Re: was: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
-Original Message- From: Ed Durbrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 27, 2005 12:19 PM To: lute list Subject: Re: was: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect I just happened to be reading a book by Peter Van der Merwe at the moment called Roots of the Classical The Popular Origins of Western Music. He has some interesting comments on symmetry. He maintains that symmetry can be perceived by sight, by hearing and by the sense of time - and that is all. He goes on to talk about musical hierarchies such as pattern recognition in rhythm. ++Yes, this is correct. Symmetry is very powerful concept that transcends specific sense modalities. I find it interesting that since the perception of music is completely dependent on memory, that symmetry can be a fluid thing. ++Yes, this is true. Experts use symmetry to solve problems. Experts at memorizing music recall pieces by pattern recognition and this involves the identification of symmetry or the lack of it. That is, you don't need to repeat the same number of measures to get a sense of symmetry, you only need a section that balances in mental weight. Maybe there is some corollary with instruments? ++No, you don't need to. (There are other devices such as inversion which Bach used.) However, if you do you still can get a sense of symmetry. Symmetry and randomization are related to information compression. That is why you can write a repeat sign in your composition and this saves you the trouble of having to copy the whole section over to get the same effect. The repeat sign is a way to signify symmetry and to practice information compression. Any part of the repeated part that cannot be compressed without losing information is said to be "random" for that reason, (random in the information-theory sense and not necessarily chaotic.) I can also heartily recommend the Mumford book. Parts of it are so insightful and fresh that it amazes me that it was published in 1934. I still haven't finished it. There is a lot of info in it. cheers, ++Thank you for the suggestion. >b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of composition. ++It depends on what kind of symmetry. Reflection of inversion symmetry are more interesting than exactly copying the same thing over. Then there is the symmetry that some renaissance composers practiced. They would take the cantus line of the composition of a colleague and make it the alto line of their own compostion. This is a kind of symmetry that linked composers together in the late 1400s. They were a close-knit group. I don't have O.Petrucci's Cantus B volume here in the studio but if anyone is interested in an example of this I can find it later. It is an example of symmetry in music that is not boring. 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
Re: was: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
I just happened to be reading a book by Peter Van der Merwe at the moment called Roots of the Classical The Popular Origins of Western Music. He has some interesting comments on symmetry. He maintains that symmetry can be perceived by sight, by hearing and by the sense of time - and that is all. He goes on to talk about musical hierarchies such as pattern recognition in rhythm. I find it interesting that since the perception of music is completely dependent on memory, that symmetry can be a fluid thing. That is, you don't need to repeat the same number of measures to get a sense of symmetry, you only need a section that balances in mental weight. Maybe there is some corollary with instruments? I can also heartily recommend the Mumford book. Parts of it are so insightful and fresh that it amazes me that it was published in 1934. I still haven't finished it. There is a lot of info in it. cheers, >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 see list information at >>>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >-- -- Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/
Re: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Some "symmetries" are more elusive, perhaps more like "balance," as in well-done asymmetric single tai chi forms,where things like arm extensions still complement each other, as Manolo comments about playing 4 4. And, since lutes suffer physical distortion with age, a more well-aged lute would, I suppose, have begun with asymmetries to counter aging. And, following At 12:36 PM 5/23/05, Michael Thames wrote: >Manolo, > Yes, thanks for the ideas, and I would love to read the book by Lewis > Munford, and will order it today. > >However, I do differ with you on the workmanship aspect. For instance, >I've noticed in lutes that I've personally examined, having a bugle where >the spine goes into the end clasp, maybe not too clear. Many lutemakers >I've spoken with including Paul Thompson can't see why anyone would make a >new lute like this. >Also, the Yale Jauch is very much distorted beyond any reasonable > artistic expression, and the belly shape needs to be reconstructed, to be > acceptable, in this case you can't blame tension and humidity, only the > workman ship >The other point being, lutes have most likely distorted over the > centuries so the actual shape may not be what we think it is. The > symmetrical templates of Stradivari at least, gives us a clue, as to > where they were starting from. > > It is almost impossible to make a perfectly symmetrical anything, > lute, guitar etc. they will all differ slightly no matter how hard one > tries to achieve perfect symmetry. However one has to start somewhere. > > > >In the japanese aesthetic there is a word I can't >remember now for > this > >idea of being perfect precisely through imperfection > > I believe the term for it is Wabe Sabe. > > The American Indians leave out threads in their woven rugs to make > them imperfect and hence, satisfy the evil sprits. > I've long suspected that the lutemakers of the past had a similar idea, > the imperfection of man, but that can be achieved simply by trying to be > perfect. > That being said, there are some lutes that appear to be very > symmetrical, as well. > All the best, >Michael Thames >www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: Manolo Laguillo > To: Michael Thames ; 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 perfectl
Re: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Manolo, Yes, thanks for the ideas, and I would love to read the book by Lewis Munford, and will order it today. However, I do differ with you on the workmanship aspect. For instance, I've noticed in lutes that I've personally examined, having a bugle where the spine goes into the end clasp, maybe not too clear. Many lutemakers I've spoken with including Paul Thompson can't see why anyone would make a new lute like this. Also, the Yale Jauch is very much distorted beyond any reasonable artistic expression, and the belly shape needs to be reconstructed, to be acceptable, in this case you can't blame tension and humidity, only the workman ship The other point being, lutes have most likely distorted over the centuries so the actual shape may not be what we think it is. The symmetrical templates of Stradivari at least, gives us a clue, as to where they were starting from. It is almost impossible to make a perfectly symmetrical anything, lute, guitar etc. they will all differ slightly no matter how hard one tries to achieve perfect symmetry. However one has to start somewhere. >In the japanese aesthetic there is a word I can't >remember now for this >idea of being perfect precisely through imperfection I believe the term for it is Wabe Sabe. The American Indians leave out threads in their woven rugs to make them imperfect and hence, satisfy the evil sprits. I've long suspected that the lutemakers of the past had a similar idea, the imperfection of man, but that can be achieved simply by trying to be perfect. That being said, there are some lutes that appear to be very symmetrical, as well. All the best, Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Manolo Laguillo To: Michael Thames ; 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: Stradivar
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 see list information at >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >> >> > > > > > > --
