Low tension, especially for lutes in the new tunings from the early 17thC has been discussed fairly recently on this list (see archives). The preponderance of evidence for the little finger close/on/behind the bridge at this time may suggest a relatively low tension (so low, it can even be argued, that plain high twist gut is sufficiently thin to go through some of the extant small bass bridge holes). I've tried very low tensions (lower than yours now) and it certainly has some positive aspects if one can shake off any need for great projection.
Incidentally, pitch as such isn't the crucial factor of course since one could use thicker strings at a lower pitch to maintain previous 'high' tensions. MH --- On Sun, 29/6/08, Nigel Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Nigel Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [LUTE] very low pitch > To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, 29 June, 2008, 12:07 PM > I recently tuned my 72cm 13-course down to a tone below 415 > (with > strings intended for 392, so half a tone lower than that) > and it really > came to life. Could it be the lower tension strings (now > around 3.5 on > the top course, basses around 2.5, octaves 2.3or 2.4) or > the fact that > the pitch suits the lute better? Does anybody else play > baroque lute at > such a low pitch (and get away with it?) Pitch I know is a > very debated > subject, but if you are playing alone (usually but not > always the case > with baroque lute) surely you are less confined to what the > Pyramid or > Kurschner or Savarez string chart says you should be using? > > Nigel > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
