Now that I've opened the possibility of being cast out I'm going to forward the dialog between Music Makers and myself regarding Jerry's "flat back lute". I apologise for a late night message to Jerry that may be a bit "over the top" i my judgements (and I realize there is a value to changing the temperament - it is not a canard - but unlikely to be useful to all players). I'd had a few beers when I wrote mine to Jerry, but if I edit out all the possibly offensive parts of my message I'd lose the context.
Best, Jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Musicmaker's Kits, Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:15 AM Subject: Re: lutes > Dear Jon, > > Thanks for passing along the opinions from the Lute list. My email was down > last Friday, so I didn't get to reply until this morning. I am completely aware of all the > criticisms of our flat-back instrument, and I'll give you the reasons for our straying from > tradition. > > > They are purists, they don't want fixed frets, they want to tie gut around > > the fingerboard neck. (Don't ask me why, they speak of the flexibiliry of > > equal tempered versus natural temperament, but that is a canard, it would > > mean "squidging" the tied fret in the way that a violinist can work the > > unfretted fingerboard, and then "squidging" it back. I'm getting pretty > > good on the retuned guitar with Ronn's book. > > We decided on fixed frets because most of our customers wil be beginners at this > instrument, just like you will be. Tying gut strings around the neck and adjusting them > for proper intonation would send most beginners over the hill, including me. As you > suggest, it is no problem to slide some notes if a person wants to, even with fixed > frets. We think the maple strips make a neat "intermediate" compromise between gut > strings and the modern metal frets. They require some sanding to level the tops and > round over the edges, but they work very well and look quite distinctive. > > > I think I know the reasons, and they come from the rather fixated > > traditionalists. They have clearly expressed that they don't like the > > "saddle bridge". I asked what that was and they told me it was the > > classical guitar bridge - the lute has no "bridge", just a bridge where the > > strings pull directly from the holes in the "bridge piece". I don't think > > I'd like to have an instrument with a direct horizontal pull with no down > > pressure on the "saddle". Would have to have damned good glue. > > We are selling mostly to woodworking hobbyists who have varying ability to achieve a > perfectly flat surface from the peghead end of the neck to the point where the bridge is > installed. Adding a saddle to the bridge simply gives these amateur builders the > means to raise and lower the string action as needed. Seems like a silly feature to get > upset about. I think it also enhances the transfer of string vibration to the soundboard, > but I may be wrong. > > > They don't like the "rock guitar" extension of the treble of the > > fingerboard. Look carefully at the cover picture of Ronn McFarlane's book, > > you will see that treble extension fixed into the sound board. And you will > > see that the fingerboard is flush with the sound board to make that work. > > That configuration would bring the strings lower to the soundboard, through > > their entire length, than on your design. I have no idea what the effect on > > the sound would be. > > We debated going without a fretboard, but again, the problems that would give the > amateur builder seemed to us to be too risky. The use of a separate thin board on top > of the neck allows for a much simpler joint between the neck and body (hidden under > the fretboard) and gives the builder much more flexibility for leveling the playing > surface of the instrument. > > > I have asked for feedback, and I may get it. It is too early to tell. I've > > also asked a number of other questions, and will let you know when I hear > > back. It is my opinion that the Lute Society of America is a bunch of > > European snobs that don't realize that all instruments develop over time. > > And they are fixated in the sixteenth century. I've had conversations with > > them on Elizabethan pronounciations versus some earlier things, such as > > Chaucer. > > I agree with your assessment of the Lute Society. It is not unlike the American Harp > Society snubbing their noses at lever harps. > > When we first began producing Lute kits a few years ago, our string spacing was too > narrow for easy playing, but we've corrected that. We also started with strings that > were not up to par, but we now supply very nice custom strings from LaBella. I was > concerned that you might hear feedback about those early problems, but it seems as > though the people who are critiquing our instrument are mainly concerned with > appearances. Perhaps they've never actually tried one out for playability and sound > production. Frankly, I think there is a place for a "beginner" instrument in that field of > music. Too bad the pros are so high and mighty about it. > > --Jerry------------------------------------------------------------- > Musicmaker's Kits, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > P.O. Box 2117 http://www.musikit.com > Stillwater, MN 55082 (651)439-9120 > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >
