My dear Watson,
The logic is clear enough - you can put a thin string through a bigger
hole, but not vice-versa. So if we have some well authenticated
original bridges with small holes (a few would do - it doesn't have to
be a majority) then we have to explain this. We also have to remember
that the Old Ones didn't have highly engineered twist drills for every
0.1mm, so they may well have drilled some oversize holes as a matter of
technical practicality. The small holes can be explained by increased
string density (loading or winding with metal, for instance) or low
tension, or only part of the string going through the hole, or maybe
something we haven't thought of yet - but it's not magic. To say that
we don't know how they made their bass strings is obviously true, but
the possibilities are pretty limited - so it's not good enough to say
"we don't know how they did it so we might as well just use overspun
strings", at least not if we have any interest in how the lute might
have sounded before the invention of modern wound strings.
Just for the record, I don't believe our modern gut strings are exactly
like theirs either, so we probably have some way to go in terms of
reproducing their technology even for thin strings. I still prefer the
sound and feel of them over any synthetic strings, and I would still
like someone to produce a synthetic bass string with similar
characteristics to the best gut bass strings we currently have.
Best wishes,
Martin
Daniel Winheld wrote:
Dear colleagues and especially our esteemed stringmaker/researchers; as
regards the present big question- "Was they WAS, or was they WASN'T,
loaded? In our search for evidence, and evaluation of same, let's also
keep in mind the famous dictum of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as channeled
through that old coke addict/violinist Sherlock Holmes:
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
Not simple, of course. with multiple possibilities available to be
further explored.
> >>How many lutes were mesured for bridge hole's
>>>diameter? 10, 20 or 30?
>
>I dnot see that we need a complete or even a substantial survey.
>
>Any instance where the bridge was conceived as we see it and the
diapason
>holes are significantly smaller than the holes for stoped basses is
>evidence tht smaller diameter strings were conciously used, if that
then
>obliges the use of strings denser than natural, loading of some
sort is
>indicated, if not overspin, then chemical.
--
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
