on 30/11/07 3:00 am, Alexander Batov at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dear Peter, > > First of all, thanks very much for your drawing-comparison of different fret > patterns (some of which are from the other source than Darryl Martin's > drawing). I don't know what to say about the differences ... Maybe Darryl > reads from this list and can comment on this. For the time being his drawing > (and the accompanying measurements) is the only official source of > information about the instrument, so I have little choice but rely on them. > > As for my, as you say, "discovery", well I haven't really discovered > anything (anybody can do it in just about five minutes or so). Besides, > that's what one would expect anyway from any 'workable' fingerboard on this > sort of instrument - a mixture(!), rather than strict adherence to one of > the regular patterns, be it ET or one of MTs. So it's not just of the > "meantone nature" but something in-between the two. > > The comparison table that you've made gives a good visual idea of > irregularities in the arrangement of frets. However, we are dealing with > rather small distances here, so perhaps the best way to analyze such > fingerboard would be to use deviation figures in cents from the equal > temperament. I might actually do this analysis later which in a way would be > continuation of what is already there in the table. Then it would be easier > to see the logic behind the arrangement and what steps were taken (if they > were taken at all ...?) towards choosing one temperament (or the direction > of shifting to / from it) in favour of the other. To illustrate what I'm > talking about, lets just take at least the first three "crucial" frets of > the Palmer orpharion. > > Open courses: G c f a d' g' > > fret1: G#, c#, f#, b-flat, e-flat, (g# or a-flat) > > fret2: A, d, g, b, e, a > > fret3: B-flat, e-flat, (g# or a-flat), c, f , b-flat > > For example, G#, c# and f# on the 1-st fret can perhaps be all sacrificed at > the expense of choosing more favourable fret shift for b-flat, e-flat and > a-flat (i.e. they are all useful in B-flat, E-flat and g-flat chords) from > 30.5mm where it is now (closer to a rather "mild" 1/8 MT @ 30.7mm), to 1/5 > or even 1/4 MT @ 32.7mm or 34.3mm accordingly. > > In a similar vein, B-flat, e-flat, a-flat and b-flat can all benefit by > shifting the 3-rd fret from 83.3mm (which is very close to ET @ 83.1mm) to > either 1/6 or 1/5 MT @ 84.3mm and 84.9mm accordingly. > > The second fret is positioned @ 55.5mm (closer to 1/5 MT @ 55.7mm) > This is a difficult one! The f-course on the second fret should be perfectly > in octave with both G- and g'-courses and, at the same time, when open - in > octave with the d'-course on the third fret; plus the a-course - in > octave with the g'-course on the second fret. I would probably choose a > rather "milder" 1/8 instead of 1/5 MT here but it all in the end depends how > the intervals between the open courses are tempered. > > Anyway, it's all that never ending circle. And please don't take too > seriously the freedom with which I'm 'shifting' frets on the precious > Palmer; it's only to give an idea! > > Alexander > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > Dear All,
Just a swift hands-on addendum rather than rejoinder. During the 1960s everything was in ET. My involvement with fixed fret instruments fortunately coincided with a number of professional and semi-professional lutenists taking an interest in meantone tuning and moving their frets accordingly - sometimes even angling them(!). My initial research consisted of asking those musicians at a Lute Society summer school of the mid 1970s, in which direction they moved their frets and how much? They all moved their frets in the same direction to a greater or lesser degree. Only Anthony Bailes was able to give numerical values. (Perhaps I should add that all those I approached, despite the difference of degree, went on to successful careers!). Important early articles were by Eugene Dombois, JLSA 1974 and The Lute 1982; Abbott and Segerman, FoMRHI October 1977. During an Illness in bed I laboriously (no musical training) worked my way through initially Holborne and Robinson, and later Virchi, Kargel and etc for the cittern; Holborne, Barley etc for the bandora and lute music for the orpharion, looking for enharmonics. These could be allowable in runs where the quickness of the hand could deceive the ear, but especially not in chords. Segerman's 1977 article suggested that frets could be 'averaged'. I disputed this in July 1983. On the cittern the only 'averaged' fret is the 11th. Other enharmonic frets are avoided by the music. For both bandora and orpharion there are potential problems on the 1st, 4th and 6th frets, particularly for orpharion. Lute players can move their frets but orpharion players may need to choose their repertoire more carefully. In practice, for both, the 4th and 6th fret notes can be pushed or pulled. The 1st is more difficult and I usually put extra part-frets on bandoras. There is some very tenuous evidence that some bandoras were made with extra frets. Averaging can work on the shorter string length of the orpharion. Peter Trent (Extempore Ensemble, etc.) kindly spent time working through a lot of repertoire on two citterns, in ET and 1/5 comma, to find out which sounded best. Meantone won easily; the most satisfying conclusion was that any deviation towards meantone away from ET gives better chords, so that it is in fact easier to set meantone frets than ET. (Anybody who wants to query what I mean by 'better' should repeat the experiment). This has obvious implications for measurements of frets on original instruments. Brussels 1524 is quite close to 1/6 comma. The RCM Campi also, except that his ruler seems to have slipped at the 10th fret. (See Segerman, FoMRHI Q April 1978, and my own confirmation deposited at the RCM). All other instruments that I know seem to be very variable. Perhaps these are the ones that never got played? Peter
