Dear Francesco. Thomas, et all, This is an interesting thread (pun intended) , as I think we are really discussing the hows and why's, in the metamorphosis of the lute. By that, I mean how the instrument changed through the times, why the transition tunings appeared, but were short lived, and the d minor tuning was finally established.
I think that the d minor tuning configuration is a result of experimentation, and I believe many factors were involved, but the possibilities of string technology was a limiting factor. Francesco gives us many examples of mensurs, pitches, etc. He points out that the players & builders seemed to usually string the instruments at their highest and lowest possible limits. For example, the treble at f would be at the highest possible pitch, before the treble would break. In terms of the low (C or A, depending on 11 vs 13 course), those respective pitches pushed the low register limits. Francesco's description of a bass rider adding length was out of necessity, as there were limitations on how thick a string could be before it was too ridiculously large in diameter to give a good sound. I think lutes sound the best when the high & low pitch ranges are at their limits. ed >X-Ironport-AV: i="3.87,106,1099285200"; > d="scan'208"; a="453331569:sNHT14010244" >X-RF-Exists: >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 >X-Mailing-List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:34:58 +0100 >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "Francesco Tribioli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: thoughts on low tension on Baroque lutes > >Dear Elias, > > Gaultier-Portrait shows the little finger even behind the > > bridge. 3 different positions, 3 different moments, 3 > > different painters, etc..... How should a painter of our days > > do a piano player's hands showing "typically Russian" > > technique? Would someone be able 500 years later to tell? I > > think no painter would care about it, noone would have the > > knowledge to even observe details like that. Nor would the > > pianoplayer give any importance to it. >Right, but in the mean the right hand of the portraied baroque lute players >is closer to the bridge of that, say, of Francesco da Milano. Then there >might be differences, someone closer to the bridge, someone with the pinky >behind the bridge etc. depending on the personal taste and the hand of the >player. There are the same differencies nowadays amongst different players. > > > rather low tension, also for the sake of general sound. A > > Polish lutenist that has attended seminars with H. Smith > > confirmed that, he said that Smith is using low tension not > > only on baroque but also on renaissance lute and on vijuela. > > I can hear the difference even on CDs, however for > > renaissance lute I generally prefer the sound of somewhat > > higher tension. >We should understand what "low tension" means. As physics of strings >demonstrates, given a 70cm baroque lute and a 0.40 chantarelle you can never >go below ~3.7N of tension unless you tune the lute a lot below its nominal >pitch or chose a smaller lute, and both things are unhistorical. This >chantarelle tension means a general tension of around 2.9-3N for the other >courses or the chantarelle would be too much stiff compared to the other >strings. This is the lowest possible tension, then it might be that someone >uses a higher tension in Baroque lutes, I don't know, but if one uses gut >basses this is not a good idea because those strings are already pretty >thick (even if loaded or half wound) and rising the tension means to have >thicker basses that actually would sound worse. There are quite limited >choices in stringing a lute when using gut strings, because lutes were >designed to exploit the possibilities of gut strings at their extreme >limits. With synthetic or wound strings there is much more freedom but it's >no more historical. > The same holds for Renaissance lutes. The diapason of a Renaissance >lute is the longest possible to have a chantarelle tuned at g pitch (or the >lute nominal pitch) lasting 2-3 weeks and the thickness of the chantarelle >is the smallest possible in order to have basses as thin as possible. At the >time it was impossible to make strings thinner that 0.40mm that means a >tension for the other courses of ~2.7N. My opinion is that the single >chantarelle was due to the need to have a higher tension for it while >keeping the same feeling under the fingers of the other course, double >stringed but with lower tension. Lower tension for the lower strings means >thinner basses and a lower possible low pitch. Renaissance lute remained >with 6c until a new string technology, whatever it was, gave the possibility >to have bass strings brilliant enough at lower pitches, only then a 7th >course was added. Moving to 10c or 11c didn't change the lowest pitch that >was determined by the string technology. Actually the lowest note of an 7c >is D while on a 10c or a French Baroque 11c is C. To go one tone below (or >to say better a minor third as the pitch was now at 415Hz) was possible >because both 10c and 11c have a longer diapason. ~64cm minus ~59cm is a >little more the space of a fret, i.e. between a semitone and a tone lower, >and ~68cm is something more than a whole tone below a Renaissance lute, >which keeps the thickness of the lowest bass more or less the same. This of >course forced to research different tunings in order to have the possibility >to lower the pitch of the chantarelle, because at those lengths it lasts too >much less than on a Renaissance lute or even breaks at once. In fact the >first accordes nouveaux changed only the higher part of the old tuning and >always in the direction of lowering the highest pitch. 10c lute is a very >problematic instrument because it's too long for having a long lasting >chantarelle in old tuning and too short to have a good sounding low C. It >din't survived too much indeed. The D minor tuning was the winning solution >but it didn't affected the pitch of the lowest string that remained C (on an >11c) just because thicker strings wouldn't have worked well enough. 13c was >possible because the bass rider adds ~6cm to the vibrating length and >actually the low A has the same thickness of the C on the fingerboard: again >all things corresponds. > Ornamentation is not a problem with a tension of ~3N because the >longer diapason makes it a lot more easier that on a Renaissance lute with a >10cm shorter neck. It is very comfortable indeed, much more than on a >Renaissance lute. It isn't a chance that extensive use of the strascino >(i.e. slurs) is reserved to theorbos, baroque guitars and baroque lutes, >that is instruments with long diapasons. > >Francesco > > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
