I am new to this list, but not to the lute or lute construction. I am a
luthier operating in Nor Cal. (web site not yet complete). Thinning the edges
of a sound board and leaving the center thicker ( approx. 1.8 mm at center
tapering to 1.3 at edges) does cause the sound board to act as or similar to a
speaker cone. It stands to reason that fan bracing would lend itself to this
type of thicknessing. With this type of thicknessing and fan bracing, the sound
board resonates more like a singe plate causing a more homogeneous sustained
sound with fewer partials. ---Very pleasing to the modern ear.
From the Lundberg lecture notes, I was to understand that this is part of the
progression to the later Baroque lutes and have made an 11c in this manner. I
am very interested in this subject assuming that the "sound board" is indeed
from the 16th century and not re-braced. With three different tags inside, do
we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the whole soundboard was not remade
in the later half of the 17th century? -- It was a common practice. I saw no
discussion of that in the thread, only that there was no no sign of a "J" bar.
This could possibly change the modern understanding of the sound of the
Renaissance lute! If it can be verified, I will make them.
Michael Bocchicchio
Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Daniel
Well, thanks for replying, it is not always obvious that there is
someone out there "listening". I am happy that this topic is of
interest to you. I think we may be in a minority, but I don't really
know.
Just before, I talk briefly about that, I would like to point out,
that I forgot to mention another related feature, with J-barring and
Fan-barring. Generally, I believe, with fan-barring, the soundboard
is thicker towards the bridge and to the middle; while with J-
barring, the soundboard is thicker on the edges and thinner to the
middle. I imagine, if this is so, it could also play a role in
determining the way the resonances are amplified by the movement of
the soundboard. It is possible that if it is thicker to the middle,
some of the more complex wave patterns might be damped, while if it
is thinner in the middle, perhaps a more complex pattern can develop.
I may be quite wrong, here, but it seems plausible.
Now, if you consider that adding diapasons (11c to 13c) increases
sympathetic resonances, it could be that the fan-barring was
introduced to reduce the "confusing" effect of this, so as to control
the these sympathetic resonances.
Indeed, exceptional clarity was mentioned by both by Jakob for the
fan-barred Rauwolf and Wolfgang Emmerich for the similar Railich
(and Wolfgang, had tired the Railich with J and fan-barring).
Although in the case of the Rauwolf, we are only talking an 11c lute,
but it is a lute with a large capacity and a big soundboard, which
could have a similar effect to adding diapasons.
Related topic?
Statistically, if we examine Renaissance and Baroque paintings, it
has been claimed that there was a change from little finger near the
rose to little finger near the bridge (not every one agrees on this).
Mimmo Peruffo claims this relates to the introduction of a new type
of diapason (loaded) and I certainly won't argue against that; but,
it could also be that like fan-barring, playing at the bridge is a
way of controlling sympathetic resonances, as the number of diapasons
are increased.
If so, is there any sign that there might have been a change back to
a position closer to the rose with the introduction of fan-barred
lutes, or might the accumulative effect of damping harmonics been
sought-out?
I am aware that my INTUITIVE musings on this subject, will not
interest many. I am not a lute maker or an acoustician, so who am I
to talk about this issue? However, I have tried to formulate this as
a question, not an answer.
Indeed, I quite understand that lute structure, could seem totally
uninteresting to someone who just leaves all this to his lute maker.
Such a person may not care at all for what is on the inside of his lute.
Insufficient cross-"discipline" discussion?
In fact, most lute players tell me that the input from the player is
such that it doesn't really matter.
All you need to do is to find a good lute maker, leave this side of
the question to him, and then just through working on technique and
interpretation, you obtain the sound you want, what ever the lute.
Interpretation and technique would be the only relevant questions for
lutists. I do agree that they are by far the most important.
However, I somehow feel that the more we know (or even think) about
every detail surrounding the lute and its history, the closer we may
come to understanding the music.
I feel there is not enough discussion between lutists, lute makers
and string makers ("makers" often don't have time to talk about these
issues), and certainly not enough discussion between both of these
and musicologists.
A case in point:
In another recent message, I mentioned two Railich lutes, one that
has been studied in Prague by a lute maker, Wolfgang Emmerich, and
another that had been studied by an eminent professor in lutherie,
Professor Lippi, in Milan. When searching the web, I realized they
had both become specialists on this question, and I contacted them,
because some one on the French list noticed that the Railich
professor Lippi had put up on ebay had fan-barring, and he wondered
whether that was historic or an added feature.
I was very surprised to find that two such specialists who had tried
to make COMPARATIVE studies on these two recently discovered Railich,
had no idea of each other's existence (or of the discovery of the
other's Railich). I was able to put them in contact so they could
compare notes, but I think this shows there is inadequate contact
between the various specialist fields involved around the lute.
Interpretation and technique:
Now this is not to say that questions around interpretation and
technique are not more important, for the lutists, they certainly
are; and issues relating to interpretation will become a necessary
obsession to anyone working on a particular piece.
For example, if you are deep into musical interpretation of a piece,
Vivaldi, or other, then you are bound to be asking yourself questions
that seem completely obscure to someone who has never played it, or
has just played about with it. This could well be of great interest
to another player who is in the same situation. Perhaps, if we read
these messages very carefully we may learn something, or perhaps it
will just go over our heads; but I don't think that matters, so long
as a one or two are interested, and an exchange of ideas can take place.
This is a platform where you can safely try out your ideas, without
being quoted, as though you have written an article. Just formulating
them can be useful, even if in the end you may be the only listener
to your own message.
You may, on the other hand be completely refuted, and that can be
useful. Providing that the person formulates clear arguments. (as
opposed to insults, and sarcasm, as is occaionally the case) It is
better that this should happen informally than during a public debate.
Regards
Anthony
Le 16 nov. 07 à 17:08, Daniel Winheld a écrit :
> Yes, keep this information coming- It's exactly what this lute list
> is for; at least for some of us. Certainly more nuts and bolts
> oriented and practical in its implications than the ever more
> nebulous speculation over Vivaldi's lute intentions.
> - Dan
>
>> To any one interested about lute barrings
>>
>> Fan-Barring on the Rauwolf :
>> Indeed, I wrote a rather long report on the Rauwolf, for the
>> French lute list (this question may not interst you, if not I
>> appologize,
>> for adding it here).
>
> --
>
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
