Dear Michael, That's good to know - considering it's my lute! [I've got a Grant Tomlinson based on the Widhalm (MIR 903).] Good to know!
Best, Benjamin In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Benjamin, and all, > I'm sure you will get some advice from others concerning historical > strings, on ren. and early baroque lutes. > However, I would like to throw a wrench into the works by sharing this > corespondence I recieved today from Klaus Martius, concerning late Baroque > lutes. Some fairly clear evidence. Also, the fact that the Brunner was made > in 1765, the same time when first classical guitar, with single strings > (Wound metal on silk) started to appear. It would be almost unimaginable > that these late baroque lutenist's didn't use overspun basses. Also, when > you take into account the different bracing and arching to accomodate this > new inovation ( wound basses) > So, all of us who use overspun basses on baroque lutes can sleep easier > now, knowing that there is historical > evedence pointing to there use. > > From Klaus...... > Michael, > 3) I have no observation about wound strings in the base, but I am pretty > sure they used wound strings since you find it on the pegs, where the > woundings have left their traces pressed into the wood (how old those > pressed in features are I dont know). > > 2) When we took off the bridge of the Widhalm (MIR 903) there was a rather > clear arching a long the bridge, following the top arching continu(e?)ing > the arching of the fingerboard and the upper block. It also was very clear > to see it on the lower end of the lute, looking from the endclasp along with > the instrument. You are the first person to agree with this observation of > Ian Watchorn (who used to work at the GNM twenty years ago). I never found > this arching again that clear. In most the cases you cant say anything about > that in terms of distortion round the bridge area > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Benjamin Narvey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 5:21 AM > Subject: Minikins, Catlins, Lyons, Pistoys, Gimped... > > > > Hello Lutenetters! > > > > After about one year of experimenting with gut, I've come to realise that, > > actually, I know precious little detail about the historical types of > strings > > mentioned above, and just how they relate (and indeed, if they do!) to the > > modern gut strings with the same titles. Does anybody out there know? > (ahem, > > ahem, Mimmo, are you still out there? Martin???) > > > > I realise the question of stringing really is the $64,000 question (if > indeed, > > I have the sum right - the game show offered some significant remuneration > at > > any rate), and that the poverty of knowledge about such historical types > is > > perhaps the most pressing lacuna concerning historical performance on the > lute > > to date. I have read Mace and Varietie, amongst other historical sources, > that > > deal with stringing in order to better understand what was going on then - > but > > I find the information I have been able to glean lacking in precision. > What > > soures are today's stringmakers reading? Am I missing something? I have > also > > visited various stringmaking sites such as Gamut and Aquila - but here too > I > > find the description of historical string types to be lacking, as too is > the > > clarity between the historical types and their modern appellative heirs. > > > > So, if anyone could tell me (that is, if it is known/or at least what is > > known) about these historical types and their modern equivalents I'd be > well > > pleased! I'm sure that if anyone knows, anyone will be on this list! > > > > All best! > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > >
