That is probably why it survived. No one could play it.
RT
On 10/15/2014 4:41 PM, Dan Winheld wrote:
Damn, I would have put money on a scenario involving a furious
Papazian owner losing a $5,000 sale to a buyer that your article would
have warned off. (Those things will take your left hand off at the
wrist faster than a Pirhana in the bathtub if you attempt a barre
chord. I speak from personal experience.)
13 course spacing at the bridge? My own Robert Lundberg original is
exactly 150, on the nose. Works perfectly for me. One of my Baroque
lute students (Burkholtzer copy) has about 155, feels like "A Bridge
too Far" to me, playing 12th & 13 w/thumb, & top 3 courses w/ima- but
preferable to too narrow. My other Baroque lute student also has a
Burkholtzer copy by the same builder has a much narrower spacing, (his
exact specs to the builder) too narrow for me and everyone else who
has ever tried it (including Nigel North) but he is perfectly
comfortable, never misses a note because of the spacing. Has large
hands, too.
On spacing, general guidelines yes, kind of, but a very personal
thing, so YMMV. The string spacing at the bridge on the original
Chambure Vihuela is apparently much too narrow for virtually anyone;
both Barber-Harris & Dan Larson only offer it as a cautionary option.
Dan
On 10/15/2014 12:51 PM, howard posner wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 12:39 PM, r.turov...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually the brouhaha was mainly about the bridge width, even before
I could get to the distorted swanneck curve..
Previous discussions indicate that there’s a lot of disagreement with
your view of bridge spacing; you might want to make it clear that
there are players who have different views.
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
