Interesting. Some of the paintings I have come across seem to mimic this instrument in certain characteristics, namely the box body with the keybox completely within the boundaries of the soundboard, instead of hanging over like a 'neck'.
It seems to me that a natural transition would be to have a box sinphone, and to make the soundbox a bit bigger, maybe flatter, while running then into problems with how wide the keybox becomes. Thus a reason for the first 'two piece' instrument, you get more precision, and more ecomony of materials, in keeping your keybox narrow as possible, and as long as you are separating the keybox from the soundbox, you might as well make it following best engineering practices. So in looking for a starting point, a likely cantidate for a transitional instrument, would reason dictate stacked boxes or offset stacked boxes as the best way to go? I know there is no real development path to the sinphone in it's appearance or ergonomics, so a single box seems like a dead-end in the development path. And another question to throw out. When would be a reasonable timeframe to start adding a chromatic keyset to a gurdy? We probably have paintings from a time that show only diatonic instruments, and then from a time that show mostly chromatic instruments, so where in that bracket would it have likely become somewhat common practice to build chromatic instruments? What I can be reasonably certain of so far is that the wheel would have been ~15 cm, and that there would have been no more than 5 strings, likely only 3 or 4. Again, thank you to everyone who is putting their ideas into this project, I am grateful for the help. Chris Nogy *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 2/5/2007 at 8:25 AM Seth Hamon wrote: What about this wild looking Italian gurdy ... http://shrike.depaul.edu/~jralyea/BzHG.htm Chris Nogy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Great as a starting place. Now I'm still just studying physics on these animals, but it seems to me that a chien would be most responsive when it is placed so that it contacts the wheel just above the horizontal center at rest, but that it would be most consistent placed some distance higher on the arc. If 14 cm (about 5.5 inches give or take?) would be the practical limit of a solid wheel, then in order to get 2 chanters, 2 drones and a trompette the wheel would have to be mounted with the bearings very close to the soundboard (to give enough room for everything - 2 inches or so gets eaten up very quickly). Would there every have been a situation where the bearings and shaft were mounted above the soundboard? Just trying to get some more practical guidelines. Thanks Chris Nogy *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 2/3/2007 at 7:14 PM Arle Lommel wrote: >Chris, > >> For example, I know that at that time music was becoming more >> entertainment, more secular. Would this indicate the wheel size >> and crank size would be getting bigger so that players could play >> longer, or the wheel size and crank size getting smaller so that >> players could play more brightly and lively? > >Rather the opposite is true. If you want to play longer, a smaller >wheel with a short crank is an advantage because it minimizes the >movement of the hand and wrist. The Hungarian instruments have quite >small wheels and cranks, and if players really want to do the >historically accurate thing of playing three-hour csárdás sets, they >actually get special shorter cranks to do just that. > >In any event, until multiple-ply wheels were in use, your practical >limit for wheel size would be not much more than 14 cm, so in the >early periods you are talking about you wouldn't find large wheels at >all. > >Best, > >Arle
