Just an idea that I wouldn't know how to put into practice - they couldn't have roped but left a finer "tail" to go through the hole, could they? I'm thinking of a make of guitar and bass strings where only the core lies on the saddle and of course piano strings.
You may argue that there is a slight difference in the materials and method of manufacture involved... Anyway, I don't care - I haven't even got a baroque lute;-) Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Shepherd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 3:58 PM Subject: Re: thoughts on low tension on Baroque lutes > Dear Francesco, > > I agree completely that the sources suggest even "feel" across the strings, > and 13N or whatever is implausibly low. I don't know how to resolve the > apparently impossible combination of clear, stiff, non-roped, non-loaded > strings thin enough to go through bridge holes, and reasonable working > tension. One suggestion is obviously that the bridges with small holes are > not original! The biggest hole in the 1592 Venere lute is about 2mm, I > think. > > Also you're absolutely right that our speculations are limited by the > thinnest string that they could have made (presumably two guts laid end to > end) which was probably around .40mm. This has implications for the pitch > at which renaissance lutes might have been played - taking the 1592 Venere > as an example, we have a double top string, with a tension on each string of > about 40N if it's a "G lute" at a'=440. That seems rather high, so was the > pitch lower? > > When I said the roped strings sounded dull, I was comparing them with a > solid gut string of the same mass per unit length, not a wound string. > There seems to be something in the roped string which makes it dull - I > suggest some sort of internal damping or friction. > > We have a little iconographic evidence for coloured strings (mentioned by > Dowland, who advised us to use the lightest colours) but no direct evidence > for loaded strings. And the really difficult thing is that Dowland was > talking about the lute with the biggest open-string range (9c lute in the > old tuning) and therefore the biggest problem with getting basses to work. > Yet they commonly tuned the bottom course down a tone! > > We have no evidence (apart from the dubious Mest example) that wound strings > were ever used on lutes. Mimmo Peruffo's iconographic studies suggest that > wound strings were adopted on bowed instruments but not on lutes. And why > else does a "swan-neck" 13c lute have long basses? With modern wound > strings they sound like a grand piano. Remember also that both Thomas Mace > and the author of the Burwell tutor, writing some time after the invention > of wound strings, describe strings in some detail but never mention wound > strings. > > So we are left with some very difficult problems. I'm glad that more people > are now taking the debate seriously - who knows, we might end up with some > decent (and historically plausible) lute strings... > > Best wishes, > > Martin > > P.S. But I'd settle for just "decent". > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Francesco Tribioli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Edward Martin'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Martin Shepherd'" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Lute Net'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 11:14 PM > Subject: R: thoughts on low tension on Baroque lutes > > > > Dear Martin and Ed, > >> > >> historical fact. I have found the same results with roping, > >> that it gives a rather dull sound. The lower tension > >> solution seems to be logical. > > Do you really think that one could play with basses with a 1N or more less > > tended than the other strings? It contrasts with all historical tutorials > > we > > have. They all say that the tactile sensation must be the same on all the > > courses and I wholeheartedly agree with them. If there was a problem with > > the basses' tension surely they would have talked about this but actually > > they said to keep the tension costant more or less. > > I think that for 6c a regular gut string particularly twisted as > > could be Gamut Pystoys or Aquila Venice is OK. They are not roped but are > > like 3-4 thin regular twisted strings twisted again together, when the gut > > is still wet, and then polished to the right gauge. This kind of strings > > works very well for the V and VI courses of my Renaissance lute but of > > course one should not expect a very brilliant tone, like a wound string of > > course, and there is no reason to think that a so much brighter bass is > > actually better and that it was actually historical. I never had problem > > in > > stopping them together with the plain gut octaves as someone said to have, > > it's just a matter of developing a habit. > > For deeper strings the only solution is to found a working > > technology to load a gut string. Perhaps we haven't found the right one > > and > > I agree that the Aquila loaded strings were almost unusable due to the > > problems of intonation but I think in the past they did in some way. For > > Baroque lute there are some remnants of original strings (ask Mimmo > > Peruffo > > for this) that show they used demi-filee strings. For the transitional > > period when wound string were still not used who knows. There is need for > > more experiments, but I would surely draw out any hypothesis of different > > tensions amongst courses, just for musical reason. > > > > Francesco > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > >
