectly made instrument may wind up in the hands of anyone. A bridge low enough to allow the pinky to rest on the soundboard will find itself torn to shreads by the pick of a strum player (see Willie Nelson). Perhaps Robert was actually seeing the truth here. Look at the finger rest that Chet Atkins used to get the rest point up to his very short pinky, yet keep the clearance for pick work. As the necks got longer and peg boxes got heavier, the neck angle naturally rises to reduce this weight. At 45 degrees, the weight is half that of 90 degrees. As the neck comes up, the right wrist rotates to a position more in parallel with the strings and the pinky has a natural tendancy to come off the sound board. This allows the builder to raise the bridge to get more sound and protect the soundboard from pick damage. Lutes in the 18th century tend to have higher bridges. Once the bridge is raised, it's over for the pinky without a finger rest or placing the pinky on the bridge. The smudge would have been left on some strings. (could the smudgeless soundboards have had a Chet Atkins finger rest?) At the end of a three hour set, hows your wrist? Louis Aull Phone: 770.978.1872 Fax: 866.496.4294 Cell:404.932.1614 -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Hi All,
Dowland tells us that bigger lutes had bigger strings, which if we
accept that different sized lutes were made in strict proportions (for
which there is considerable evidence, lutes a 4th apart being 59 and 78
cm for instance), implies higher tension for bigger lutes. This tells
us nothing, of course, about the relationship between lutes of the 16th
century and 17th century, in terms of stringing tensions and preferences.
Martin
On 01/04/2011 11:54, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Thank you for this.
Well, without wanting to be pedantic I think we need to ask: what
evidence do you have that 'The top string was made from the same number
of guts while the mensura increased'?
Moreover, even if the highest pitched string of, say, a large bass lute
with string length of, say, 95cm had the same number of gut filaments
as that of a small lute, say string length 55cm, which I very much
doubt, the width of each gut filament/strand might well not be the
same.
I'm aware of Mimo Peruffo's excellent work on historical strings but I
think even he would admit that there's still much to be done and to
determine. The relationship between violin strings and strings for the
guitar clearly depends on the size of violin strings; but there is
still no concencus on early 19th century violin stringing. Indeed, as
has been suggested, it's likely that earlier national preferences
continued, so that string sizes varied significantly accross Europe.
Earlier, the fragmentary record of Stradivari's strings tells us that a
simple equivalence with violin strings was only approximate and I see
no reason to think it became permanently fixed to the sizes you suggest
were standard in the early 19th century. In any event, as explained
above, the number of guts and resulting string diameter depends on the
sizes to which the individual guts are split - we cannot assume the
strands were all of a near uniform size; indeed I'd think this most
unlikely.
Incidentally, typical sizes for early 19th century guitars indicate
a smaller string length than you think: in the range 60 - 64cm for the
majority of extant instruments. An instrument with a string length of
69cm is most unusual - could you kindly let us have some further
details?
MH
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, alexander wrote:
From: alexander
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
To: "Martyn Hodgson"
Cc: "JosephMayes", "Herbert Ward"
, "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 10:58
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0100 (BST)
Martyn Hodgson<[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Dear Alexander,
>
> What evidence do you have that early lutes (I presume you're
referring
> to 16th century instruments) were strung at a lower tension than
> similar size later lutes?
The top string was made from the same number of guts while the mensura
increased. The instruments' pitch lowered not quite accordingly to the
increase in length. This is what i was speaking about, not comparing
the lutes of the same size. Not at all. The increased string length,
even while the pitch drops correspondingly, increases the string mass,
requiring more effort to move the string, more so closer to the bridge.
The lower basses are of larger diameters, require more effort to be
moved.
>
> And what evidence do you have that the tension of a guitar around
1800
> was 7 Newtons?
May i quote Mimmo Peruffo? His research has to be good for
something...:
"The mystery is solved with the help of a number of documents of the
time, in which we read that the first strings of the nineteenth-century
guitar were identical to the first three strings of the contemporary
violin "
"It is known that the first string of the violin was made from three
lamb guts, which produced a diameter of between 0.65 and 0.73 mm"
Going to "Arto's String Calculator" (Thank you, again, Arto), entering
e, string legth 650 mm (on the low side, some of the guitars i was
fortuned to measure were up to 69 cm), string diameter 0.65mm and pitch
a=415 ( choosing between 440 and 415, with a desired 435 Hz). Tension
= 7.061 Kg
To get on or off this list see list information at
[2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
You are quite right - your email attached one of Jospeh Mayes to whom I should have directed that particular observation. I'm pleased you agree the little finger resting on the belly is a necessary part of historical lute technique. MH --- On Fri, 1/4/11, alexander wrote: From: alexander Subject: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast. To: "Martyn Hodgson" Cc: "JosephMayes" , "Herbert Ward" , "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 11:04 Oh, yes, another thing, how did you come to a conclusion that i am arguing against the little finger support while i am arguing that only such a support allows to produce a decent sound on a lute?.. al ray On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0100 (BST) Martyn Hodgson <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >Dear Alexander, > >What evidence do you have that early lutes (I presume you're referring >to 16th century instruments) were strung at a lower tension than >similar size later lutes? > >And what evidence do you have that the tension of a guitar around 1800 >was 7 Newtons? > >Early evidence on the use of placing the little finger on the belly is >unequivocal - if we wish to attempt to reproduce what the Old Ones >themselves heard it is clearly necessary to adopt the same techniques. > >MH > To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Thank you for this.
Well, without wanting to be pedantic I think we need to ask: what
evidence do you have that 'The top string was made from the same number
of guts while the mensura increased'?
Moreover, even if the highest pitched string of, say, a large bass lute
with string length of, say, 95cm had the same number of gut filaments
as that of a small lute, say string length 55cm, which I very much
doubt, the width of each gut filament/strand might well not be the
same.
I'm aware of Mimo Peruffo's excellent work on historical strings but I
think even he would admit that there's still much to be done and to
determine. The relationship between violin strings and strings for the
guitar clearly depends on the size of violin strings; but there is
still no concencus on early 19th century violin stringing. Indeed, as
has been suggested, it's likely that earlier national preferences
continued, so that string sizes varied significantly accross Europe.
Earlier, the fragmentary record of Stradivari's strings tells us that a
simple equivalence with violin strings was only approximate and I see
no reason to think it became permanently fixed to the sizes you suggest
were standard in the early 19th century. In any event, as explained
above, the number of guts and resulting string diameter depends on the
sizes to which the individual guts are split - we cannot assume the
strands were all of a near uniform size; indeed I'd think this most
unlikely.
Incidentally, typical sizes for early 19th century guitars indicate
a smaller string length than you think: in the range 60 - 64cm for the
majority of extant instruments. An instrument with a string length of
69cm is most unusual - could you kindly let us have some further
details?
MH
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, alexander wrote:
From: alexander
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
To: "Martyn Hodgson"
Cc: "JosephMayes" , "Herbert Ward"
, "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 10:58
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0100 (BST)
Martyn Hodgson <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Dear Alexander,
>
>What evidence do you have that early lutes (I presume you're
referring
>to 16th century instruments) were strung at a lower tension than
>similar size later lutes?
The top string was made from the same number of guts while the mensura
increased. The instruments' pitch lowered not quite accordingly to the
increase in length. This is what i was speaking about, not comparing
the lutes of the same size. Not at all. The increased string length,
even while the pitch drops correspondingly, increases the string mass,
requiring more effort to move the string, more so closer to the bridge.
The lower basses are of larger diameters, require more effort to be
moved.
>
>And what evidence do you have that the tension of a guitar around
1800
>was 7 Newtons?
May i quote Mimmo Peruffo? His research has to be good for
something...:
"The mystery is solved with the help of a number of documents of the
time, in which we read that the first strings of the nineteenth-century
guitar were identical to the first three strings of the contemporary
violin "
"It is known that the first string of the violin was made from three
lamb guts, which produced a diameter of between 0.65 and 0.73 mm"
Going to "Arto's String Calculator" (Thank you, again, Arto), entering
e, string legth 650 mm (on the low side, some of the guitars i was
fortuned to measure were up to 69 cm), string diameter 0.65mm and pitch
a=415 ( choosing between 440 and 415, with a desired 435 Hz). Tension
= 7.061 Kg
To get on or off this list see list information at
[2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Oh, yes, another thing, how did you come to a conclusion that i am arguing against the little finger support while i am arguing that only such a support allows to produce a decent sound on a lute?.. al ray On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0100 (BST) Martyn Hodgson wrote: > >Dear Alexander, > >What evidence do you have that early lutes (I presume you're referring >to 16th century instruments) were strung at a lower tension than >similar size later lutes? > >And what evidence do you have that the tension of a guitar around 1800 >was 7 Newtons? > >Early evidence on the use of placing the little finger on the belly is >unequivocal - if we wish to attempt to reproduce what the Old Ones >themselves heard it is clearly necessary to adopt the same techniques. > >MH > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0100 (BST) Martyn Hodgson wrote: > >Dear Alexander, > >What evidence do you have that early lutes (I presume you're referring >to 16th century instruments) were strung at a lower tension than >similar size later lutes? The top string was made from the same number of guts while the mensura increased. The instruments' pitch lowered not quite accordingly to the increase in length. This is what i was speaking about, not comparing the lutes of the same size. Not at all. The increased string length, even while the pitch drops correspondingly, increases the string mass, requiring more effort to move the string, more so closer to the bridge. The lower basses are of larger diameters, require more effort to be moved. > >And what evidence do you have that the tension of a guitar around 1800 >was 7 Newtons? May i quote Mimmo Peruffo? His research has to be good for something...: "The mystery is solved with the help of a number of documents of the time, in which we read that the first strings of the nineteenth-century guitar were identical to the first three strings of the contemporary violin " "It is known that the first string of the violin was made from three lamb guts, which produced a diameter of between 0.65 and 0.73 mm" Going to "Arto's String Calculator" (Thank you, again, Arto), entering e, string legth 650 mm (on the low side, some of the guitars i was fortuned to measure were up to 69 cm), string diameter 0.65mm and pitch a=415 ( choosing between 440 and 415, with a desired 435 Hz). Tension = 7.061 Kg To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Dear Alexander, What evidence do you have that early lutes (I presume you're referring to 16th century instruments) were strung at a lower tension than similar size later lutes? And what evidence do you have that the tension of a guitar around 1800 was 7 Newtons? Early evidence on the use of placing the little finger on the belly is unequivocal - if we wish to attempt to reproduce what the Old Ones themselves heard it is clearly necessary to adopt the same techniques. MH --- On Fri, 1/4/11, alexander wrote: From: alexander Subject: [LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast. To: "Mayes, Joseph" Cc: "Herbert Ward" , "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 3:29 Thinner strings of the earlier lute, lighter tension leave a little chance of producing timbrally rich and interesting sound, with any sort of body to it, without being able to push away from something. A tense wrist - arm muscles are in no way a solution, so grounding the little finger (either quite permanently or at the moment of plucking) allows for support while keeping the arm relaxed. Anyone who will attempt to produce any sort of volume close to the bridge with fingers moving along the string without anchoring against the lute plate or the bridge, will realize this immediately. The sound production is what counts first of all in use of this "unnecessary technique". With the later lutes and strings growing in diameter and tension, or the mass (the length) somewhat different needs arise. However, even on a guitar of the classical period, with its' 7 newtons of tension on the top string, the performers being appreciated for the best sound, like Aguado and Giuliani were t! he ones lodging their pinkie to the bridge and the top, respectively. The speed and "a proper" accentuation of the running notes, are just additional part of it. They are not determining the need for support. al ray On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:36:36 -0400 "Mayes, Joseph" <[1]ma...@rowan.edu> wrote: > I think that the "little finger down" thing has become a religion, these days. It is likely that there were as many styles of play as there were players in the "old times." It's interesting that not all surviving instruments have the "smudge." Were they cleaned up? Were they repaired with new soundboards? Were they played without that pinky on the face? > > Guitarists do not play with the pinky on the face and play fairly fast and acurately. It seems a somewhat unnecessary bit of the "Orthodox Lute technique." > > Just my $.02 > > Joseph Mayes To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ma...@rowan.edu 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Thinner strings of the earlier lute, lighter tension leave a little chance of producing timbrally rich and interesting sound, with any sort of body to it, without being able to push away from something. A tense wrist - arm muscles are in no way a solution, so grounding the little finger (either quite permanently or at the moment of plucking) allows for support while keeping the arm relaxed. Anyone who will attempt to produce any sort of volume close to the bridge with fingers moving along the string without anchoring against the lute plate or the bridge, will realize this immediately. The sound production is what counts first of all in use of this "unnecessary technique". With the later lutes and strings growing in diameter and tension, or the mass (the length) somewhat different needs arise. However, even on a guitar of the classical period, with its' 7 newtons of tension on the top string, the performers being appreciated for the best sound, like Aguado and Giuliani were t! he ones lodging their pinkie to the bridge and the top, respectively. The speed and "a proper" accentuation of the running notes, are just additional part of it. They are not determining the need for support. al ray On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:36:36 -0400 "Mayes, Joseph" wrote: > I think that the "little finger down" thing has become a religion, these > days. It is likely that there were as many styles of play as there were > players in the "old times." It's interesting that not all surviving > instruments have the "smudge." Were they cleaned up? Were they repaired with > new soundboards? Were they played without that pinky on the face? > > Guitarists do not play with the pinky on the face and play fairly fast and > acurately. It seems a somewhat unnecessary bit of the "Orthodox Lute > technique." > > Just my $.02 > > Joseph Mayes To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Hi Joe- I'll take that 2¢ and put in my bank account. Need all I can get these days- NO SMUDGES ON MY LUTES! There are other branches in Lutedom besides Orthodox. There is Conservative- finger down, but flexible and moves up and down with the hand. There is Reform, sometimes off the soundboard, sometimes on. I am Reconstructionist/Atheist- that little finger is out, but mostly no solid contact; a bare touch like the feeler gauges on old cars for sensing the curb when parking - sometimes light contact for fast thumb-index runs for thumb under, and off for chordal play. I think it is always off when playing thumb out (Baroque & archlute, usually also vihuela) but will have to watch myself next time to see for sure. Modern guitars have an elevated fingerboard, which puts the top enough further out of reach of the fingers to make little finger down a complete disaster (at least for me) and the extensive use of the 3rd finger means the pinky cannot ever be tied down- esp. if the distance from strings to soundboard is another 1/2 centimeter or so. Some of the pick guards on archtop guitars function as much as a platform for the pinky (plectrum players) as top protection- location here, as in real estate, is everything. And that's my 2¢ back- don't spend it in one place. I think that the "little finger down" thing has become a religion, these days. It is likely that there were as many styles of play as there were players in the "old times." It's interesting that not all surviving instruments have the "smudge." Were they cleaned up? Were they repaired with new soundboards? Were they played without that pinky on the face? Guitarists do not play with the pinky on the face and play fairly fast and acurately. It seems a somewhat unnecessary bit of the "Orthodox Lute technique." Just my $.02 Joseph Mayes From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Herbert Ward [wa...@physics.utexas.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:43 PM To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Stability of lute in playing fast. Below I use the word "jerk" several times. I suspect there may be a more elegant and accurate verb. If so, please excuse me. A few weeks ago I watched a bluegrass mandolin player. This man had won a (Texas?) state bluegrass mandolin championship, and, as one might suppose, he could quite fast. In watching him play, I immediately noticed the large degree to which his mandolin "jerks around" (for lack of a better phrase) while he's playing, with no tendency to jerk less during the fastest and most intricate passages, or indeed even during the quieter passages. This contrasts starkly with my modus operandi, which is to stabilize the lute as much as possible, in order to give myself a stationary target, especially for my right hand. The obvious explanation for this is to suppose that the mandolin player's hands, and in particular his right hand, move with the mandolin while he's playing, and thus negate the effect of the "jerking". But, in playing the lute, my right hand is, more or less, glued to the lute in that my little finger rests on the soundboard and my forearm rests on the lute's edge close to the strap button. All this leaves me fairly confused. Do all elite lute players keep their little fingers and forearms solidly on the lute? Do they stress this in their teaching? Do they present this as part of the technique needed to play fast? Do any of them play with "jerking" lutes? Have any of this list's readers worked through this issue personally? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Dan & Rachel Winheld 820 Colusa Avenue Berkeley, CA 94707 dwinh...@comcast.net rwinh...@comcast.net Tel 510.526.0242 Cell 510.915.4276
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
I think that the "little finger down" thing has become a religion, these days. It is likely that there were as many styles of play as there were players in the "old times." It's interesting that not all surviving instruments have the "smudge." Were they cleaned up? Were they repaired with new soundboards? Were they played without that pinky on the face? Guitarists do not play with the pinky on the face and play fairly fast and acurately. It seems a somewhat unnecessary bit of the "Orthodox Lute technique." Just my $.02 Joseph Mayes From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Herbert Ward [wa...@physics.utexas.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:43 PM To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Stability of lute in playing fast. Below I use the word "jerk" several times. I suspect there may be a more elegant and accurate verb. If so, please excuse me. A few weeks ago I watched a bluegrass mandolin player. This man had won a (Texas?) state bluegrass mandolin championship, and, as one might suppose, he could quite fast. In watching him play, I immediately noticed the large degree to which his mandolin "jerks around" (for lack of a better phrase) while he's playing, with no tendency to jerk less during the fastest and most intricate passages, or indeed even during the quieter passages. This contrasts starkly with my modus operandi, which is to stabilize the lute as much as possible, in order to give myself a stationary target, especially for my right hand. The obvious explanation for this is to suppose that the mandolin player's hands, and in particular his right hand, move with the mandolin while he's playing, and thus negate the effect of the "jerking". But, in playing the lute, my right hand is, more or less, glued to the lute in that my little finger rests on the soundboard and my forearm rests on the lute's edge close to the strap button. All this leaves me fairly confused. Do all elite lute players keep their little fingers and forearms solidly on the lute? Do they stress this in their teaching? Do they present this as part of the technique needed to play fast? Do any of them play with "jerking" lutes? Have any of this list's readers worked through this issue personally? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
There's kind of a streamlined duality to playing fast. I prefer to start out fast and loose, then narrow slightly to avoid wobble. Very fast players usually have an aspect to their techniques that we would regard as inefficient. One could argue that they need to keep "loose", as increasing tension is the real speed drag for longer passages. Very efficient players do not always play fast. Then there are some, Williams, Tedesco, *your fave here* who have economy and some real speed. As for fast and loose, Django is just amazing, and shows that the extra gear is the thing that will get you there. I recently heard a mandolin player play a baroque piece an articulate all the trills perfectly, like a harpsichord. Ouch! Back to the practice room for me. I can't do that. dt At 11:04 AM 3/31/2011, you wrote: >Don't know which competition is mentioned, but Winfield, KS is the big one >for folk styles, including mandolin. > >For what it's worth, classical players would much prefer their mandolins to >be relatively stable in performance, usually playing seated and usually >bracing the instrument with the flesh of the right forearm. A late-romantic >example with a bit of tempo to it: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALrncsl1lWo > >A mid 18th-c. HIP example (sadly, Alison was lost to cancer this past >autumn): >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD4ub-WRoPA > >Enjoy! >Eugene > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On > > Behalf Of Herbert Ward > > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:43 PM > > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > > Subject: [LUTE] Stability of lute in playing fast. > > > > Below I use the word "jerk" several times. I suspect > > there may be a more elegant and accurate verb. If > > so, please excuse me. > > > > A few weeks ago I watched a bluegrass mandolin player. > > This man had won a (Texas?) state bluegrass mandolin > > championship, and, as one might suppose, he could quite > > fast. > > > > In watching him play, I immediately noticed the large > > degree to which his mandolin "jerks around" (for lack > > of a better phrase) while he's playing, with no tendency > > to jerk less during the fastest and most intricate > > passages, or indeed even during the quieter passages. > > > > This contrasts starkly with my modus operandi, which > > is to stabilize the lute as much as possible, in order > > to give myself a stationary target, especially for > > my right hand. > > > > The obvious explanation for this is to suppose that > > the mandolin player's hands, and in particular his > > right hand, move with the mandolin while he's playing, > > and thus negate the effect of the "jerking". But, in > > playing the lute, my right hand is, more or less, > > glued to the lute in that my little finger rests > > on the soundboard and my forearm rests on the lute's > > edge close to the strap button. > > > > All this leaves me fairly confused. Do all elite > > lute players keep their little fingers and forearms > > solidly on the lute? Do they stress this in > > their teaching? Do they present this as part > > of the technique needed to play fast? Do any of > > them play with "jerking" lutes? Have any of this > > list's readers worked through this issue personally? > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
Don't know which competition is mentioned, but Winfield, KS is the big one for folk styles, including mandolin. For what it's worth, classical players would much prefer their mandolins to be relatively stable in performance, usually playing seated and usually bracing the instrument with the flesh of the right forearm. A late-romantic example with a bit of tempo to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALrncsl1lWo A mid 18th-c. HIP example (sadly, Alison was lost to cancer this past autumn): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD4ub-WRoPA Enjoy! Eugene > -Original Message- > From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On > Behalf Of Herbert Ward > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:43 PM > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > Subject: [LUTE] Stability of lute in playing fast. > > Below I use the word "jerk" several times. I suspect > there may be a more elegant and accurate verb. If > so, please excuse me. > > A few weeks ago I watched a bluegrass mandolin player. > This man had won a (Texas?) state bluegrass mandolin > championship, and, as one might suppose, he could quite > fast. > > In watching him play, I immediately noticed the large > degree to which his mandolin "jerks around" (for lack > of a better phrase) while he's playing, with no tendency > to jerk less during the fastest and most intricate > passages, or indeed even during the quieter passages. > > This contrasts starkly with my modus operandi, which > is to stabilize the lute as much as possible, in order > to give myself a stationary target, especially for > my right hand. > > The obvious explanation for this is to suppose that > the mandolin player's hands, and in particular his > right hand, move with the mandolin while he's playing, > and thus negate the effect of the "jerking". But, in > playing the lute, my right hand is, more or less, > glued to the lute in that my little finger rests > on the soundboard and my forearm rests on the lute's > edge close to the strap button. > > All this leaves me fairly confused. Do all elite > lute players keep their little fingers and forearms > solidly on the lute? Do they stress this in > their teaching? Do they present this as part > of the technique needed to play fast? Do any of > them play with "jerking" lutes? Have any of this > list's readers worked through this issue personally? > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Stability of lute in playing fast.
I haven't seen your mandolinist in action; I would suspect instrument size, weight, and way of holding the instrument may be in play here. My own instruments do not move; I have never owned an instrument (lutes, guitars, viols) less than 62 cm. SL. (Small instruments in general give me the heebie-jeebies, can't seem to find them or hold on to them. Don't know how those virtuosi manage them) Also, I play sitting down, the lute anchored firmly between right thigh and right forearm. Don't use the right pinky for anything but secondary stability point- it's out, touches down when necessary, but very minimal contact, even for thumb-under. Somewhat more little finger contact during very fast passagi. No straps except for the archlute. Dan >In watching him play, I immediately noticed the large >degree to which his mandolin "jerks around" (for lack >of a better phrase) while he's playing, with no tendency >to jerk less during the fastest and most intricate >passages, or indeed even during the quieter passages. > >This contrasts starkly with my modus operandi, which >is to stabilize the lute as much as possible, in order >to give myself a stationary target, especially for >my right hand. > >The obvious explanation for this is to suppose that >the mandolin player's hands, and in particular his >right hand, move with the mandolin while he's playing, >and thus negate the effect of the "jerking". But, in >playing the lute, my right hand is, more or less, >glued to the lute in that my little finger rests >on the soundboard and my forearm rests on the lute's >edge close to the strap button. > >All this leaves me fairly confused. Do all elite >lute players keep their little fingers and forearms >solidly on the lute? Do they stress this in >their teaching? Do they present this as part >of the technique needed to play fast? Do any of >them play with "jerking" lutes? Have any of this >list's readers worked through this issue personally? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
