Anthony, et all,
Wonderful information! Thank you.
Although I wasn't able to attend the Lundberg lectures (I do posses the notes,
though), I was fortunate enough to correspond with Mr. Lundberg often in his
last few years. Bracing was one of our subjects of conversation. The way I
understood his position was that, operating with a lack of research and little
historical data, there were attempts at fan bracing Renaissance lutes made in
the late 60's early 70's. These, he said, were a failure. I didn't get the
impression that he condemned the entire concept.
Here is just a theory. Taking a lute such as C34, with a deep body or large
air cavity for its size and with a narrower vibrating plate, and enhancing or
loosening up the bass side by removing the J bar (adding fan bracing) would
result in a "boomy" unchecked bass response that would sound hollow and
"muddy". In my opinion, this result would be a complete failure. Having said
that, put the aforementioned setup on Dieffopruchar with a large vibrating
plate (allowing the frequencies to ring out) and shallower body, and I would
expect a very different result. These will be time consuming but fun
experiments.
Due to my enthusiasm about this topic, I may have overstated its potential
affect on modern lute sound. We know that most Ren. lutes were braced with
transverse braces, a J shaped bass bar, and two treble bars. It would be
anachronistic to play all Renaissance music on a fan braced lute. However, I
couldn't begin to address if that matters. I will leave that to the current
hermeneutics of musicologists. Maybe it will be the equivalent of the modern
uses of the Stratocaster vs. Les Paul. My analogy: you need a Stratocaster to
play The Shadows, not a Les Paul.
I can't wait to hear more as more is discovered!
MB
Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thank you Michael for this very clear
explanation of the effects of
fan-barring.
As you were present at the Lundberg lectures, you may be better able
to clarify his position.
I sent a message grouped to yourself, Daniel, Howard, and Andrew, so
I will not repeat myself here, but I am understanding the quesition
better. I am still not sure how this might effect our choice of a
lute for a particular piece of music, as I explain in that message.
Actually, Jakob has used this lute for Dowland etc, with success, but
would the fan-barring be somehow anachronistic, and does this matter?
Regards
Anthony
Le 18 nov. 07 à 06:34, Michael Bocchicchio a écrit :
> 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 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
>
>
> --
--
