----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "LUTE-LIST" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:42 PM Subject: Re: Key discovery -- two bridge early viola da gamba, pluck and bow c.1500, Timoteo Viti painting
> Why would a second, flatter bridge be necessary to convert from bowing to plucking? A >flatter bridge would raise the strings unequally above the fingerboard (higher at the edges), >making left-hand fingerings, especially at higher positions, rather difficult. Hi Leonard; Fretboards were probably flatter in general (little radius). Also, ideal string spacing is very important to both plucking and bowing, and each has it's own optimums. String tension, at the respective touch points, also has to be factored. >Could this extra bridge instead represent a bridge for sympathetic strings (passing beneath >the main bridge) which might have been too fine for the artist to render? One of my freinds, Jonathan Wilson (builder of bowed guitars), suggested this to me. I told him that I didn't think viola d'amour were developed yet (only later in the century) and that the wire strings needed for such an instrument were also probably not available. [I see you'all have a thread here on wire strings but I haven't read through it yet]. Also, there's no sign of the additional tuning pegs needed for such an instrument. Most second small bridges on d'amours are generally in _front_ of the bowing bridge, I belive (not that this couldn't be reversed if the face was comparatively flat). Thanks Roger > > Regards, > Leonard Williams > > ============================================================ > From: Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2004/12/01 Wed AM 09:30:40 EST > To: LUTE-LIST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: FW: Key discovery -- two bridge early viola da gamba, pluck and > bow c.1500, Timoteo Viti painting > > From: "Roger E. Blumberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Newsgroups: rec.music.early > > > Hi all; > > I've been scouring the available viol and vihuela iconography, mostly > online, looking for the best connections between viols and guitars (plucked > vihuelas and violas and bowed viola da gambas) in the visual record. Adding > the > "viola sine arculo" plucked viola (violin-shape bodied guitar lets call it) > to the mix is the first necessary connector (thus moving away from the more > typically assiciated "pea-nut" shaped vihuela variant). From there, a wholly > unexpected find, a 2 bridge viola (6 string gamba) in a painting by Timoteo > Viti, c.1500 (Madonna and child). The blow-up clearly shows that the smaller > object behind the bowing bridge is a low, flat topped, plucking bridge, > laying on it's side behind the bowing bridge and tucked under the strings > closer to the tail. The plucking bridge has clearly defined angled tappers > at both ends and on the underside cut-out, and has well defined flat > bottomed feet as well. I'm guessing that neither bridge was fixed, you just > swap them around as desired. The action (string height) with the bowing > bridge in place (as shown in the picture) does appear high, which makes > sence if you have a fixed non-adjustable neck, i.e. it's to be expected in a > two-in-one compromise instrument. If you are playing only within the upper > frets portion of the neck, the higher action at the bridge is less of an > issue -- because the string height at the nut is still low. > > Initial detail of painting (as recieved) [via French Federation of Viola da > gamba Societie's web site] is here . . . > http://www.thecipher.com/viol_TimoteoViti_c1500Madonna-italy.jpg > blow-up detail of bridges is here . . . > http://www.thecipher.com/viol-guitar_Viti_2bridge-c1500detail.jpg > > main page context on my site -- viola sine arculo section and series of > pictures is the relevant spot. That page is very graphic heavy so it will > take time to load. > http://www.thecipher.com/viola_da_gamba_cipher-2.html > > Most viola da gamba historians, societies, and web sites, now suggest (if > not declare) that viola da gamba are probably decendant from "some kind" of > Spanish/Italian early guitar (vihuela viola). I agree -- and have agreed for > quite some time but via other kinds of proofs and logics. While most VDGS's > are finally making this claim (vihuela to viol) none seem to be > diligently looking for nor displaying _vihuela/viola_ iconography > side-by-side with the early viola da gamba iconography, all in one place and > at the same time, so we can really *see* the visual _connections_ in the > record between instruments. This is what I've been trying to do and show, > and I believe I've now suceeded -- to the point that it's beyond the > shadow of a doubt. > > The instrument in the Viti painting is a key connector instrument even > without it's double bridge, that's why I selected it in the first place. > It's two bridges, which I only recognized as being such later in the evening > (last night), was the unexpected windfall making the specimen particularly > special and unique. Even if by chance this turns out _not_ to be a second > bridge, the connections amoung the instruments seen in the series of violas > on my full page #2 , plucked and bowed (starting with the Boria Apt viola at > the top), and including the Viti picture, are strong enough in their own > right to prove the point, that viols and guitars are one, I believe. > > So is this our smoking gun? Are there any doubts left? Is that not a second > (plucking) bridge? Comments welcomed and appreciated. > > Thanks > Roger > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > ============================================================ > > >
