Martin Shepherd ha scritto:
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.
Well,
I am very exiting to see this discussion. Thank you to all.
I think that it is time to reasume, in short, some problem that maybe
were overlook.
I consider these, indeed, the heart of the problem.
Please remember that english is not so fluent.
1) the colour of bass string in old paintings cannot be a proof. I
consider these evidences just as a good integration to the theory of
the loading of gut because:
a) lute bass strings are painted with very thin gauges; this is
different in the case of the bowed instruments
b) Lute bass strings, when are dyed, are more or less in the same
position of our modern wound strings. In other worlds in the position
were the Quality Working Index is less of a certain critical value
beyond it for modern luteplayers a gut string became dull (the 5th
course).
c) the colour of such basses (I am a chemicol as well as a stringmaker)
recall me those of the heavier ppowder pigments of the 17th c.;
oncemore it is identical for all the bass stings
d) the dying of silk was never called 'in the past loading of silk' but
just 'dying of silk'. yes, silk can add till 300% of its initial
weight; the problem is that there is an increase of its volume also. I
mea that the density do not increase so much. I have spent some 5 years
on such investigation. At the end I understood that it was not a way.
Maybe there are different opinions. I would like to hear alternatives
--------------------------
2) I checked 70 lutes from which only 50% I had to suppose with
original bridges. On the total, 13 were 13 course -lutes (not important
here); 13 were 11 course lutes (d minor, of course) ; 3 with 10 course,
1 with 12 courses and short extended neck (like the Gaultier English
engraving or like the Satoh's lute); 2 with 7 courses; 2 with 8
courses. Just one was a Liuto attiorbato of 13 courses and another was
an archlute.
I tryed out more or less 10 theorbo/chitarrone hole-gauges also.
The working tension of the 11 course lutes was calculate ( By Epraim
Segerman, not by me) in a range between 1.2 till 1.5 Kg ( at the
standard pitch of 415 Hz). Pleaswe note that, on some french lutes,
the pitch would be arround a semitone lower so the tension is again
lower than 1.2-1.5 kg.
Epraim Segerman made some accurate calcuations based on low twist gut
strings, NOT on roped strings that are still considered the only
teneable historical alternative than the loading of gut.
Now, considering that the roped string's density is lower than plain
gut ( the average is 1.2 agaist 1.3 of plain gut if the roped string is
smooth) the working tension drop again to 1.0 till a maximum of 1.2
if we are speacking of a polished smooth roped string and again to .9
till 1.0 Kg if the roped string is bumped (average density 1.1) That
is all.
My question:
why none, since today tried to put their roped basses at 1.0 - 1.2
Kg? and tell us the results This test is very important. I tryed, of
course and I verifyed that they becamerubber -bands. Please note that
the problem is still open also if you play closer to the bridge: in any
case a well stretched tumb (historical way) go toward to the rose. The
so called 'low tension' of Satoh (2.5kg about) is still too high for
those bridgeholes
------------------------------------------------------
3) How well explainded by Martin, if we do not accept the loading of
gut as a historical theory we are obliged to consider a bass gut string
with its natural density; i.e. 1.30.
well, it is clear that, due to the evidence of bridgeholes ( I hope
that on over 70 almost 1, or 2 are original!) we have just two options:
a) basses only worked at so low tension
b) all the strings were at the same bass string low tension
the a) solution open a problem: it work agaist all the treatises of the
17th century (equal feel/tension). More: Mace wrote clearly that an
unbalanced lute is a great mistake.
So we must work on the option b): the problem with this option is that
we are not able to obtain 1 st, 2nd, 3rd strings so thin using whole
lamb guts like in the past times.
Kircher, that lived in Rome arround 1650, wrote that the lute 1st
strings were made (by roman stringmakers) using 1 whole lamb gut only.
I remember that the roman stringmakers sold their lute strings over all
the europe (500,000 per year to Lyon only). I tryed to do a whole lamb
gut strings just to see gauges: the range was .42 till .48 (3 month-
age lambs).
My question:
1) can we consider a good historical solution an unbalanced lute?
Please are yopu able to give me an answer that fit well with all the
historical sources?
2) maybe have you some uggestions how to obtain from very yung lamb
whole guts that permit to obtain 1st strings of, say, .20 mm gauge?? At
present I do not know how to do.
3)Why they simply do not made just bigger hole? please are you able to
tell me what kind of difficults they should meet for this little job?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
4) the preformances of bass strings: before 1570's bass lute strings
were dull. Compaints are mde by men of that times, not by us nowdays
(Virdung, Tinctoris, Galilei). strngely, in the mid of the 17th c the
gut basses were so powerfull and with a deal of sustain that caused big
problems to the upper stings. Again, this was the wiew of men of that
times (Mace, Burwell).
My question:
why no one have already tryed to play his lute gut basses at .9 till
1.2 Kg?? In this conditions is the hand -control over the bass string
still ok? Is the sound still so good and powerfull to remember us what
Mace & Burwell wrote?
1.2 Kg tension on a 70 cm lute at 415 pitch mean a 1.24 mm gauge of a
smooth roped string. Try, your shelf please.
Ciao
Mimmo
---------------------------------------------------------
Messaggio e-mail verificato da Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.386)
Versione database: 5.11860
[1]http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
--
References
1. http://www.pctools.com/it/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
