Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>Now my question: has anyone made a lute according to >Strad's plans? >If not, Michael, if you have copies of the plans, maybe >you could be the first >one? Hi Marion, I don't have the actual plans, or template, and didn't think to ask anyone, at the time while I was there in Cermona. As Trovosky points out they probably won't give a Mickey Mouse luthier such as I, access, anyway. I only have a book with photos. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:45 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > For a lute to be functional, it must be asymmetric with respect to all > symmetry operations. There is no reason for the body of a lute to appear > asymmetric. Lutes are not like some guitars with cutouts for the trebble > notes. The body (minus the bridge) can look symmetric from > from the outside but the neck and nut will always be assymetric due to > the difference between the trebble and bass strings. I would think > it more efficient to make a lute (or any other object) with a symmetric body > from a construction point of view whether the construction takes place now > or 500 years ago. Any planned departure from symmetry should be > justified as it complicates the construction process. I think we agree on this > and if there is some point of disagreement I am not sure what it is. It is not > clear what is left to debate. It seems to me that everyone has said mostly > the same thing or at least something consistent indifferent words. > > Now my question: has anyone made a lute according to Strad's plans? > If not, Michael, if you have copies of the plans, maybe you could be the first > one? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Jun 2, 2005 2:31 PM > To: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lute list > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > Vance, > I know you want to debate this thing, but I know lutes bodies, with > their necks are asymmetrical. > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" > > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:37 PM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > I look forward to that but let's make sure we are on the same page. I am > > looking at symmetricality in Lute making as two combined symmetrical > element > > joined together in an asymmetrical configuration. In other words the > center > > line of the neck is not parallel or continuous with the center line of the > > body, belly, sound board assembly. I do not argue the symmetricality of > > the Lute bodies you have been discussing, I am arguing the total > > symmetricality of the assembled Lute where, as Lundberg says, is > > asymmetrical in regards to the alignment of neck to body. Myself I would > > like to believe that they are and should be symmetrical, it seems more > > logical and is much easier to manufacture/craft. But if the evidence > points > > the other direction then we are left with either ignoring it and doing it > > our way, trying to find out why this alignment occurs, or just copy it in > > our instruments with the caveat; this is the way a Lute is supposed to be > > made. > > > > Vance Wood. > > - Original Message - > > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" > > > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:23 AM > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > >You are still missing the point. The moulds my be >symmetrical, and > the > > > >necks symmetrical, but do the plans and drawings show a >symmetrical > > > >alignment between both elements? > > > > > > The only lutes that could possibly be symmetrical, neck and body, > > > would be early 6 course lutes at the turn of the 16th century, of which > > none > > > have survived in original condition, or at least were told. The Gerle > > looks > > > very symmetrical neck, and body from pictures, but I don't have the > plans > > > for that one to compare. > > > > > > Since this thread has revolved around Strad's 11 course lute > > template, &
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
For a lute to be functional, it must be asymmetric with respect to all symmetry operations. There is no reason for the body of a lute to appear asymmetric. Lutes are not like some guitars with cutouts for the trebble notes. The body (minus the bridge) can look symmetric from from the outside but the neck and nut will always be assymetric due to the difference between the trebble and bass strings. I would think it more efficient to make a lute (or any other object) with a symmetric body from a construction point of view whether the construction takes place now or 500 years ago. Any planned departure from symmetry should be justified as it complicates the construction process. I think we agree on this and if there is some point of disagreement I am not sure what it is. It is not clear what is left to debate. It seems to me that everyone has said mostly the same thing or at least something consistent indifferent words. Now my question: has anyone made a lute according to Strad's plans? If not, Michael, if you have copies of the plans, maybe you could be the first one? -Original Message- From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Jun 2, 2005 2:31 PM To: Vance Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lute list Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect Vance, I know you want to debate this thing, but I know lutes bodies, with their necks are asymmetrical. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:37 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > I look forward to that but let's make sure we are on the same page. I am > looking at symmetricality in Lute making as two combined symmetrical element > joined together in an asymmetrical configuration. In other words the center > line of the neck is not parallel or continuous with the center line of the > body, belly, sound board assembly. I do not argue the symmetricality of > the Lute bodies you have been discussing, I am arguing the total > symmetricality of the assembled Lute where, as Lundberg says, is > asymmetrical in regards to the alignment of neck to body. Myself I would > like to believe that they are and should be symmetrical, it seems more > logical and is much easier to manufacture/craft. But if the evidence points > the other direction then we are left with either ignoring it and doing it > our way, trying to find out why this alignment occurs, or just copy it in > our instruments with the caveat; this is the way a Lute is supposed to be > made. > > Vance Wood. > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:23 AM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > >You are still missing the point. The moulds my be >symmetrical, and the > > >necks symmetrical, but do the plans and drawings show a >symmetrical > > >alignment between both elements? > > > > The only lutes that could possibly be symmetrical, neck and body, > > would be early 6 course lutes at the turn of the 16th century, of which > none > > have survived in original condition, or at least were told. The Gerle > looks > > very symmetrical neck, and body from pictures, but I don't have the plans > > for that one to compare. > > > > Since this thread has revolved around Strad's 11 course lute > template, > > of the body only, I think Vance, it might be you who are missing the > point. > > > > I have a pretty good collection of lute plans by various people. > When > > I have some spare time I'll draw up some body shapes and compare the > mirror > > images on a number of them, at least there will be less speculation, and > > more facts. I can then post my findings. > > Michael Thames > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:34 PM > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > You are still missing the point. The moulds my be symmetrical, and the > > > necks symmetrical, but do the plans and drawings show a symmetrical > > > alignment between both elements? > > > > > > Vance Wood. > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To:
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Vance, I know you want to debate this thing, but I know lutes bodies, with their necks are asymmetrical. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:37 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > I look forward to that but let's make sure we are on the same page. I am > looking at symmetricality in Lute making as two combined symmetrical element > joined together in an asymmetrical configuration. In other words the center > line of the neck is not parallel or continuous with the center line of the > body, belly, sound board assembly. I do not argue the symmetricality of > the Lute bodies you have been discussing, I am arguing the total > symmetricality of the assembled Lute where, as Lundberg says, is > asymmetrical in regards to the alignment of neck to body. Myself I would > like to believe that they are and should be symmetrical, it seems more > logical and is much easier to manufacture/craft. But if the evidence points > the other direction then we are left with either ignoring it and doing it > our way, trying to find out why this alignment occurs, or just copy it in > our instruments with the caveat; this is the way a Lute is supposed to be > made. > > Vance Wood. > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:23 AM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > >You are still missing the point. The moulds my be >symmetrical, and the > > >necks symmetrical, but do the plans and drawings show a >symmetrical > > >alignment between both elements? > > > > The only lutes that could possibly be symmetrical, neck and body, > > would be early 6 course lutes at the turn of the 16th century, of which > none > > have survived in original condition, or at least were told. The Gerle > looks > > very symmetrical neck, and body from pictures, but I don't have the plans > > for that one to compare. > > > > Since this thread has revolved around Strad's 11 course lute > template, > > of the body only, I think Vance, it might be you who are missing the > point. > > > > I have a pretty good collection of lute plans by various people. > When > > I have some spare time I'll draw up some body shapes and compare the > mirror > > images on a number of them, at least there will be less speculation, and > > more facts. I can then post my findings. > > Michael Thames > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:34 PM > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > You are still missing the point. The moulds my be symmetrical, and the > > > necks symmetrical, but do the plans and drawings show a symmetrical > > > alignment between both elements? > > > > > > Vance Wood. > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > "Vance > > > Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 12:44 PM > > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > > > > >Vance said > > > > > The point here is that the > > > > >use of asymmetry was to create the illusion of symmetry. > > > > > > > > Why would anyone want the illusion of symmetry, when one can have > > the > > > > real thing? Stradivari obviously thought very highly of symmetry, > since > > > all > > > > of his moulds are symmetrical. > > > > > > > > Michael Thames > > > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:28 AM > > > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > > > > > > > After reading Mr. Lundbergs book several times I have come to the > > &
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
I look forward to that but let's make sure we are on the same page. I am looking at symmetricality in Lute making as two combined symmetrical element joined together in an asymmetrical configuration. In other words the center line of the neck is not parallel or continuous with the center line of the body, belly, sound board assembly. I do not argue the symmetricality of the Lute bodies you have been discussing, I am arguing the total symmetricality of the assembled Lute where, as Lundberg says, is asymmetrical in regards to the alignment of neck to body. Myself I would like to believe that they are and should be symmetrical, it seems more logical and is much easier to manufacture/craft. But if the evidence points the other direction then we are left with either ignoring it and doing it our way, trying to find out why this alignment occurs, or just copy it in our instruments with the caveat; this is the way a Lute is supposed to be made. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:23 AM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > >You are still missing the point. The moulds my be >symmetrical, and the > >necks symmetrical, but do the plans and drawings show a >symmetrical > >alignment between both elements? > > The only lutes that could possibly be symmetrical, neck and body, > would be early 6 course lutes at the turn of the 16th century, of which none > have survived in original condition, or at least were told. The Gerle looks > very symmetrical neck, and body from pictures, but I don't have the plans > for that one to compare. > > Since this thread has revolved around Strad's 11 course lute template, > of the body only, I think Vance, it might be you who are missing the point. > > I have a pretty good collection of lute plans by various people. When > I have some spare time I'll draw up some body shapes and compare the mirror > images on a number of them, at least there will be less speculation, and > more facts. I can then post my findings. > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" > > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:34 PM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > You are still missing the point. The moulds my be symmetrical, and the > > necks symmetrical, but do the plans and drawings show a symmetrical > > alignment between both elements? > > > > Vance Wood. > > - Original Message - > > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "Vance > > Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 12:44 PM > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > >Vance said > > > > The point here is that the > > > >use of asymmetry was to create the illusion of symmetry. > > > > > > Why would anyone want the illusion of symmetry, when one can have > the > > > real thing? Stradivari obviously thought very highly of symmetry, since > > all > > > of his moulds are symmetrical. > > > > > > Michael Thames > > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:28 AM > > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > > > > After reading Mr. Lundbergs book several times I have come to the > > > conclusion > > > > that he must be correct. He claims to have examined actual > instruments > > > that > > > > all show the same asymmetry, the neck cocked toward the base side of > the > > > > Lute. He goes on to explain that the body does indeed have a center > > line, > > > > and the neck does indeed have a center line, but the juxtaposition of > > both > > > > elements does not extend the two center lines so that they become one > > > common > > > > center line. Can anyone site an historical instrument where a common > > > center > > > > line is obvious? > > > > > > > > I realize the argument can be made that the instruments have become > > warped > > > > and twi
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>You are still missing the point. The moulds my be >symmetrical, and the >necks symmetrical, but do the plans and drawings show a >symmetrical >alignment between both elements? The only lutes that could possibly be symmetrical, neck and body, would be early 6 course lutes at the turn of the 16th century, of which none have survived in original condition, or at least were told. The Gerle looks very symmetrical neck, and body from pictures, but I don't have the plans for that one to compare. Since this thread has revolved around Strad's 11 course lute template, of the body only, I think Vance, it might be you who are missing the point. I have a pretty good collection of lute plans by various people. When I have some spare time I'll draw up some body shapes and compare the mirror images on a number of them, at least there will be less speculation, and more facts. I can then post my findings. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute list" Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:34 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > You are still missing the point. The moulds my be symmetrical, and the > necks symmetrical, but do the plans and drawings show a symmetrical > alignment between both elements? > > Vance Wood. > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Vance > Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 12:44 PM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > >Vance said > > > The point here is that the > > >use of asymmetry was to create the illusion of symmetry. > > > > Why would anyone want the illusion of symmetry, when one can have the > > real thing? Stradivari obviously thought very highly of symmetry, since > all > > of his moulds are symmetrical. > > > > Michael Thames > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:28 AM > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > After reading Mr. Lundbergs book several times I have come to the > > conclusion > > > that he must be correct. He claims to have examined actual instruments > > that > > > all show the same asymmetry, the neck cocked toward the base side of the > > > Lute. He goes on to explain that the body does indeed have a center > line, > > > and the neck does indeed have a center line, but the juxtaposition of > both > > > elements does not extend the two center lines so that they become one > > common > > > center line. Can anyone site an historical instrument where a common > > center > > > line is obvious? > > > > > > I realize the argument can be made that the instruments have become > warped > > > and twisted over time but knowing wood as I do, if that were so, there > > would > > > be evidence in a dramatic distortion of both the treble and base sides > of > > > the bowel. The base side would show evidence of compression causing an > > > obvious kink near the joint of the neck and bowel. The treble side > would > > > show evidence of separation at the same point understanding that wood > this > > > old cannot be stretched, it only cracks and separates. > > > > > > Vance Wood. > > > - Original Message - > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" > > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:15 PM > > > Subject: RE: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > > > > Ron Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > > > Going back to your initial posting about lute symmetry. In the > > > > > Stradivari workshop on your recent trip to Italy, you saw a paper > > > > > template for a lute body, folded along the centre-line. > > > > > > > > Is it clear how this template was used? > > > > > > > > I can see many possibiltys, including the possiblity of other > templates > > > > now missing. > > > > > > > > Perhaps this was part of a study, and represents another makers work; > > > > are there any strad-made lutes surviving to compare this template to? > > > > > > > > Sorry, i suppose lots of this has been discussed already, I have been > > > > skipping lots of email the past few weeks, too much apparant flaming, > > > > not enough time to indulge in reading, let alone responding. > > > > -- > > > > dana emery > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
You are still missing the point. The moulds my be symmetrical, and the necks symmetrical, but do the plans and drawings show a symmetrical alignment between both elements? Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 12:44 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > >Vance said > > The point here is that the > >use of asymmetry was to create the illusion of symmetry. > > Why would anyone want the illusion of symmetry, when one can have the > real thing? Stradivari obviously thought very highly of symmetry, since all > of his moulds are symmetrical. > > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:28 AM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > After reading Mr. Lundbergs book several times I have come to the > conclusion > > that he must be correct. He claims to have examined actual instruments > that > > all show the same asymmetry, the neck cocked toward the base side of the > > Lute. He goes on to explain that the body does indeed have a center line, > > and the neck does indeed have a center line, but the juxtaposition of both > > elements does not extend the two center lines so that they become one > common > > center line. Can anyone site an historical instrument where a common > center > > line is obvious? > > > > I realize the argument can be made that the instruments have become warped > > and twisted over time but knowing wood as I do, if that were so, there > would > > be evidence in a dramatic distortion of both the treble and base sides of > > the bowel. The base side would show evidence of compression causing an > > obvious kink near the joint of the neck and bowel. The treble side would > > show evidence of separation at the same point understanding that wood this > > old cannot be stretched, it only cracks and separates. > > > > Vance Wood. > > - Original Message - > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:15 PM > > Subject: RE: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > Ron Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > Going back to your initial posting about lute symmetry. In the > > > > Stradivari workshop on your recent trip to Italy, you saw a paper > > > > template for a lute body, folded along the centre-line. > > > > > > Is it clear how this template was used? > > > > > > I can see many possibiltys, including the possiblity of other templates > > > now missing. > > > > > > Perhaps this was part of a study, and represents another makers work; > > > are there any strad-made lutes surviving to compare this template to? > > > > > > Sorry, i suppose lots of this has been discussed already, I have been > > > skipping lots of email the past few weeks, too much apparant flaming, > > > not enough time to indulge in reading, let alone responding. > > > -- > > > dana emery > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>I haven't been taking in a lot of this stuff, but looking at >the plans, any >asymmetry in the body/soundboard shape looks fairly >minor, From my experience the discrepancy is more than minor, enough so, that it has made me wonder. Then again, some lutes seem to be very symmetrical. > Anyway, isn't this lute builder list material? It seems most of the interest in this topic has come from non lute makers. Besides, it seems to be more metaphysical than practible. I think most any lute players would be somewhat interested in the thought behind it all. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 12:25 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > I haven't been taking in a lot of this stuff, but looking at the plans, any > assymettry in the body/soundboard shape looks fairly minor, and the question > really arises with the neck. Isn't this simply a question of the number of > strings, as with the theorbo? The 'ribbon' (for want of a better word) > appears to be correctly placed over the body only when the neck is skewiff, > because some of the strings don't go over the fingerboard. > > Anyway, isn't this lute builder list material? I'm sure I had a couple of > responses from Martin and David (Shepherd and Edwards respectively) when I > first decided to have a go at a theorbo. > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Vance > Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 6:44 PM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > >Vance said > > > The point here is that the > > >use of asymmetry was to create the illusion of symmetry. > > > > Why would anyone want the illusion of symmetry, when one can have the > > real thing? Stradivari obviously thought very highly of symmetry, since > all > > of his moulds are symmetrical. > > > > Michael Thames > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:28 AM > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > After reading Mr. Lundbergs book several times I have come to the > > conclusion > > > that he must be correct. He claims to have examined actual instruments > > that > > > all show the same asymmetry, the neck cocked toward the base side of the > > > Lute. He goes on to explain that the body does indeed have a center > line, > > > and the neck does indeed have a center line, but the juxtaposition of > both > > > elements does not extend the two center lines so that they become one > > common > > > center line. Can anyone site an historical instrument where a common > > center > > > line is obvious? > > > > > > I realize the argument can be made that the instruments have become > warped > > > and twisted over time but knowing wood as I do, if that were so, there > > would > > > be evidence in a dramatic distortion of both the treble and base sides > of > > > the bowel. The base side would show evidence of compression causing an > > > obvious kink near the joint of the neck and bowel. The treble side > would > > > show evidence of separation at the same point understanding that wood > this > > > old cannot be stretched, it only cracks and separates. > > > > > > Vance Wood. > > > - Original Message - > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" > > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:15 PM > > > Subject: RE: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > > > > Ron Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > > > Going back to your initial posting about lute symmetry. In the > > > > > Stradivari workshop on your recent trip to Italy, you saw a paper > > > > > template for a lute body, folded along the centre-line. > > > > > > > > Is it clear how this template was used? > > > > > > > > I can see many possibiltys, including the possiblity of other > templates > > > > now missing. > > > > > > > > Perhaps this was part of a study, and represents another makers work; > > > > are there any strad-made lutes surviving to compare this template to? > > > > > > > > Sorry, i suppose lots of this has been discussed already, I have been > > > > skipping lots of email the past few weeks, too much apparant flaming, > > > > not enough time to indulge in reading, let alone responding. > > > > -- > > > > dana emery > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Dear Vance, I can see that you are looking for what might have been an interesting analogy here, but the situation with Greek columns is not quite the same as the issue with lutes. As I understand it classical columns do have bilateral symetery but their shape from top to bottom is slightly convex because parallel sided columns are subject to the optical illusion of curving inwards over their length. This is a well known phenomenon in architecture - the curvature to counteract it is known as entasis. Quite a few lute makers in the 1970's made the assumption that lute bodies were totally symeterical and followed a pattern where the backs had a semi-circular cross section. Those instruments, to my mind, never looked or felt quite right. The more recent lutes that faithfully copy the subtleties of the surviving originals are IMHO much more convincing. Much of Renaissance art followed the principle of the imitation of nature and the apparent symetery of nature is rarely what it seems. I was once in a class taught by a psychologist who had made a study of the human face. He had photographed a number of people's faces square to the camera and then cut the photos in half vertically along the line of symetery. He then made mirror images of each side and made new "faces" by matching each side with its true mirror image. The result was astonishing - very often the right side and its mirror image looked like a totally different person to the other pair. My guess is that Renaissance artists and craftsmen knew a lot more about this sort of thing than we do today. Best wishes, Denys - Original Message - From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" ; "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 4:40 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > This post reminded me of something I thought might be pertinent and knowing > no other post upon which to hang it I chose this one. You mentioned the > Ancients and this brought to memory something I saw demonstrated on a > documentary concerning the Parthenon in Greece. It seems this building is > not symmetrical mathematically, some of the elements are designed out of > align so that they appear as behind symmetrical when viewed from below, > specifically the taper and shape of the columns. I wish I could remember > the exact details but it is there none the less. The point here is that the > use of asymmetry was to create the illusion of symmetry. How this relates to > the discussion on Lutes is of little more importance than to demonstrate > that the use of asymmetry is not uncommon even in places where you would > consider symmetry to be important. > > Vance Wood. > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "guy_and_liz Smith" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" ; "Manolo Laguillo" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > A friend of mine who works at Sandia Labs tried to explain Quantum Physics > > to me over a couple bottles of wine one evening, unfortunately if I can't > > apply it in my daily life, it goes in one ear, and out the other. > > Concerning perfection, I guess it's a state of mind, as Dr. Emoto has > > documented, ones thoughts can have an influence on ones environment. > > Although, the Ancients have know this for eons. > >One can perceive a lute as symmetrical, however, after a couple bottles > > of wine, or beer in Jon's case, it begins to take on a non symmetrical > > shape, along with everything else. The exception to this rule, is found > in > > historical lutes, which appear non symmetrical, prior to the consumption > of > > your favorite intoxicant, then afterwards actually appears perfectly > > symmetrical. > > > > Concerning the lute I was speaking more about the physical shape of > the > > belly, and not the actual sound it makes. > > You can apply the concept of imperfection ( Wabe Sabe) to many things, > > but not the conception of musical instruments. The concept is always > > perfect, but man's execution of it is imperfect. > > Sometimes I think lutes, guitars are like people. The really good > > looking ones (people) are rather shallow sounding, and the not so perfect > > ones, are more interesting to listen to. > > This is my second, naturally occurring law as applied to musical > > instruments. The first being the rule of relative perception. > > Michael Thames > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > - Original Message
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
I haven't been taking in a lot of this stuff, but looking at the plans, any assymettry in the body/soundboard shape looks fairly minor, and the question really arises with the neck. Isn't this simply a question of the number of strings, as with the theorbo? The 'ribbon' (for want of a better word) appears to be correctly placed over the body only when the neck is skewiff, because some of the strings don't go over the fingerboard. Anyway, isn't this lute builder list material? I'm sure I had a couple of responses from Martin and David (Shepherd and Edwards respectively) when I first decided to have a go at a theorbo. - Original Message - From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 6:44 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > >Vance said > > The point here is that the > >use of asymmetry was to create the illusion of symmetry. > > Why would anyone want the illusion of symmetry, when one can have the > real thing? Stradivari obviously thought very highly of symmetry, since all > of his moulds are symmetrical. > > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:28 AM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > After reading Mr. Lundbergs book several times I have come to the > conclusion > > that he must be correct. He claims to have examined actual instruments > that > > all show the same asymmetry, the neck cocked toward the base side of the > > Lute. He goes on to explain that the body does indeed have a center line, > > and the neck does indeed have a center line, but the juxtaposition of both > > elements does not extend the two center lines so that they become one > common > > center line. Can anyone site an historical instrument where a common > center > > line is obvious? > > > > I realize the argument can be made that the instruments have become warped > > and twisted over time but knowing wood as I do, if that were so, there > would > > be evidence in a dramatic distortion of both the treble and base sides of > > the bowel. The base side would show evidence of compression causing an > > obvious kink near the joint of the neck and bowel. The treble side would > > show evidence of separation at the same point understanding that wood this > > old cannot be stretched, it only cracks and separates. > > > > Vance Wood. > > - Original Message - > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:15 PM > > Subject: RE: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > Ron Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > Going back to your initial posting about lute symmetry. In the > > > > Stradivari workshop on your recent trip to Italy, you saw a paper > > > > template for a lute body, folded along the centre-line. > > > > > > Is it clear how this template was used? > > > > > > I can see many possibiltys, including the possiblity of other templates > > > now missing. > > > > > > Perhaps this was part of a study, and represents another makers work; > > > are there any strad-made lutes surviving to compare this template to? > > > > > > Sorry, i suppose lots of this has been discussed already, I have been > > > skipping lots of email the past few weeks, too much apparant flaming, > > > not enough time to indulge in reading, let alone responding. > > > -- > > > dana emery > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>Vance said > The point here is that the >use of asymmetry was to create the illusion of symmetry. Why would anyone want the illusion of symmetry, when one can have the real thing? Stradivari obviously thought very highly of symmetry, since all of his moulds are symmetrical. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:28 AM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > After reading Mr. Lundbergs book several times I have come to the conclusion > that he must be correct. He claims to have examined actual instruments that > all show the same asymmetry, the neck cocked toward the base side of the > Lute. He goes on to explain that the body does indeed have a center line, > and the neck does indeed have a center line, but the juxtaposition of both > elements does not extend the two center lines so that they become one common > center line. Can anyone site an historical instrument where a common center > line is obvious? > > I realize the argument can be made that the instruments have become warped > and twisted over time but knowing wood as I do, if that were so, there would > be evidence in a dramatic distortion of both the treble and base sides of > the bowel. The base side would show evidence of compression causing an > obvious kink near the joint of the neck and bowel. The treble side would > show evidence of separation at the same point understanding that wood this > old cannot be stretched, it only cracks and separates. > > Vance Wood. > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:15 PM > Subject: RE: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > Ron Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > Going back to your initial posting about lute symmetry. In the > > > Stradivari workshop on your recent trip to Italy, you saw a paper > > > template for a lute body, folded along the centre-line. > > > > Is it clear how this template was used? > > > > I can see many possibiltys, including the possiblity of other templates > > now missing. > > > > Perhaps this was part of a study, and represents another makers work; > > are there any strad-made lutes surviving to compare this template to? > > > > Sorry, i suppose lots of this has been discussed already, I have been > > skipping lots of email the past few weeks, too much apparant flaming, > > not enough time to indulge in reading, let alone responding. > > -- > > dana emery > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
> One of my music teachers once stated that women and children are unable > to hear a note below bottom D (on a guitar). So, presumably, if a man > sings bass, they wouldn't hear him! One of my friends is a sound designer, and he said some low infrafrequencies he used in a soundtrack sent women crawling out of the hall, being physically ill. RT http://polyhymnion.org ___ $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
> ++Psychoacoustics experiments on human subjects have demonstrated > that pitch discrimination is most sensitive in the frequency band that > occurs > in the middle of the range of human hearing (including middle C). > The resolution falls off considerably at both ends of the range. Humans > find it much more difficult to discriminate pitches that are very low or > very high frequency. Psychoacoustical experiments on human subjects have also demonstrated that pitch and fret discrimination invariably are in reverse proportion to the number of instruments owned by the subjects tested (San Diego area control group data). Isadora Bylsmer, MD, PHD, ACSW ___ $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
This post reminded me of something I thought might be pertinent and knowing no other post upon which to hang it I chose this one. You mentioned the Ancients and this brought to memory something I saw demonstrated on a documentary concerning the Parthenon in Greece. It seems this building is not symmetrical mathematically, some of the elements are designed out of align so that they appear as behind symmetrical when viewed from below, specifically the taper and shape of the columns. I wish I could remember the exact details but it is there none the less. The point here is that the use of asymmetry was to create the illusion of symmetry. How this relates to the discussion on Lutes is of little more importance than to demonstrate that the use of asymmetry is not uncommon even in places where you would consider symmetry to be important. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "guy_and_liz Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" ; "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:22 AM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > A friend of mine who works at Sandia Labs tried to explain Quantum Physics > to me over a couple bottles of wine one evening, unfortunately if I can't > apply it in my daily life, it goes in one ear, and out the other. > Concerning perfection, I guess it's a state of mind, as Dr. Emoto has > documented, ones thoughts can have an influence on ones environment. > Although, the Ancients have know this for eons. >One can perceive a lute as symmetrical, however, after a couple bottles > of wine, or beer in Jon's case, it begins to take on a non symmetrical > shape, along with everything else. The exception to this rule, is found in > historical lutes, which appear non symmetrical, prior to the consumption of > your favorite intoxicant, then afterwards actually appears perfectly > symmetrical. > > Concerning the lute I was speaking more about the physical shape of the > belly, and not the actual sound it makes. > You can apply the concept of imperfection ( Wabe Sabe) to many things, > but not the conception of musical instruments. The concept is always > perfect, but man's execution of it is imperfect. > Sometimes I think lutes, guitars are like people. The really good > looking ones (people) are rather shallow sounding, and the not so perfect > ones, are more interesting to listen to. > This is my second, naturally occurring law as applied to musical > instruments. The first being the rule of relative perception. > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "guy_and_liz Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" > ; "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 4:13 PM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > Michael, > > > > I thought I'd covered my views on this topic, but I have to add my > comment. > > > > > Is it wrong for humans to try to achieve perfect symmetry? It seems > > nature is trying. > > > > Nature is trying, very trying (I hope you know that English trope). Can we > > know perfection? No. Can we aspire to it? Yes. Perfection is a goal, even > in > > nature. Einstein rejected Bohr's thoughts on Quanta, saying God doesn't > play > > dice. (the quote may be aprochryphal). Bringing it back to the lute, your > > ear is the best tuning device. Even the paired courses have a diffence in > > tonality. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to > > perfection. > > > > Best, Jon > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
> I realize the argument can be made that the instruments have become warped > and twisted over time but knowing wood as I do, if that were so, there would > be evidence in a dramatic distortion of both the treble and base sides of > the bowel. That distortion could lead to perforation, especially if one browses on shrubbery. Change of diet is highly recommended. Isadora Bylsmer, MD, PHD, ACSW. http://polyhymnion.org ___ $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
After reading Mr. Lundbergs book several times I have come to the conclusion that he must be correct. He claims to have examined actual instruments that all show the same asymmetry, the neck cocked toward the base side of the Lute. He goes on to explain that the body does indeed have a center line, and the neck does indeed have a center line, but the juxtaposition of both elements does not extend the two center lines so that they become one common center line. Can anyone site an historical instrument where a common center line is obvious? I realize the argument can be made that the instruments have become warped and twisted over time but knowing wood as I do, if that were so, there would be evidence in a dramatic distortion of both the treble and base sides of the bowel. The base side would show evidence of compression causing an obvious kink near the joint of the neck and bowel. The treble side would show evidence of separation at the same point understanding that wood this old cannot be stretched, it only cracks and separates. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:15 PM Subject: RE: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > Ron Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Going back to your initial posting about lute symmetry. In the > > Stradivari workshop on your recent trip to Italy, you saw a paper > > template for a lute body, folded along the centre-line. > > Is it clear how this template was used? > > I can see many possibiltys, including the possiblity of other templates > now missing. > > Perhaps this was part of a study, and represents another makers work; > are there any strad-made lutes surviving to compare this template to? > > Sorry, i suppose lots of this has been discussed already, I have been > skipping lots of email the past few weeks, too much apparant flaming, > not enough time to indulge in reading, let alone responding. > -- > dana emery > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>Arto Wikla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> What Jon wrote was "your ear is the best tuning device". I could not >> agree more! > >well, I have been a performer in vocal groups, on the lute, and with >woodwinds; in all cases in ensemble. Vocal groups that perform with >instruments are always at odds with the temperament of the instrument; >when singing acapella it is the unconcious and natural practice of most >good groups to tune their accords in an unequal temperament, hopefully >making the hall 'ring'. In many cases one or more of those singing bass >will have a different 'inner' pitch, or perhaps is physically tired, the >result is gradually sagging pitch; often ending as much as a full tone >down from the starting pitch. If the group is singing in something approaching pure or just intonation, couldn't it end up at a lower pitch as a natural consequence of a few modulations? http://www.cdss.fsnet.co.uk/temper/no-frames/index.htm http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/english/temperament.html http://www.guyguitars.com/eng/handbook/Tuning/history.html http://www.millersrus.com/avery/default.htm http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/histune.html http://home.planet.nl/~d.v.ooijen/lgs/meantone.html http://music.cwru.edu/duffin/ -- Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>> I beleive the average human has difficulty distinguishing between tones 10-20 cents apart in the vicinity of middle- c, it may be different in other ranges, I am not familiar with the literature on this, just one of the odd factoids I recall from a life of interest in technical trivia. I do know it matches up with my personal experience; well, some of the time anyway. ++Psychoacoustics experiments on human subjects have demonstrated that pitch discrimination is most sensitive in the frequency band that occurs in the middle of the range of human hearing (including middle C). The resolution falls off considerably at both ends of the range. Humans find it much more difficult to discriminate pitches that are very low or very high frequency. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Arto Wikla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > What Jon wrote was "your ear is the best tuning device". I could not > agree more! well, I have been a performer in vocal groups, on the lute, and with woodwinds; in all cases in ensemble. Vocal groups that perform with instruments are always at odds with the temperament of the instrument; when singing acapella it is the unconcious and natural practice of most good groups to tune their accords in an unequal temperament, hopefully making the hall 'ring'. In many cases one or more of those singing bass will have a different 'inner' pitch, or perhaps is physically tired, the result is gradually sagging pitch; often ending as much as a full tone down from the starting pitch. Consider the guitar player in casual (or even in formal) performance, much time is spent retuning, the more the key is changed the more the tendency to retune; often the strings were fine, its the players desire for an unequal temperament that prompts the need to change it. When a small orchestra includes strings it seems that those most ready to play are those who use machines to do it. Perhaps only because they can take advantage of headphones and contact mics to tune 'out' the ambient noise. As to micro tones, yes, the human performer can and does play using them, but generally in context, and with limits. Limits that are not precise enough for tuning. I beleive the average human has difficulty distinguishing between tones 10-20 cents apart in the vicinity of middle- c, it may be different in other ranges, I am not familiar with the literature on this, just one of the odd factoids I recall from a life of interest in technical trivia. I do know it matches up with my personal experience; well, some of the time anyway. Turns out I have what I consider to be an odd form of perfect pitch, after some study/rehearsal of a particular piece (recording/ensemble) I develop an internal memory of it that includes pitch. When I have all the little grey cells functioning I can bring that memory up and get pitch from it. However, when I am doing that I am useing comparative pitch, producing an internalized difference tone to make whatever corrections are needed in the tone I am/willbe playing/singing. Again, I think a lot depends on how one defines 'best'. Sometimes ones instinct proves 'wrong'. -- dana emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
> The more highly developed we become, >the more pronounced these differences are. The more >your personality >develops the less symmetrical your facial expressions are. >So in nature, >symmetry is a starting point, not a goal. I recall seeing a show on the science channel about human sexuality. They found most people were attracted to symmetrical facial features in the opposite sex. Non Symmetry happens as you age. Some might call that a degeneration, rather than, highly developed. >So, I wonder about the Stradivarius template... could it >have also been a >starting point? An attempt to revitalize the lute by taking it >back to an >earlier time? I think one must think of the body separate from the neck of a baroque lute. The Strad template says on it . Forma di paletta per liutio alla francese That's about all I can make out. It's an 11 course lute, looks allot like Frei or Mahler. I've come to think, after all this, that lutemakers of the past, strived for symmetry in the conception of their lutes ( in the belly shape ) but some didn't quite pull it off, and some just didn't care. Some might have used a mould that warped after they made it, 20 years before. Who knows! The Strad template at least for me, has cleared up all my doubts about the "symmetrically challenged " makers of the past. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Carl Donsbach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "LUTELIST" Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 5:54 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > A dancer I was once acquainted with used to expound on what he called "the > myth of radial symmetry" in regard to the human body. The body *looks* > symmetrical, but inside, most of the vital organs are on one side or the > other. And if you take function into account, almost nothing is > symmetrical. The right and left hands work differently, and we are all > either right or left handed, footed, eyed and eared. The right and left > halves of the brain work differently. The more highly developed we become, > the more pronounced these differences are. The more your personality > develops the less symmetrical your facial expressions are. So in nature, > symmetry is a starting point, not a goal. > > And so it is, I think with musical instruments. The more they develop, the > more suited to function they become, the less symmetrical they are. If you > started with the simplest wind instrument you'd have a tube with a straight > line of holes, and the first thing you'd want to do to make it more > functional would be to stagger the holes to conform to the hand to make it > easier to play. By the time you get to the modern transverse flute, > symmetricality is long gone. > > The lute started out fairly symmetrical in the mediaeval period, like the > oud, but as time went on, inner bracing got changed around, the neck cocked > to one side, bass riders and such were added... the highly developed > instruments that Weiss would have played were nothing like symmetrical. > > So, I wonder about the Stradivarius template... could it have also been a > starting point? An attempt to revitalize the lute by taking it back to an > earlier time? > > - Carl Donsbach > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
A dancer I was once acquainted with used to expound on what he called "the myth of radial symmetry" in regard to the human body. The body *looks* symmetrical, but inside, most of the vital organs are on one side or the other. And if you take function into account, almost nothing is symmetrical. The right and left hands work differently, and we are all either right or left handed, footed, eyed and eared. The right and left halves of the brain work differently. The more highly developed we become, the more pronounced these differences are. The more your personality develops the less symmetrical your facial expressions are. So in nature, symmetry is a starting point, not a goal. And so it is, I think with musical instruments. The more they develop, the more suited to function they become, the less symmetrical they are. If you started with the simplest wind instrument you'd have a tube with a straight line of holes, and the first thing you'd want to do to make it more functional would be to stagger the holes to conform to the hand to make it easier to play. By the time you get to the modern transverse flute, symmetricality is long gone. The lute started out fairly symmetrical in the mediaeval period, like the oud, but as time went on, inner bracing got changed around, the neck cocked to one side, bass riders and such were added... the highly developed instruments that Weiss would have played were nothing like symmetrical. So, I wonder about the Stradivarius template... could it have also been a starting point? An attempt to revitalize the lute by taking it back to an earlier time? - Carl Donsbach To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Jon Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> said: > Bringing it back to the lute, your > ear is the best tuning device. I would agree with Jon on this point. Tuning by ear is a learned skill, just like playing lute or anything else for that matter. Electronic tuners are dandy things provided they work correctly! Just ask a harpsichordist or harpist trying to tuning in a room filled with talking people! This technology can be a godsend, so which approach is better is debatable, but the results of tuning by ear always seem more gratifying to me. Dana, you have a excellent point about wind instruments. Winds makers I know swear by the electronic tuners, particularly when it come to reed making and getting the things in tune. Reeds, having all those harmonics are tricky for the best of ears. As one who trained intensively in East Indian classical music, I can tell you it is indeed possible for the ear to discern very close intervals, (for example, Oud players do this constantly,) and I personally find using a electronic tuner very frustrating, but in emergencies they are indispensable. Chad McAnally - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LUTELIST<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:50 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect Jon Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> said: > Bringing it back to the lute, your > ear is the best tuning device. Arguable. Yes, some humans ear will be the ultimate judge, but, diffreent ears have different preferences, and, frankly, the human ear isnt capable of hearing the differences between close tones without using tricks like difference tone beats. Even with those tricks, one has to correctly implement whatever temperament is to be used. Some mechanized help is useful, even for experienced tuners. Strobe- tuners are prefered by profesional woodwind tuners because they can be used in multiple to 'see' several harmonics at once; and they also 'see' the pitch at the attack (computerized tuning devices need a small amount of time before they can decide on what frequency they are 'seeing', more than a few cycles, and this is enough time for a string to lessen its excursion by a significant amount, changing pitch from that which it had at the attack, not significant for a stringed instrument, but very significant for a wind). Piano tuners who work by ear tend to be more efficient than those who work with a machine, but those who work with a machine often get the end result just as accuratly. So, just what did you mean by 'best' anyway? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html<http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html> --
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Dear Dana, On Fri, 27 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jon Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Bringing it back to the lute, your > > ear is the best tuning device. > > Arguable. > > Yes, some humans ear will be the ultimate judge, but, diffreent ears > have different preferences, and, frankly, the human ear isnt capable of > hearing the differences between close tones without using tricks like > difference tone beats. Even with those tricks, one has to correctly > implement whatever temperament is to be used. What Jon wrote was "your ear is the best tuning device". I could not agree more! Of course there are " different preferences" as you write, but the ultimate criteria really is YOUR ear; in my case my ear, in every one's case her/his ear! No devidce will ever win my own sense of tuning well! There really is no "objectivity" here! All the best Arto PS Tomorrow morning: a rehearsal of Monteverdi, and also an interesting piece by Trabaci, a spectacle for 3 sirens... :-) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Hi Ron, I don't know if strad used a mould. I was unaware he even made lutes until visiting the museum. However, judging from the template of folded paper, I think it was simply used to trace the pattern onto a belly. The same folded paper templates can be seen of his violins, guitars, and other instruments. However many violin moulds of his exist, so the existence of a template doesn't negate the use of a mould, a least for his violins. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Ron Fletcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:05 PM Subject: RE: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > Hi Michael, > > Going back to your initial posting about lute symmetry. In the > Stradivari workshop on your recent trip to Italy, you saw a paper > template for a lute body, folded along the centre-line. > > I conjectured that such a template would indicate that the Strad's > lute-bodies were not made over a mold. The template would be used to > show whether the inner-profile of the lute body is symmetrical. That > every rib has the same curve and distance from the centre-line. > > Did Stradivari use a mold? > Were all his lutes symmetrical (equal depth and width from centre-line)? > > Surely these points still need to be clarified? The thread seems to > have gone off on a tangent into symmetry found in nature and quantum > physics...completely off-topic! > > But then again, no-one's perfect! > > Best Wishes > > Ron (UK) > > > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Thames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27 May 2005 15:23 > To: Jon Murphy; guy_and_liz Smith; LUTELIST; Manolo Laguillo > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > A friend of mine who works at Sandia Labs tried to explain Quantum > Physics > to me over a couple bottles of wine one evening, unfortunately if I > can't > apply it in my daily life, it goes in one ear, and out the other. > Concerning perfection, I guess it's a state of mind, as Dr. Emoto > has > documented, ones thoughts can have an influence on ones environment. > Although, the Ancients have know this for eons. >One can perceive a lute as symmetrical, however, after a couple > bottles > of wine, or beer in Jon's case, it begins to take on a non symmetrical > shape, along with everything else. The exception to this rule, is found > in > historical lutes, which appear non symmetrical, prior to the > consumption of > your favorite intoxicant, then afterwards actually appears perfectly > symmetrical. > > Concerning the lute I was speaking more about the physical shape of > the > belly, and not the actual sound it makes. > You can apply the concept of imperfection ( Wabe Sabe) to many > things, > but not the conception of musical instruments. The concept is always > perfect, but man's execution of it is imperfect. > Sometimes I think lutes, guitars are like people. The really good > looking ones (people) are rather shallow sounding, and the not so > perfect > ones, are more interesting to listen to. > This is my second, naturally occurring law as applied to musical > instruments. The first being the rule of relative perception. > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > ----- Original Message - > From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "guy_and_liz Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" > ; "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 4:13 PM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > Michael, > > > > I thought I'd covered my views on this topic, but I have to add my > comment. > > > > > Is it wrong for humans to try to achieve perfect symmetry? It > seems > > nature is trying. > > > > Nature is trying, very trying (I hope you know that English trope). > Can we > > know perfection? No. Can we aspire to it? Yes. Perfection is a goal, > even > in > > nature. Einstein rejected Bohr's thoughts on Quanta, saying God > doesn't > play > > dice. (the quote may be aprochryphal). Bringing it back to the lute, > your > > ear is the best tuning device. Even the paired courses have a diffence > in > > tonality. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't > aspire to > > perfection. > > > > Best, Jon > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > >
RE: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Ron Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi Michael, > > Going back to your initial posting about lute symmetry. In the > Stradivari workshop on your recent trip to Italy, you saw a paper > template for a lute body, folded along the centre-line. Is it clear how this template was used? I can see many possibiltys, including the possiblity of other templates now missing. Perhaps this was part of a study, and represents another makers work; are there any strad-made lutes surviving to compare this template to? Sorry, i suppose lots of this has been discussed already, I have been skipping lots of email the past few weeks, too much apparant flaming, not enough time to indulge in reading, let alone responding. -- dana emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
The way a lute is strung makes it _need_ to be assymetrical; the high- pitched strings on one side, one course unpaired, thick strings ont he bass side needing more room for their vibration - the top is braced and thicknessed in zones to accomodate these assymetrical points. Assembling a lutes body while preserving the intended shape is a major feat, even sometihing as apparantly simple as reattaching a completed shell to the top after doing some simple repairs is not easy - the shell is quite flexible. The human eye is often entrusted with forming subtle curves during fabrication, often refining the work of mere instruments, as in laying rails at the height of the railroad era. A surveyor determined the center of the embankment, but that mainly determined a zone where the ties were layed out. The rails themselves were positioned by the eye of the track boss, both in new work and when an out-of-balance driver wheel had pounded the track into needing realignment. -- dana emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Jon Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Bringing it back to the lute, your > ear is the best tuning device. Arguable. Yes, some humans ear will be the ultimate judge, but, diffreent ears have different preferences, and, frankly, the human ear isnt capable of hearing the differences between close tones without using tricks like difference tone beats. Even with those tricks, one has to correctly implement whatever temperament is to be used. Some mechanized help is useful, even for experienced tuners. Strobe- tuners are prefered by profesional woodwind tuners because they can be used in multiple to 'see' several harmonics at once; and they also 'see' the pitch at the attack (computerized tuning devices need a small amount of time before they can decide on what frequency they are 'seeing', more than a few cycles, and this is enough time for a string to lessen its excursion by a significant amount, changing pitch from that which it had at the attack, not significant for a stringed instrument, but very significant for a wind). Piano tuners who work by ear tend to be more efficient than those who work with a machine, but those who work with a machine often get the end result just as accuratly. So, just what did you mean by 'best' anyway? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
RE: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Hi Michael, Going back to your initial posting about lute symmetry. In the Stradivari workshop on your recent trip to Italy, you saw a paper template for a lute body, folded along the centre-line. I conjectured that such a template would indicate that the Strad's lute-bodies were not made over a mold. The template would be used to show whether the inner-profile of the lute body is symmetrical. That every rib has the same curve and distance from the centre-line. Did Stradivari use a mold? Were all his lutes symmetrical (equal depth and width from centre-line)? Surely these points still need to be clarified? The thread seems to have gone off on a tangent into symmetry found in nature and quantum physics...completely off-topic! But then again, no-one's perfect! Best Wishes Ron (UK) -Original Message- From: Michael Thames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 May 2005 15:23 To: Jon Murphy; guy_and_liz Smith; LUTELIST; Manolo Laguillo Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect A friend of mine who works at Sandia Labs tried to explain Quantum Physics to me over a couple bottles of wine one evening, unfortunately if I can't apply it in my daily life, it goes in one ear, and out the other. Concerning perfection, I guess it's a state of mind, as Dr. Emoto has documented, ones thoughts can have an influence on ones environment. Although, the Ancients have know this for eons. One can perceive a lute as symmetrical, however, after a couple bottles of wine, or beer in Jon's case, it begins to take on a non symmetrical shape, along with everything else. The exception to this rule, is found in historical lutes, which appear non symmetrical, prior to the consumption of your favorite intoxicant, then afterwards actually appears perfectly symmetrical. Concerning the lute I was speaking more about the physical shape of the belly, and not the actual sound it makes. You can apply the concept of imperfection ( Wabe Sabe) to many things, but not the conception of musical instruments. The concept is always perfect, but man's execution of it is imperfect. Sometimes I think lutes, guitars are like people. The really good looking ones (people) are rather shallow sounding, and the not so perfect ones, are more interesting to listen to. This is my second, naturally occurring law as applied to musical instruments. The first being the rule of relative perception. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "guy_and_liz Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" ; "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 4:13 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > Michael, > > I thought I'd covered my views on this topic, but I have to add my comment. > > > Is it wrong for humans to try to achieve perfect symmetry? It seems > nature is trying. > > Nature is trying, very trying (I hope you know that English trope). Can we > know perfection? No. Can we aspire to it? Yes. Perfection is a goal, even in > nature. Einstein rejected Bohr's thoughts on Quanta, saying God doesn't play > dice. (the quote may be aprochryphal). Bringing it back to the lute, your > ear is the best tuning device. Even the paired courses have a diffence in > tonality. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to > perfection. > > Best, Jon > > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
A friend of mine who works at Sandia Labs tried to explain Quantum Physics to me over a couple bottles of wine one evening, unfortunately if I can't apply it in my daily life, it goes in one ear, and out the other. Concerning perfection, I guess it's a state of mind, as Dr. Emoto has documented, ones thoughts can have an influence on ones environment. Although, the Ancients have know this for eons. One can perceive a lute as symmetrical, however, after a couple bottles of wine, or beer in Jon's case, it begins to take on a non symmetrical shape, along with everything else. The exception to this rule, is found in historical lutes, which appear non symmetrical, prior to the consumption of your favorite intoxicant, then afterwards actually appears perfectly symmetrical. Concerning the lute I was speaking more about the physical shape of the belly, and not the actual sound it makes. You can apply the concept of imperfection ( Wabe Sabe) to many things, but not the conception of musical instruments. The concept is always perfect, but man's execution of it is imperfect. Sometimes I think lutes, guitars are like people. The really good looking ones (people) are rather shallow sounding, and the not so perfect ones, are more interesting to listen to. This is my second, naturally occurring law as applied to musical instruments. The first being the rule of relative perception. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "guy_and_liz Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" ; "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 4:13 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > Michael, > > I thought I'd covered my views on this topic, but I have to add my comment. > > > Is it wrong for humans to try to achieve perfect symmetry? It seems > nature is trying. > > Nature is trying, very trying (I hope you know that English trope). Can we > know perfection? No. Can we aspire to it? Yes. Perfection is a goal, even in > nature. Einstein rejected Bohr's thoughts on Quanta, saying God doesn't play > dice. (the quote may be aprochryphal). Bringing it back to the lute, your > ear is the best tuning device. Even the paired courses have a diffence in > tonality. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to > perfection. > > Best, Jon > > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
-Original Message- From: Jon Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 26, 2005 2:01 PM To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, LUTELIST , Manolo Laguillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect I'm not sure to whom to reply, so I pick on the good Dr. of Chemistry. It comes down to the question of what is perfection. ++Perfection depends on the domain and the context. What is perfect in one domain or application may be imperfect in another. Is a straight line straight, or is a mess of fractals (don't pick on me for the joking reference, I realize that there is more to fractals). ++Again, it depends on the application context. Are we really going to go to this level? If I shave my lute soundboard to a fraction of my goals, but one small segment is a ten thousandth of a millimeter off will it affect the sound (Answer, it will, but will I hear it? Every tiny difference effects a totality, but the effect isn't necessarily noticeable - or predictable). ++A practical working heuristic for declaring "perfection" is the following: 1. The object meets or exceeds the requirements. 2. After a reaonable search for defects (that may include the evaluation of experts) none can be found. Chemistry isn't Physics, and Physics isn't Chemistry ++On a molecular level, there is no difference. The distinction is arbitrary and largely dependent on historical tradition. For example, we have two journals - physical chemistry and chemical physics. What we call 'physical chemistry' is done in chemistry departments in the USA but in physics departments in Europe. - and Quantum Mechanics (my day, fifty years ago - now should we say Quantum Theory) would suggest that everything is random and undefined, but statistically comes to a form when treated as a whole. ++Randomization is a branch of math with practical applications in information systems as well as in physics and chemistry (Don't get me started on this one; I'll never log off!) I don't believe that QM suggests that nothing is defined. In QM everything is quantized, including velocities. Think about that one! (Sorry love, I'm trying to be careful to put this general terms). ++QM is not the easiest subject to comprehend for us when we are used to thinking on a macroscopic level. I know that I've sent you a private message on the topic regarding my father at Bell Labs, but your rather detailed comments here require me to comment. Symmetry and crystaline structure are both synonymous, ++I would say that there is some relation between the two terms, and that the relationshp is one of hypernymy. Symmetry is a very general term and powerful concept that transcends the domain of chemistry. Crystaline structure is a much more specific term that applies to physical chemistry in general and X-ray crystalography in particular. It is like comparing musical instruments to lutes. and also a matter of degree, in fact everything is a matter of degree. My father sent an internal memo to his colleagues at the Labs in about 1047, it had to do with his theoretical speculation on what might happen at the P/N junction of a doped crystal, a crystal whose structure was compromised by impurities. He was working with quartz, a very stable crystalline structure. Schockley's crew was working in Germanium, less strict in structure. ++Do you mean that it had more defects or a lower degree of symmetry? It didn't work with quartz, but Germanium was flexible and we got the transistor (and Schockley the Nobel, although it was the crew that did it). Silicon based transitor crystals came in later, with developement. Where is the point? Not in the perfection of structure or symmetry. Those don't exist if you go deep enough. Even though I'm a political conservative I'll support relativism when it comes to the perfection of sound, or the symmetry of the scale. And I'll not email our good Dr. of Chemistry to argue the left and right hand symmetry, we all know that the well made lute will have a difference of bracing and soundboard shaving to accomodate the bass versus the treble. That isn't symmetry, that is good design and making. ++Symmetry operations can be applied to any physical or even conceptual object. I think that point groups on higher demensionsal spaces can be defined and may already have been, although I have not read any literature on it. I repeat, nothing is symmetrical if you go to the right level. ++It depends on your definition of symmerty. The String Theorists are proposing 13 levels, and 13 can never be symmetrical. But that isn't important, what is important to the musician is the symmetry of sound - and that isn't really a symmetry. We all know that the natura
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Michael, I thought I'd covered my views on this topic, but I have to add my comment. > Is it wrong for humans to try to achieve perfect symmetry? It seems nature is trying. Nature is trying, very trying (I hope you know that English trope). Can we know perfection? No. Can we aspire to it? Yes. Perfection is a goal, even in nature. Einstein rejected Bohr's thoughts on Quanta, saying God doesn't play dice. (the quote may be aprochryphal). Bringing it back to the lute, your ear is the best tuning device. Even the paired courses have a diffence in tonality. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to perfection. Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
I'm not sure to whom to reply, so I pick on the good Dr. of Chemistry. It comes down to the question of what is perfection. Is a straight line straight, or is a mess of fractals (don't pick on me for the joking reference, I realize that there is more to fractals). Are we really going to go to this level? If I shave my lute soundboard to a fraction of my goals, but one small segment is a ten thousandth of a millimeter off will it affect the sound (Answer, it will, but will I hear it? Every tiny difference effects a totality, but the effect isn't necessarily noticeable - or predictable). Chemistry isn't Physics, and Physics isn't Chemistry - and Quantum Mechanics (my day, fifty years ago - now should we say Quantum Theory) would suggest that everything is random and undefined, but statistically comes to a form when treated as a whole. (Sorry love, I'm trying to be careful to put this general terms). I know that I've sent you a private message on the topic regarding my father at Bell Labs, but your rather detailed comments here require me to comment. Symmetry and crystaline structure are both synonymous, and also a matter of degree, in fact everything is a matter of degree. My father sent an internal memo to his colleagues at the Labs in about 1047, it had to do with his theoretical speculation on what might happen at the P/N junction of a doped crystal, a crystal whose structure was compromised by impurities. He was working with quartz, a very stable crystalline structure. Schockley's crew was working in Germanium, less strict in structure. It didn't work with quartz, but Germanium was flexible and we got the transistor (and Schockley the Nobel, although it was the crew that did it). Silicon based transitor crystals came in later, with developement. Where is the point? Not in the perfection of structure or symmetry. Those don't exist if you go deep enough. Even though I'm a political conservative I'll support relativism when it comes to the perfection of sound, or the symmetry of the scale. And I'll not email our good Dr. of Chemistry to argue the left and right hand symmetry, we all know that the well made lute will have a difference of bracing and soundboard shaving to accomodate the bass versus the treble. That isn't symmetry, that is good design and making. I repeat, nothing is symmetrical if you go to the right level. The String Theorists are proposing 13 levels, and 13 can never be symmetrical. But that isn't important, what is important to the musician is the symmetry of sound - and that isn't really a symmetry. We all know that the natural overtone scale of the tensioned string has faults in it when compared to our chosen even temperament scale. Perfection is the exact form (frequencies) of the overtones on the single string, but that isn't perfection when wanting more notes, or different keys. How many times must I punctuate with the Pythagorean comma? And does my cat hear the tones as in the Oriental natural scale, or hear the nuances of the middle eastern quarter tones (and they are a bit smaller than that - my personal ear distinguishes about 5 cents, or less, on the cent scale where a half tone is 100 cents). What is a pleasant and harmonic sound? It isn't defined by the physics of sound vibrations, else we would have none. It is the compromise of our scales, and the training of our ears. Luckily my mind is asymmetrical, so I've no horse in this race (or dog in this fight). I shall retire to bed and contemplate my navel (were I able to see it). But I shall do so with well made popcorn (as I will make it) and a good book. It is a matter of level when one discusses symmetry. And it is a matter of level when one accepts or denies it. I'm not sure if I accept fractals as geometry, but the advocates have a point (no pun intended, they do have points on a straight line). Best, Jon > The term "perfect symmetry" does not exist in chemistry. The branch of mathematics that deals with the > characterization and categorization of symmetry is called "group theory." Molecules and crystals are > categorized according to the degree and type of symmetry into groups. Depending on the temperature and > pressure of the ice, the crystals will belong to one "point group" or another. If one were to apply the > principles of group theory to lutes, most lutes would belong to the C1 point group. That means that the > lute is not superimposible on its mirror image. This is why we need right-hand and left-hand lutes. If anyone > does not believe me he or she is welcome to email me off list and we can debate it. > > -Original Message- > From: guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: May 23, 2005 6:44 PM > To: LUTELIST , > Manolo Laguillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Su
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>Geometrical drawing of the whole front leads to template >for one half, by >definition reversible, based on the centre line/joint of the >front... Only in a perfect world If one locates the center line using plans from historical lutes, making a template from one side, then flipping it over, the other side will not be the same as the template. This has been the whole point of this discussion, most lutes are not symmetrical. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:57 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > Geometrical drawing of the whole front leads to template for one half, by > definition reversible, based on the centre line/joint of the front... > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: ; "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:31 PM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > >I think that we all try to mirror the left and right (unless >there is a > > good > > >reason not to) - I'm talking of outline, not barring, bridge, >etc., but > > for > > >some reaon, the wood doesn't always share our aims. >Moreover, the > > templates > > >I have been taught to use are _always_ half the shape, to >avoid an > > >accumulation of error. If that is too concise, I can use >more words, > but > > >not at the moment. > > > > I've not run across any plans of historical lutes that one side > mirrors > > the other side. Unless you want to copy exactly the original lute, it > seems > > one must in some way reconstruct the original plans. > > Michael Thames > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:10 PM > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > Dear Marion et al., > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:24 PM > > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > > > with respect to the plane of reflection perpendicular to the top. What > > > would be the > > > > harm in making the right side the mirror image of the left? Is there > > some > > > advantage > > > > to an asymmetrical body? > > > > > > I think that we all try to mirror the left and right (unless there is a > > good > > > reason not to) - I'm talking of outline, not barring, bridge, etc., but > > for > > > some reaon, the wood doesn't always share our aims. Moreover, the > > templates > > > I have been taught to use are _always_ half the shape, to avoid an > > > accumulation of error. If that is too concise, I can use more words, > but > > > not at the moment. > > > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Geometrical drawing of the whole front leads to template for one half, by definition reversible, based on the centre line/joint of the front... - Original Message - From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:31 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > >I think that we all try to mirror the left and right (unless >there is a > good > >reason not to) - I'm talking of outline, not barring, bridge, >etc., but > for > >some reaon, the wood doesn't always share our aims. >Moreover, the > templates > >I have been taught to use are _always_ half the shape, to >avoid an > >accumulation of error. If that is too concise, I can use >more words, but > >not at the moment. > > I've not run across any plans of historical lutes that one side mirrors > the other side. Unless you want to copy exactly the original lute, it seems > one must in some way reconstruct the original plans. > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:10 PM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > Dear Marion et al., > > - Original Message - > > From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:24 PM > > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > > with respect to the plane of reflection perpendicular to the top. What > > would be the > > > harm in making the right side the mirror image of the left? Is there > some > > advantage > > > to an asymmetrical body? > > > > I think that we all try to mirror the left and right (unless there is a > good > > reason not to) - I'm talking of outline, not barring, bridge, etc., but > for > > some reaon, the wood doesn't always share our aims. Moreover, the > templates > > I have been taught to use are _always_ half the shape, to avoid an > > accumulation of error. If that is too concise, I can use more words, but > > not at the moment. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>I think that we all try to mirror the left and right (unless >there is a good >reason not to) - I'm talking of outline, not barring, bridge, >etc., but for >some reaon, the wood doesn't always share our aims. >Moreover, the templates >I have been taught to use are _always_ half the shape, to >avoid an >accumulation of error. If that is too concise, I can use >more words, but >not at the moment. I've not run across any plans of historical lutes that one side mirrors the other side. Unless you want to copy exactly the original lute, it seems one must in some way reconstruct the original plans. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:10 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > Dear Marion et al., > - Original Message - > From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:24 PM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > with respect to the plane of reflection perpendicular to the top. What > would be the > > harm in making the right side the mirror image of the left? Is there some > advantage > > to an asymmetrical body? > > I think that we all try to mirror the left and right (unless there is a good > reason not to) - I'm talking of outline, not barring, bridge, etc., but for > some reaon, the wood doesn't always share our aims. Moreover, the templates > I have been taught to use are _always_ half the shape, to avoid an > accumulation of error. If that is too concise, I can use more words, but > not at the moment. > > Tony > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>can reflect the difference in tension between treble and >bass. But what if >you apply the symmetry question to only the body and the >top without taking into >account the internal structure and bridge? Then is there a >reason for asymmetry? The bridges on all lutes are asymmetrical, that is to say, thicker and higher on the bass side. The bracing is always asymmetrical, the exception being swanneck lutes which have a symmetrical fan bracing. Relatively speaking of course. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:01 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > That is right! (Eugene always knows!!) Any asymmetry at the nut must be > reflected in a similar asymmetry at the bridge, with or without a saddle. > However, before the bridge is installed also inside the body, the bracing > can reflect the difference in tension between trebble and bass. But what if > you apply the symmetry question to only the body and the top without taking into > account the internal structure and bridge? Then is there a reason for asymmetry? > > -Original Message- > From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: May 24, 2005 11:43 AM > To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > At 02:24 PM 5/24/2005, Dr. Marion Ceruti wrote: > >++Yes, you are right when applied to the lute body which can have > >a plane of symmetry, this part can in theory be completely symmetrical > >with respect to that plane. It is the nut and peg box that break the > >symmetrical > >pattern... > > > ..and bridges (especially those that predate saddles), (in most cases) > internal bracing, string positioning in relation to the soundbox > (especially if neck extensions and extra pegboxes/riders are involved), > etc. All things considered, the profile of the soundboard/soundbox can > strive to emulate a single plane of symmetry, but that's usually where it ends. > > Eugene > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>++Yes, this is a nice design, but too large for me. I >assume you mean symmetry >with respect to the plane of reflection perpendicular to the >top. What would be the >harm in making the right side the mirror image of the left? >Is there some advantage >to an asymmetrical body? Marion, actually the Jauch is relatively small with a string length of 70.1 cm. That's exactly what I did, mirror the two sides, so from the perspective of a centre line, the two sides are the same exact shape. This is what I have been referring to, calling it perfect symmetry, but as I have seen, maybe this is not the correct way to describe it. Personally I can see know acoustical advantage to an asymmetrical shape. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:24 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: May 24, 2005 11:09 AM > To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > LUTELIST , > Manolo Laguillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > When it comes to >the physical > >construction of musical instrument, high symmetry means >something > relatively boring and the > >lowest symmetry possible is necessary to construct an >instrument, such as > a lute, that is designed > >to emphasize the different roles of the left and right hands, >respectively > Marion, > I think it might be wise to get back to the issue at hand, as it > applies to the construction and conception of musical instruments. > Manolo, said symmetry is a cheap trick, uninteresting yet, symmetry is > used in, the lute, guitar, and violin templates of Stradivari, and Arnault > De Zwolle's work containing a drawing of a lute, with an accompanying > description of the method used to draw it. It includes the whole body of > geometry and principles of proportionality which would be used to develop > all new instruments created during the Renaissance, including the violin. > I was delighted to finally see a lute body, which was symmetrical. > > ++Yes, you are right when applied to the lute body which can have > a plane of symmetry, this part can in theory be completely symmetrical > with respect to that plane. It is the nut and peg box that break the symmetrical > pattern. Taken by itself the body can be be symmetrical. > > I know of some lutemakers who copy every defect of proportion. The > problem with this is, it ends up compounding the defect, and as a result and > new lute is twice as distorted as the original. > > ++Hence the importance of seeing the original plans which the museum > in Cremona has preserved. > >I have already made a mould for the Yale Jauch using symmetry and it > looks very pleasing. The challenge will be to actually translate the final > outcome of construction, in which case Manolo will be pleased to know, it > probably won't be perfectly symmetrical. > > ++Yes, this is a nice design, but too large for me. I assume you mean symmetry > with respect to the plane of reflection perpendicular to the top. What would be the > harm in making the right side the mirror image of the left? Is there some advantage > to an asymmetrical body? > > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "guy_and_liz Smith" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" ; "Manolo Laguillo" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:55 AM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > > "Perfect symmetry" is a term that is too vague to use in scientific > descriptions. I don't know > > what it means unless it refers to the sphere, which allows all possible > symmetry operations. > > It's not that highly symmetric objects don't exist in nature, nor does it > have anything to do with > > the second law of thermodynamics on a molecular level. "Perfect symmetry" > as it relates to building > > lutes and other stringed instruments could be defined as belonging to the > C1 point group (which is > > to say that the instrument is asymmetrical). To find higher symmetry, it > is necessary to look at simpler instruments, such as a hand bell, which has > C-infinty-v symmetry. When it comes to the physical > > construction o
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>...and bridges (especially those that predate saddles), (in >most cases) >internal bracing, string positioning in relation to the >soundbox >(especially if neck extensions and extra pegboxes/riders >are involved), >etc. All things considered, the profile of the >soundboard/soundbox can >strive to emulate a single plane of symmetry, but that's >usually where it ends. >Eugene Sorry if I wasn't clear, but having been refering to only the body of the lute in this discussion, as Stad's template is only of the belly. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:43 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > At 02:24 PM 5/24/2005, Dr. Marion Ceruti wrote: > >++Yes, you are right when applied to the lute body which can have > >a plane of symmetry, this part can in theory be completely symmetrical > >with respect to that plane. It is the nut and peg box that break the > >symmetrical > >pattern... > > > ...and bridges (especially those that predate saddles), (in most cases) > internal bracing, string positioning in relation to the soundbox > (especially if neck extensions and extra pegboxes/riders are involved), > etc. All things considered, the profile of the soundboard/soundbox can > strive to emulate a single plane of symmetry, but that's usually where it ends. > > Eugene > > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Dear Marion et al., - Original Message - From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:24 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > with respect to the plane of reflection perpendicular to the top. What would be the > harm in making the right side the mirror image of the left? Is there some advantage > to an asymmetrical body? I think that we all try to mirror the left and right (unless there is a good reason not to) - I'm talking of outline, not barring, bridge, etc., but for some reaon, the wood doesn't always share our aims. Moreover, the templates I have been taught to use are _always_ half the shape, to avoid an accumulation of error. If that is too concise, I can use more words, but not at the moment. Tony To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
At 03:01 PM 5/24/2005, Dr. Marion Ceruti wrote: >...But what if >you apply the symmetry question to only the body and the top without >taking into >account the internal structure and bridge? Then is there a reason for >asymmetry? I think so, and the only reason for that single plane of symmetry becomes purely aesthetic. Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
That is right! (Eugene always knows!!) Any asymmetry at the nut must be reflected in a similar asymmetry at the bridge, with or without a saddle. However, before the bridge is installed also inside the body, the bracing can reflect the difference in tension between trebble and bass. But what if you apply the symmetry question to only the body and the top without taking into account the internal structure and bridge? Then is there a reason for asymmetry? -Original Message- From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 24, 2005 11:43 AM To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect At 02:24 PM 5/24/2005, Dr. Marion Ceruti wrote: >++Yes, you are right when applied to the lute body which can have >a plane of symmetry, this part can in theory be completely symmetrical >with respect to that plane. It is the nut and peg box that break the >symmetrical >pattern... .and bridges (especially those that predate saddles), (in most cases) internal bracing, string positioning in relation to the soundbox (especially if neck extensions and extra pegboxes/riders are involved), etc. All things considered, the profile of the soundboard/soundbox can strive to emulate a single plane of symmetry, but that's usually where it ends. Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
At 02:24 PM 5/24/2005, Dr. Marion Ceruti wrote: >++Yes, you are right when applied to the lute body which can have >a plane of symmetry, this part can in theory be completely symmetrical >with respect to that plane. It is the nut and peg box that break the >symmetrical >pattern... ..and bridges (especially those that predate saddles), (in most cases) internal bracing, string positioning in relation to the soundbox (especially if neck extensions and extra pegboxes/riders are involved), etc. All things considered, the profile of the soundboard/soundbox can strive to emulate a single plane of symmetry, but that's usually where it ends. Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
-Original Message- From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 24, 2005 11:09 AM To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, LUTELIST , Manolo Laguillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > When it comes to >the physical >construction of musical instrument, high symmetry means >something relatively boring and the >lowest symmetry possible is necessary to construct an >instrument, such as a lute, that is designed >to emphasize the different roles of the left and right hands, >respectively Marion, I think it might be wise to get back to the issue at hand, as it applies to the construction and conception of musical instruments. Manolo, said symmetry is a cheap trick, uninteresting yet, symmetry is used in, the lute, guitar, and violin templates of Stradivari, and Arnault De Zwolle's work containing a drawing of a lute, with an accompanying description of the method used to draw it. It includes the whole body of geometry and principles of proportionality which would be used to develop all new instruments created during the Renaissance, including the violin. I was delighted to finally see a lute body, which was symmetrical. ++Yes, you are right when applied to the lute body which can have a plane of symmetry, this part can in theory be completely symmetrical with respect to that plane. It is the nut and peg box that break the symmetrical pattern. Taken by itself the body can be be symmetrical. I know of some lutemakers who copy every defect of proportion. The problem with this is, it ends up compounding the defect, and as a result and new lute is twice as distorted as the original. ++Hence the importance of seeing the original plans which the museum in Cremona has preserved. I have already made a mould for the Yale Jauch using symmetry and it looks very pleasing. The challenge will be to actually translate the final outcome of construction, in which case Manolo will be pleased to know, it probably won't be perfectly symmetrical. ++Yes, this is a nice design, but too large for me. I assume you mean symmetry with respect to the plane of reflection perpendicular to the top. What would be the harm in making the right side the mirror image of the left? Is there some advantage to an asymmetrical body? Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "guy_and_liz Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" ; "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:55 AM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > "Perfect symmetry" is a term that is too vague to use in scientific descriptions. I don't know > what it means unless it refers to the sphere, which allows all possible symmetry operations. > It's not that highly symmetric objects don't exist in nature, nor does it have anything to do with > the second law of thermodynamics on a molecular level. "Perfect symmetry" as it relates to building > lutes and other stringed instruments could be defined as belonging to the C1 point group (which is > to say that the instrument is asymmetrical). To find higher symmetry, it is necessary to look at simpler instruments, such as a hand bell, which has C-infinty-v symmetry. When it comes to the physical > construction of musical instrument, high symmetry means something relatively boring and the > lowest symmetry possible is necessary to construct an instrument, such as a lute, that is designed > to emphasize the different roles of the left and right hands, respectively. > > -----Original Message- > From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: May 24, 2005 8:57 AM > To: guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, LUTELIST , > Manolo Laguillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > >Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a >convenient and reasonably good approximation, but >perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of >thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects >and dislocations > > OK, so I'm getting the idea that perfect symmetry does not exist in nature, such a piety. > However, has anyone read the book by Dr. Masaru Emoto, The hidden Messages in Water. > Dr. Emoto, has found and photographed the formation of water crystals. Polluted water, or water subjected to negative thoughts, forms incomplete, asymmetrical patterns, with dull colors, and water from clear springs, exposed to positive thoughts forms brilliant complex, symmetrical, and colorful snowflake patterns. > In Buddhist, and Hi
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
> When it comes to >the physical >construction of musical instrument, high symmetry means >something relatively boring and the >lowest symmetry possible is necessary to construct an >instrument, such as a lute, that is designed >to emphasize the different roles of the left and right hands, >respectively Marion, I think it might be wise to get back to the issue at hand, as it applies to the construction and conception of musical instruments. Manolo, said symmetry is a cheap trick, uninteresting yet, symmetry is used in, the lute, guitar, and violin templates of Stradivari, and Arnault De Zwolle's work containing a drawing of a lute, with an accompanying description of the method used to draw it. It includes the whole body of geometry and principles of proportionality which would be used to develop all new instruments created during the Renaissance, including the violin. I was delighted to finally see a lute body, which was symmetrical. I know of some lutemakers who copy every defect of proportion. The problem with this is, it ends up compounding the defect, and as a result and new lute is twice as distorted as the original. I have already made a mould for the Yale Jauch using symmetry and it looks very pleasing. The challenge will be to actually translate the final outcome of construction, in which case Manolo will be pleased to know, it probably won't be perfectly symmetrical. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "guy_and_liz Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" ; "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:55 AM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > "Perfect symmetry" is a term that is too vague to use in scientific descriptions. I don't know > what it means unless it refers to the sphere, which allows all possible symmetry operations. > It's not that highly symmetric objects don't exist in nature, nor does it have anything to do with > the second law of thermodynamics on a molecular level. "Perfect symmetry" as it relates to building > lutes and other stringed instruments could be defined as belonging to the C1 point group (which is > to say that the instrument is asymmetrical). To find higher symmetry, it is necessary to look at simpler instruments, such as a hand bell, which has C-infinty-v symmetry. When it comes to the physical > construction of musical instrument, high symmetry means something relatively boring and the > lowest symmetry possible is necessary to construct an instrument, such as a lute, that is designed > to emphasize the different roles of the left and right hands, respectively. > > -Original Message----- > From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: May 24, 2005 8:57 AM > To: guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, LUTELIST , > Manolo Laguillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > >Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a >convenient and reasonably good approximation, but >perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of >thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects >and dislocations > > OK, so I'm getting the idea that perfect symmetry does not exist in nature, such a piety. > However, has anyone read the book by Dr. Masaru Emoto, The hidden Messages in Water. > Dr. Emoto, has found and photographed the formation of water crystals. Polluted water, or water subjected to negative thoughts, forms incomplete, asymmetrical patterns, with dull colors, and water from clear springs, exposed to positive thoughts forms brilliant complex, symmetrical, and colorful snowflake patterns. > In Buddhist, and Hindu art, one finds perfect symmetry in the form of mandalas, which represent perfect Enlightenment. > Is it wrong for humans to try to achieve perfect symmetry? It seems nature is trying. > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: guy_and_liz Smith > To: LUTELIST ; Manolo Laguillo ; Michael Thames > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:44 PM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a convenient and reasonably good approximation, but perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects and dislocations. > - Original Message - > From: Michael Thames > To: LUTELIST ; Manolo Laguillo > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:34 AM > Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > > > >b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting fo
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
"Perfect symmetry" is a term that is too vague to use in scientific
descriptions. I don't know
what it means unless it refers to the sphere, which allows all possible
symmetry operations.
It's not that highly symmetric objects don't exist in nature, nor does it have
anything to do with
the second law of thermodynamics on a molecular level. "Perfect symmetry" as it
relates to building
lutes and other stringed instruments could be defined as belonging to the C1
point group (which is
to say that the instrument is asymmetrical). To find higher symmetry, it is
necessary to look at simpler instruments, such as a hand bell, which has
C-infinty-v symmetry. When it comes to the physical
construction of musical instrument, high symmetry means something relatively
boring and the
lowest symmetry possible is necessary to construct an instrument, such as a
lute, that is designed
to emphasize the different roles of the left and right hands, respectively.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: May 24, 2005 8:57 AM
To: guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, LUTELIST ,
Manolo Laguillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a >convenient and reasonably
>good approximation, but >perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of
>>thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects >and dislocations
OK, so I'm getting the idea that perfect symmetry does not exist in nature,
such a piety.
However, has anyone read the book by Dr. Masaru Emoto, The hidden
Messages in Water.
Dr. Emoto, has found and photographed the formation of water crystals.
Polluted water, or water subjected to negative thoughts, forms incomplete,
asymmetrical patterns, with dull colors, and water from clear springs, exposed
to positive thoughts forms brilliant complex, symmetrical, and colorful
snowflake patterns.
In Buddhist, and Hindu art, one finds perfect symmetry in the form of
mandalas, which represent perfect Enlightenment.
Is it wrong for humans to try to achieve perfect symmetry? It seems nature
is trying.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: guy_and_liz Smith
To: LUTELIST ; Manolo Laguillo ; Michael Thames
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a convenient and reasonably
good approximation, but perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of
thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects and dislocations.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Thames
To: LUTELIST ; Manolo Laguillo
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of >composition. It is
>a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi >architects
>(Albert Speer...) used it a lot
Interesting to note, the best lutemakers of the ren. were Germans.
>Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but >something much more
>exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it
I'm not sure, but would venture to say, symmetry exists in ice crystal,
and crystal formations?
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitarscom
- Original Message -
From: "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST"
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: was: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
> Sorry, but I can't agree with the two ideas expressed below by Michael
> Thames:
>
> 1. poor workmanship on the part of old lutemakers
>
> 2. symmetry equals to perfection, therefore asymmetry = imperfection.
>
> Because:
>
> a. They had a superior craftmanship level, and could have done the lutes
> perfectly symmetrical if they would have the desire and need to do so.
> We only have to look at the perfectly spherical stone "balls" present in
> so many buildings of the Renaissance. The sphere is, by the way, the
> representation of absolute symmetry...
>
> b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of composition. It is
> a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi architects
> (Albert Speer...) used it a lot.
> Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but something much more
> exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it.
> In the japanese aesthetic there is a word I can't remember now for this
> idea of being perfect precisely through imperfection.
>
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a >convenient and reasonably >good approximation, but >perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of >>thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects >and dislocations OK, so I'm getting the idea that perfect symmetry does not exist in nature, such a piety. However, has anyone read the book by Dr. Masaru Emoto, The hidden Messages in Water. Dr. Emoto, has found and photographed the formation of water crystals. Polluted water, or water subjected to negative thoughts, forms incomplete, asymmetrical patterns, with dull colors, and water from clear springs, exposed to positive thoughts forms brilliant complex, symmetrical, and colorful snowflake patterns. In Buddhist, and Hindu art, one finds perfect symmetry in the form of mandalas, which represent perfect Enlightenment. Is it wrong for humans to try to achieve perfect symmetry? It seems nature is trying. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: guy_and_liz Smith To: LUTELIST ; Manolo Laguillo ; Michael Thames Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:44 PM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a convenient and reasonably good approximation, but perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects and dislocations. - Original Message - From: Michael Thames To: LUTELIST ; Manolo Laguillo Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:34 AM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect >b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of >composition. It is >a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi >architects >(Albert Speer...) used it a lot Interesting to note, the best lutemakers of the ren. were Germans. >Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but >something much more >exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it I'm not sure, but would venture to say, symmetry exists in ice crystal, and crystal formations? Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitarscom - Original Message - From: "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:38 AM Subject: was: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > Sorry, but I can't agree with the two ideas expressed below by Michael > Thames: > > 1. poor workmanship on the part of old lutemakers > > 2. symmetry equals to perfection, therefore asymmetry = imperfection. > > Because: > > a. They had a superior craftmanship level, and could have done the lutes > perfectly symmetrical if they would have the desire and need to do so. > We only have to look at the perfectly spherical stone "balls" present in > so many buildings of the Renaissance. The sphere is, by the way, the > representation of absolute symmetry... > > b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of composition. It is > a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi architects > (Albert Speer...) used it a lot. > Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but something much more > exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it. > In the japanese aesthetic there is a word I can't remember now for this > idea of being perfect precisely through imperfection. > > All this relates with something of paramount importance in the > interpretation of early music, that we all know, and that I am going to > express with an example: if we have a measure with 4 /\ /\ , each one > has to be played with a different accent, stressed differently. This is > difficult for us because we were born in an epoch where everything is > mechanic, and handmade objects are luxury... Remember William Morris? > > I will dare to recommend you a book, Michael, that you could enjoy a > lot: Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization. > > Saludos, > > Manolo Laguillo > > > > Michael Thames wrote: > > >>Lundberg did not say that lute bellies weren't symmetrical, >just that the > >> > >> > >lute > > > > > >>as a whole doesn't have a clear center line. > >> > >> > > > > Without getting lundbergs book out, he says something to the > >effect that there isn't a straight line on the lute except the strings. > > I guess it depends o
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
The term "perfect symmetry" does not exist in chemistry. The branch of mathematics that deals with the characterization and categorization of symmetry is called "group theory." Molecules and crystals are categorized according to the degree and type of symmetry into groups. Depending on the temperature and pressure of the ice, the crystals will belong to one "point group" or another. If one were to apply the principles of group theory to lutes, most lutes would belong to the C1 point group. That means that the lute is not superimposible on its mirror image. This is why we need right-hand and left-hand lutes. If anyone does not believe me he or she is welcome to email me off list and we can debate it. -Original Message- From: guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 23, 2005 6:44 PM To: LUTELIST , Manolo Laguillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a convenient and reasonably good approximation, but perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects and dislocations. - Original Message - From: Michael Thames<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LUTELIST<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> ; Manolo Laguillo<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:34 AM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect >b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of >composition. It is >a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi >architects >(Albert Speer...) used it a lot Interesting to note, the best lutemakers of the ren. were Germans. >Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but >something much more >exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it I'm not sure, but would venture to say, symmetry exists in ice crystal, and crystal formations? Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com<http://www.thamesclassicalguitars.com/> - Original Message - From: "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>; "LUTELIST" mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:38 AM Subject: was: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > Sorry, but I can't agree with the two ideas expressed below by Michael > Thames: > > 1. poor workmanship on the part of old lutemakers > > 2. symmetry equals to perfection, therefore asymmetry = imperfection. > > Because: > > a. They had a superior craftmanship level, and could have done the lutes > perfectly symmetrical if they would have the desire and need to do so. > We only have to look at the perfectly spherical stone "balls" present in > so many buildings of the Renaissance. The sphere is, by the way, the > representation of absolute symmetry... > > b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of composition. It is > a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi architects > (Albert Speer...) used it a lot. > Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but something much more > exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it. > In the japanese aesthetic there is a word I can't remember now for this > idea of being perfect precisely through imperfection. > > All this relates with something of paramount importance in the > interpretation of early music, that we all know, and that I am going to > express with an example: if we have a measure with 4 /\ /\ , each one > has to be played with a different accent, stressed differently. This is > difficult for us because we were born in an epoch where everything is > mechanic, and handmade objects are luxury... Remember William Morris? > > I will dare to recommend you a book, Michael, that you could enjoy a > lot: Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization. > > Saludos, > > Manolo Laguillo > > > > Michael Thames wrote: > > >>Lundberg did not say that lute bellies weren't symmetrical, >just that the > >> > >> > >lute > > > > > >>as a whole doesn't have a clear center line. > >> > >> > > > > Without getting lundbergs book out, he says something to the > >effect that there isn't a straight line on the lute except the strings. > > I guess it depends on how you look at it. I prefer to think in terms > >that the lute has a center line and the neck is tilted.
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a convenient and reasonably good approximation, but perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects and dislocations. - Original Message - From: Michael Thames<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LUTELIST<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> ; Manolo Laguillo<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:34 AM Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect >b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of >composition. It is >a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi >architects >(Albert Speer...) used it a lot Interesting to note, the best lutemakers of the ren. were Germans. >Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but >something much more >exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it I'm not sure, but would venture to say, symmetry exists in ice crystal, and crystal formations? Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com<http://www.thamesclassicalguitars.com/> - Original Message - From: "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>; "LUTELIST" mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:38 AM Subject: was: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > Sorry, but I can't agree with the two ideas expressed below by Michael > Thames: > > 1. poor workmanship on the part of old lutemakers > > 2. symmetry equals to perfection, therefore asymmetry = imperfection. > > Because: > > a. They had a superior craftmanship level, and could have done the lutes > perfectly symmetrical if they would have the desire and need to do so. > We only have to look at the perfectly spherical stone "balls" present in > so many buildings of the Renaissance. The sphere is, by the way, the > representation of absolute symmetry... > > b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of composition. It is > a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi architects > (Albert Speer...) used it a lot. > Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but something much more > exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it. > In the japanese aesthetic there is a word I can't remember now for this > idea of being perfect precisely through imperfection. > > All this relates with something of paramount importance in the > interpretation of early music, that we all know, and that I am going to > express with an example: if we have a measure with 4 /\ /\ , each one > has to be played with a different accent, stressed differently. This is > difficult for us because we were born in an epoch where everything is > mechanic, and handmade objects are luxury... Remember William Morris? > > I will dare to recommend you a book, Michael, that you could enjoy a > lot: Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization. > > Saludos, > > Manolo Laguillo > > > > Michael Thames wrote: > > >>Lundberg did not say that lute bellies weren't symmetrical, >just that the > >> > >> > >lute > > > > > >>as a whole doesn't have a clear center line. > >> > >> > > > > Without getting lundbergs book out, he says something to the > >effect that there isn't a straight line on the lute except the strings. > > I guess it depends on how you look at it. I prefer to think in terms > >that the lute has a center line and the neck is tilted. > > From my experience with the few different lutes I've made, the > >originals are not perfectly symmetrical. For many reasons age, stress etc. > >poor workmanship. For this reason alone, coming across Stadivari's template, > >and seeing first hand that lutes were conceived from the beginning to be > >perfectly symmetrical cleared up at least for me some of the mystery. > > I know many makers will copy a lute with every distortion, and > >imperfection, it seems for me that this might not be the way to do it. > > I wonder if these early makers had some mind set to stop just short of > >perfection? > >Michael Thames > >www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > >- Original Message - > >From: "Garry Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >To: "lute list" mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>> > >Sent: Monday, May 23, 2
Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of >composition. It is >a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi >architects >(Albert Speer...) used it a lot Interesting to note, the best lutemakers of the ren. were Germans. >Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but >something much more >exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it I'm not sure, but would venture to say, symmetry exists in ice crystal, and crystal formations? Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:38 AM Subject: was: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect > Sorry, but I can't agree with the two ideas expressed below by Michael > Thames: > > 1. poor workmanship on the part of old lutemakers > > 2. symmetry equals to perfection, therefore asymmetry = imperfection. > > Because: > > a. They had a superior craftmanship level, and could have done the lutes > perfectly symmetrical if they would have the desire and need to do so. > We only have to look at the perfectly spherical stone "balls" present in > so many buildings of the Renaissance. The sphere is, by the way, the > representation of absolute symmetry... > > b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of composition. It is > a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi architects > (Albert Speer...) used it a lot. > Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but something much more > exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it. > In the japanese aesthetic there is a word I can't remember now for this > idea of being perfect precisely through imperfection. > > All this relates with something of paramount importance in the > interpretation of early music, that we all know, and that I am going to > express with an example: if we have a measure with 4 /\ /\ , each one > has to be played with a different accent, stressed differently. This is > difficult for us because we were born in an epoch where everything is > mechanic, and handmade objects are luxury... Remember William Morris? > > I will dare to recommend you a book, Michael, that you could enjoy a > lot: Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization. > > Saludos, > > Manolo Laguillo > > > > Michael Thames wrote: > > >>Lundberg did not say that lute bellies weren't symmetrical, >just that the > >> > >> > >lute > > > > > >>as a whole doesn't have a clear center line. > >> > >> > > > > Without getting lundbergs book out, he says something to the > >effect that there isn't a straight line on the lute except the strings. > > I guess it depends on how you look at it. I prefer to think in terms > >that the lute has a center line and the neck is tilted. > > From my experience with the few different lutes I've made, the > >originals are not perfectly symmetrical. For many reasons age, stress etc. > >poor workmanship. For this reason alone, coming across Stadivari's template, > >and seeing first hand that lutes were conceived from the beginning to be > >perfectly symmetrical cleared up at least for me some of the mystery. > > I know many makers will copy a lute with every distortion, and > >imperfection, it seems for me that this might not be the way to do it. > > I wonder if these early makers had some mind set to stop just short of > >perfection? > >Michael Thames > >www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > >- Original Message - > >From: "Garry Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "lute list" > >Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:54 AM > >Subject: RE: Stradivari lute? > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >>>-Original Message- > >>>From: Michael Thames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:55 AM > >>>To: Lute net > >>>Subject: Stradivari lute? > >>> > >>> > >>> I noticed a lute template of the belly ( 11 course French lute) made > >>> > >>> > >from > > > > > >>>thick paper, folded down the middle to from the centre line, indicating > >>> > >>> > >to > > > > > >>>me, that lutes were originally conceived to be symmetrically prefect, > >>> > >>> > >and do > > > > > >>>in fact have a clear centre line, contrary to what Lundberg says. > >>> > >>> > >>[GB>] > >> > >>Lundberg did not say that lute bellies weren't symmetrical, just that the > >> > >> > >lute > > > > > >>as a whole doesn't have a clear center line. > >> > >>If you'll look at page 76 ( Practicum One: Making the Form ) in > >> > >> > >"Historical Lute > > > > > >>Construction", you'll notice that Lundberg's instructions coincide with > >> > >> > >what you > > > > > >>describe above. > >> > >>I'm sure that Martin Shepherd (first name out of the brain this morning.) > >> > >> > >or > > > > > >>someone else can probably give a concise description of the "asymmetry" of > >> > >> > >the > > > > > >>lute. It's too early for me; I need more coffee >:) > >> > >> > >> > >>To get on or off this list s
