FoMRHI has been resurrected for a couple of years now. Much praise needs to go to the new Secretary, Chris Goodwin (also Sec of the Lute Soc) for his hard work.
Martyn --- On Fri, 26/11/10, Anthony Hind <[email protected]> wrote: From: Anthony Hind <[email protected]> Subject: Re : Tr : [LUTE] Re: tying two strings together (in process of changing from 407Hz to 392)? To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 26 November, 2010, 17:41 Those were great research papers. I thought there was a plan to have this start up again. Was there any result? Anthony __________________________________________________________________ De : Martyn Hodgson <[email protected]> A : Anthony Hind <[email protected]> Cc : [email protected] EnvoyA(c) le : Ven 26 novembre 2010, 16h 08min 03s Objet : Re: Tr : [LUTE] Re: tying two strings together (in process of changing from 407Hz to 392)? My 1986 FoMRHI paper (almost a quarter of a century ago!) is still reasonably correct. MH --- On Fri, 26/11/10, Anthony Hind <[email protected]> wrote: From: Anthony Hind <[email protected]> Subject: Tr : [LUTE] Re: tying two strings together (in process of changing from 407Hz to 392)? To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[email protected]>, "Sam Chapman" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Date: Friday, 26 November, 2010, 14:40 Dear Martyn, Sam and All, $ Trebles: > Regarding pitching of lutes, we have good historic evidence that this > is closely related to the tensile strength of gut. Thus whatever the > pitch one generally tunes the highest course to just under breaking. (Martyn) $ Yes, certainly Dowland's remarks seem to indicate this. However, I suppose it depends how literally you take "just under breaking", and just how strong historic strings were. The other day, I saw a lutenist use a 0.50 HT string on F1 (as he didn't have anything else) and with no apparent problem. I tend to agree with Sam, "while I think the top string should be tuned up until just below breaking point, I think that there is also a minimum sensible diameter for a top string - for me it is about 0.45mm." $ Indeed this is why, I am dropping my lute from 407 with F1 at 0.44 at 4Kg to 392 with F1 at 0.46 at 4Kg. > > One corollary to this: there's a little evidence that some 17th century > French solo lute music, especially the earliest, might not pitch > trebles quite so close to breaking stress, in which case you might > pitch with the top course one, or even two steps, below those indicated > above. (Martyn) I imagine you are thinking that Dm might simply have developed from dropping the top string down from G, possibly implying a lowering of tension on the longer diapason lutes. $ If 0.50 is the maximum for F1 at 392, then 0.46 is two steps down and is my target value (0.48 at 4K5 might be a little too high). However, my main aim is to increase the thickness of A3. I feel the 0.60 at 3Kg for my lute at 407 is insufficient. I would like 0.64 or 0.66 which 392 should permit. $ I have been wondering what the reasons were for the French Baroque lutenists preferring "middle size" lutes (Burwell), and although this may mainly be because they were spurning the frequency extremes, and their search for elegant economy of means in the music could also have favoured smaller easier to play and hold lutes; yet thicker top strings could also be a positive result of a diapason of around 68cm (all things being equal). My 70 cm lute being on the outer limit, I can only play with lowering the diapason to achieve this. Of course the thicker basses on these middle size lute present a tricky problem, for which loaded strings present the most obvious answer, and correspond well with the iconography which does not show thick basses on this type of lute (Charles Mouton). $ Meanes I think that the flexibility of twine such as Venice (and others), rather than HT, resolves a potential thickness issue on D5. That problem could increase at 392Hz. $ Basses Equal tension to touch: Once the top string has been chosen, then lower courses could be tuned in relation to this in order to give equal tension to feel (as suggested by Dowland, Mace etc); but this might also be open to interpretation according to whether all the strings are struck at the same or different distances from the bridge. $ Bass tension: Here again I agree with Sam. "If the tension on the basses is too low, then it is hard to really lay into the string with the thumb, which I think is absolutely necessary when playing on plain gut basses." However, I have found that it is the overall tension of the course that is most important. My basses have been quite flexible at 2K7 and these give way to the thumb, but then the 3K2 Venice Meane octaves come into play. a"The higher tension octaves then become the lead string and contribute their tonal qualities. As I use Venice meane octaves, this also gives a synergy with the Venice Meanes, and the Venice loaded basses. I would perhaps like a little more tension, say 2K9 on the basses, and 3K3 on the octaves, which is what I would obtain if I shift my bass courses up one step C11 to D10 (etc) at 392Hz. I would then of course be clearly in the high tension camp. $ 3Kg on basses is quite high tension, but some low impedance strings work better at higher tensions. It would seem that George Stoppani may make Lang lay basses (the strands and the rope itself are twisted in the same direction). If this is so, as indicated in his talk at the lute society meeting, then the resulting string would be more flexible than an equivalent normal lay twine, and would therefore have excellent harmonicity and work well at highish tensions. This is perhaps what Sam is describing: "Even when these strings are very thick, they are still flexible and produce enough overtones which can then be beefed up by the octave string" $ (Charles Besnainou's Lang lay spring ropes take the the low impedance string one stage further) The use of stiff HT strings or even tresses, however, necessitate low tension bass stringing to lower the impedance and improve harmonicity (see T. Satoh). I tend to lean to the higher tension theory, which seems implied in the notion of equal tension to touch. $ The basses on 13C lutes: From the bass course point of view, there is also a limitation coming from the maximum thickness that gives acceptable harmonicity. This will vary according to whether one uses pure gut (and the type of twist), or loaded gut. However, even with loaded gut, Mimmo seems to put the acceptable limit at 240C (=the tension of a 224HT string) and about 1.6mm real thickness. Above this, with a plucked string, the loading will tend to overdamp the string. Of course the tension on a 240C course can be increased by using a higher tension Meanes Octave, but there is still a limit to this Octave compensation. $ Now if we adopt the loaded hypothesis, It would seem possible that this limit of 240C made stringing a 13c rider lute difficult. In which case, the demi-filA(c) (which had been around for some time) might have at last seemed a good option. $ I recently read your words, Martyn, on Baroque lute stringing, on page 8 of FoMRHI Quarterly No 44 July 1986, where you argue that "all gut basses were always used on the lute even in the 18th century". I have no experience with DemifilA(c), but in that article you suggest that the "florrid writing in the bass seems to prohibit overwound strings" (You are speaking of the music of Hagen, Straube, and Kohaut). I presume you mean that the necessary clarity and speed to perform this music would prohibit the use of any string that over-rings? Presumably, string damping would not be a fast enough process? You argued that Theorboed lutes (swannecks?) had been developed exactly for this music-type ("Iconographic as well as internal musical evidence"), so as to be able use a pure gut bass alternative to demi-filA(c), exactly for this music. $ Some others here have argued that it is simply the development of a revelling in the bass ("continuo-type") line, which encouraged the use of demi-filA(c), together with the bass extension, and the switch from J to Fan barring. I prefer the slightly more complex pattern of evolution suggested in your explanation. (a few lute makers have suggested to me that fan barring simply developed to compensate for the greater tensions big 13c lutes exert on the lute table.) $ Regards Anthony ---- Message d'origine ---- >De : "Martyn Hodgson" <[email protected]> >A : [email protected]; > "Anthony Hind" <[email protected]> >Objet : [LUTE] Re: tying two strings together (in process of changing from 407Hz to 392)? >Date : 24/11/2010 10:26:08 CET > > > > Dear Anthony, > > Regarding pitching of lutes, we have good historic evidence that this > is closely related to the tensile strength of gut. Thus whatever the > pitch one generally tunes the highest course to just under breaking. > > As a rough guide I use the following > > HIGHEST PITCH OF TREBLE > String length, cm @ A392 @ A415 @ A440 > > 76 f' e' eb' > 72 f#' f'' e' > 68 g' f#'' f' > 64 g#' g' f#' > 60.5 a' g#' g' > 57 a#' a' g#' > 54 b' a#' a' > > One corollary to this: there's a little evidence that some 17th century > French solo lute music, especially the earliest, might not pitch > trebles quite so close to breaking stress, in which case you might > pitch with the top course one, or even two steps, below those indicated > above. > > Martyn > > --- On Tue, 23/11/10, Anthony Hind <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Anthony Hind <[email protected]> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings together (in process of > changing from 407Hz to 392)? > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, 23 November, 2010, 16:06 > > Dear All, > I suppose I should add an explanation for why I need this > gluing > technique. > I have always regretted that my Baroque lute was strung for 415Hz > rather than for 392 (for which I had actually asked my lute maker, > but > he had forgotten this). The main reason for 392 would have been to > achieve thicker trebles for my 700mm lute, allowing the fingers to > "dig > more deeply" into these strings. Diapason 392 could allow f1:046, > d2:0.54, and A3:0.64 (instead of f1:0.42, d-2:0.50 and A3:0.58 at > 415Hz). > Historic arguments in favour of this, for the French Baroque lute, > might be the relatively small diapason of historic French lutes > (around > 68 according to Martyn, and others), which would imply relatively > thick > trebles, unless the diapason pitch was above 415Hz. I rather assume > this is part of the French aesthetic. What do you think? > $ > I managed to lower the diapason to 407 (and slightly raise the top > string tensions); this was the lowest point at which these loaded > strings would work well (I kept the original tension by > simulataneously > raising the tension of the octaves). I believed the original tension > on > the basses was 3Kg and on the octaves 2K8 (as indicated by my > lutemaker). I therefore thought that after lowering to 407 and > changing > the octaves to 3K1 for that frequency, I would maintain the > lutemakers > suggested tension, but have 2K9 on the basses and 3K1 on the octaves > (I > roughly confirmed this with Dan Larson's string calculator). > However, I did notice that the Venice Octaves were clearly now the > lead > voice, which I felt was highly desirable, but which did not quite > fit > in with the small difference of tension. Also Martin Shepherd told > me > that 2K9 was quite high tension on the basses. However, this was not > at > all how they felt, but I just put that down to the flexibility of > the > loaded basses. > $ > Recently, however, I wondered whether I could achieve 392 with > basses > close to 2K9 by moving C11 to D10 and D10 to E9, and so forth (in > other > words by a simple shift of each string up one). I did fear I might > get > a more irregular tension pattern, and also that the tension might be > too high. > $ > At this point, I played around with Arto's string calculator, and > finally understood how it worked (I am a little computer programme > challenged, and previously gave up when not quite understanding > which > field corresponded to what parameter) . > With Arto's calculator now uderstood, I was able to set the > diapason > explicitly to 407Hz and remove the guess work. I was surprised to > find > my basses at 407Hz were actually at a lowish 2K7 (taking account of > true thickness of the flexible loaded Venices by dividing their > value > by 1.07, as explained by Mimmo on the Venice string page). > Dropping them to diapason 392 (according to "Arto-calc" would bring > them effectively to around the 2K9, I thought I had originally. I > believed this would be acceptable, although I could still drop the > diapason slightly to 380Hz or so to compensate if necessary. > I would of course have to change most of the other strings, but I > didn't want to throw out my "expensive" and well worn in loaded > basses > (unless they prove already to be a little too old, I have had them 2 > years or more?) > $ > Anyway I thought I could use these, at least, to check the resulting > values would work well at 392 with 2K9 tension. I made just one > check > by tuning the C11 string D10 at 392Hz, and it seemed acceptable, so > I > think I can go ahead with the experiment. > $ > I then remembered that as my loaded strings had been cut very short > to > prevent them rubbing against the decorative panel of the peg-box. I > might need to "lengthen" some loaded basses and perhaps some Venice > octaves to reach the peg two above, which is why I have asked for > your > knotting advice. Thank you everyone for your help. > I will of course need at least one new loaded string for C11 to > carry > out the experiment. > $ > I am just wondering whether other loaded gut users have tensions > around > my target 2K9, higher or lower? 2K7 did work alright, I must admit. > Do most of you try to lower your basses by compensating with higher > tension octaves (or are they the same, or lower)? > Do most pure and gimped gut users have basses around 2K5 (Dan > Larson), > lower (Satoh), or higher? > $ > Practical considerations: > I am aware that pure gut string users will probably consider > 2K9 as a high tension. Dan Larson's standard is 2K5, but this is for > pure gut, no doubt to compensate for its natural thickness (and > inharmonicity, or high impedance, at high tension), and also to > account > for the relative stiffness of Dan's gimped strings. > With loaded Venice strings the flexibility, especially for the lower > basses, is even greater than that of a Venice (as the core is > relatively thin, the weight determined more by the loading). > Therefore the impedance at the bridge, even with highish tensions, > remains low. > $ > Theoretical consoderations: > Of course, low tension as a hypothesis of historical stringing is > mainly advanced to account for the tiny historic bridge holes > contrasting with the naturally thick pure gut string (and the poor > harmonicity of such strings when at higher tension); but also to > relate > to the relatively thin bass strings represented in the iconography > (see > for example the Charles Mouton lute). > Further arguments for low tension are that most iconography and lute > marks (see Mimmo Lute news NADEG 94) indicate an RH position near > the > bridge, which could indicate an attempt to compensate low tension by > finding a string point with greater tension (see T. Satoh). > $ > If one adopts the loaded string hypothesis, however, higher tensions > can be achieved, while maintaining thin string diameter compatible > with > small bridge holes and the iconography; while the RH position could > indicate an attempt to achieve a point of higher resistance with low > impedance strings. > (An alternative high tension theory is put forward by Charles > Besnainou > involving a special low impedance spring bass string, more of this > later. Perhaps, George Stoppani's lang lay ropes might have a > similar > but less low impedance potential). > Regards > Anthony > __________________________________________________________________ > De : Guy Smith <[1][email protected]> > A : Anthony Hind <[2][email protected]> > EnvoyA(c) le : Lun 22 novembre 2010, 18h 33min 07s > Objet : RE: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thickness > together? > I agree. The grapevine knot works best when the sizes are roughly > equal. Fortunately, I've never had to extend a loaded string. > ____________________________________________________________________ > ___ > From: Anthony Hind [mailto:[3][email protected]] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:58 AM > To: Guy Smith > Subject: Re : [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thickness > together? > Thanks Guy > One of the two ropes could be a loaded one, and so probably > not > supple enough to participate in a double knot. The sheet bend knot > might be all I can manage, but for other strings I will try your > suggestion. > Regards > Anthony > PS I see there animated knot examples, that make things fairly > foolproof. > ____________________________________________________________________ > ___ > De : Guy Smith <[4][email protected]> > A : [5][email protected]; Anthony Hind <[6][email protected]> > EnvoyA(c) le : Lun 22 novembre 2010, 17h 18min 57s > Objet : RE: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thickness > together? > I use a grapevine knot. I learned that in my rock-climbing days as a > bombproof way to tie into a rope. Probably overkill, but if it can > hold > a > twenty foot leader fall, it should be able to handle a lute > string:-) > FWIW, the traditional knot for joining two lengths of fishing line > is a > blood knot, which would be another possibility. I tend to avoid > square > knots. They can easily be turned into a cats paw knot, which isn't > secure at > all. > Here's a good reference for all sorts of knots: > [1][7][1]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm > Guy > -----Original Message----- > From: [2][8][email protected] > [mailto:[3][9][email protected]] On Behalf > Of Martyn Hodgson > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:05 AM > To: [4][10][email protected]; Anthony Hind > Subject: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thickness > together? > I use a reef knot - but secured with a drop of super glue.... > --- On Mon, 22/11/10, Anthony Hind <[5][11][email protected]> > wrote: > From: Anthony Hind <[6][12][email protected]> > Subject: [LUTE] tying two strings of different thickness > together? > To: [7][13][email protected] > Date: Monday, 22 November, 2010, 15:28 > Dear All > I may need to lengthen a string which does not quite > reach > the > peg, but goes well beyond the nut. I would like to attach it > to a > slightly thinner short piece of gut to reach the peg in > question. > I > remember that Stephen Gottlieb had done that for several > strings > on > my > lute; but I can no longer remember the type of knot he used. > Can > anyone > advise me, or tell me of a page where this knot is described. > Regards > Anthony > -- > To get on or off this list see list information at > [1][8][14][2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- > References > 1. [9][15][3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- > References > 1. [16][4]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm > 2. mailto:[17][email protected] > 3. mailto:[18][email protected] > 4. mailto:[19][email protected] > 5. mailto:[20][email protected] > 6. mailto:[21][email protected] > 7. mailto:[22][email protected] > 8. [23][5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 9. [24][6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > > References > > 1. [7]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] > 2. [8]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom > 3. [9]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom > 4. [10]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] t > 5. [11]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] > 6. [12]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom > 7. [13]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm > 8. [14]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]. edu > > 9. [15]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]. edu > > 10. [16]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] > 11. [17]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom > 12. [18]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom > 13. [19]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] > 14. [20]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 15. [21]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 16. [22]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm > 17. [23]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]. edu > > 18. [24]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]. edu > > 19. [25]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] > 20. [26]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom > 21. [27]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom > 22. [28]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] > 23. [29]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > 24. [30]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- References 1. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 4. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm 5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 7. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 8. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom 9. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom 10. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 11. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 12. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom 13. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm 14. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 15. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 16. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 17. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom 18. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom 19. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 20. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 21. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 22. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm 23. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 24. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 25. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 26. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom 27. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoocom 28. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 29. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 30. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
