Dear Alexander:
Just how many authentic Vihuelas are actually still in existence? Is the
existing music for this instrument of fine enough quality to warrant making
the instrument? In other words, is there a market for it?
VW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Batov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "bill kilpatrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: fluted ribs
> Dear Bill,
>
> You've touched an eternal question ...
> As in most cases with bowl back early instruments - vihuelas are not
> excluded - you never know where aesthetics end and acoustics begin, or
vice
> versa. If we exclude aesthetics altogether we'll end up by stretching
> strings over the rectangular box (practice not uncommon , for example,
among
> the nomads of Mongolia: they used empty lamp oil canisters as a resonator
> box for their one-string spike fiddles). It doesn't seem that four sharp
> corners of a classical violin do very much with the acoustics from the
first
> look, and they are quite troublesome to work with, but nevertheless
> figure-of-eight shaped violins didn't catch up. French experimented a lot
> with different violin shapes in the 19th century and F. Savart's
> trapezoid-shape violin is just one of the extreme examples (I came across
> one of his violins of this sort in the St-Petersburg collection and it
> looked and sounded awful).
>
> As for the fluted-back vihuelas, apart from the aesthetics, yes they do
> sound distinctly, at least from the flat-back type ("better", from my
point
> of view), but how much they are different from, say, vaulted (but not
> fluted)-back vihuelas I cannot tell you at the moment. I'm actually
thinking
> of conducting this experiment in the future: two vihuelas with identical
> body measurements and outlines and, to a certain degree,body volume but
one
> with fluted and vaulted and the other with just vaulted back. As it
follows
> from the historical accounts, vihuelas with these three types of backs
were
> being made: flat, vaulted and vaulted and fluted and so there must be a
> purpose for this. The difference in the sound can be very subtle but
> nevertheless significant. Even with the same amount of air enclosed in the
> body and close values of the main body air resonance frequencies (Helmholz
> resonance), the spectral characteristics of the sounds are different. We
are
> only in the beginning of our vihuela reconstruction age and will probably
> remain there for a while.
>
> One experiment that I've conducted so far is with ebony and cocobolo
fluted
> ribs on the same size / shape / string length model and the sounds are
> different! I don't even know which one I would preferred ... The one with
> the ebony ribs is a touch "drier" but with more "transparency", a cocobolo
> one has a wider spectrum with more "ringing" in high harmonics range.
Ebony,
> Portuguese ebony are mentioned in the inventories of the workshops of 16th
> century Spanish violeros, so it was, in a way, their "strategic" material.
>
> What also seems to me important in the fluted-back vihuela construction is
> its stability: if you set strings right over the fingerboard, that's it.
The
> whole structure is very rigid and may partly be responsible for a longer
> sustain of sound. Solid ebony neck on the Dias vihuela definitely affects
> the sound, not only prolonging its sustain even more but adding extra
> "crispness" and "distinctness" to it. I could have explained this in terms
> of acoustics but I might cause you to get tired.
>
> The sound of the vihuela is not only determined by the type of its back.
> Soundboard thickness and barring structure affect it too. From the point
of
> view of historic vihuela construction, it does seem that the use of more
> than two bars on the soundboard should probably be ruled out. Both on the
> E.0748 and the Dias vihuela soundboards only two bars are used (original
> soundboard didn't survive on the Dias but the rests for the bar ends did
and
> they are two plus two on both sides) and the same seems to be the case for
> the earliest surviving Italian 5-course guitars. So variation in thickness
> remains the only option for changing the acoustical properties of the
> vihuela soundboard (apart from the acoustical parameters of the soundboard
> wood itself). How much freedom we can allow ourselves with varying
> soundboard thickness? Here again there is a definite lack of information.
We
> now have some idea about this from the E.0748 vihuela soundboard (and, to
> some extend, from the Jacquemart-Andre one) and this is already better
than
> nothing. The E.0748 has, however a rather wide soundboard, so the
> thicknessing has to be proportionally re-worked for a slender body. The
> soundboards of the earliest surviving 5-course guitars (which were the
> closest acoustical relatives, if I can put it that way, to the vihuelas)
> also provide some ideas on the thickness of soundboards and, from my
> personal experience with some original 17th century guitars, this
variation
> can be as much as 1mm! The guitar I'm currently restoring (made or
converted
> / re-converted in Milan in 1633) has a rather thin soundboard and again
with
> just two bars (original barring was of course altered during subsequent
> later conversions but that's the case with virtually all 17th century
> guitars). Sound logic and examples of how soundboard thickness varies in
> other early string instruments (lutes for example) suggest that it
wouldn't
> be surprising to expect similar variations in the early vihuela
soundboards
> too.This is where the maker's experience and approach is important and
> that's why we all sound different. And nice sound with added looks has a
> tendency of becoming even better.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Alexander Batov
> www.vihuelademano.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bill kilpatrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "lute list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 4:40 AM
> Subject: fluted ribs
>
>
> > is there anything to be gained from fluted rib
> > construction in bowl back instruments? ... extra
> > strength? ... "better" sound? ... esthetics? seems
> > like a lot of trouble to go to if the technique is
> > only used for esthetics.
> >
> > - bill
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
