[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
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
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
Oups, I had better correct the end of my message: (This of course does not mean that I am NOT really very much in favour of such research). Or to put it more simply: I am very much in favour of such research. AH Le 1 mars 09 à 11:56, Anthony Hind a écrit : Dear Ed Your latest baroque lute recording is an example to us of what can be acheived using gut. It is not an easy thing stringing a Baroque lute in gut (compared to a renaissance one), and your work with Dan Larson is a model of cooperation between lutenist, lute and string maker (the last two being of course the same person) whiich has made your stringing sing. It is clear that such a piece of team work goes well beyond simple questions of historicity. Research can be a slow painstaking process, lutenists can not put their performances on hold, until a theory is proved and a string is finally shown to work. Meanwhile, if a person has adapted their playing (and possibly even their lute) to a particular string type, they must really reflect seriously before thinking of changing track. Even if it is somehow proved that such and such a string was definitely not historical, it does not mean that you should stop using it. It would surely only be worth doing, if the tonal result of the string you are using at present somehow already feels slightly wrong, in spite of how you have adapted to it (and that is clearly not your case), or if it gives serious intonation problems, causes a bad problem of homogeneity with Meanes and Trebles, or simply because you like the other type much more. The results of historic research should be used to help you attain a more convincing performance of Early music; while simplistic historic correctness just tends to close down research, and dangerously stereotype a player's style. (This of course does not mean that I am really very much in favour of such research). Keep up the good work! Regards Anthony Le 28 févr. 09 à 22:34, Edward Martin a écrit : I follow this discussion with great interest. IO am certainly no gut researcher, but my friend Dan Larson is. I have loaded gut, dense gut, pistoy gut, gimped gut, etc. I use it because it is the best sound. I have used gut in performance for the past 14-15 years, and for me, I have difficulty switching to synthetics for all the reasons that have been stated on this list for years. I use it because for me, it sounds best, especially for baroque lutes, both 11-course and 13-course lutes. The answer is that we are really not certain if strings were loaded, and there is evidence showing they were, as well as evidence to the contrary. Until we have definitive answers, we do not know what was used. ed At 12:34 PM 2/28/2009 -0800, 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 02/27/09 13:27:00 Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: e...@gamutstrings.com voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
Dear Ed Your latest baroque lute recording is an example to us of what can be acheived using gut. It is not an easy thing stringing a Baroque lute in gut (compared to a renaissance one), and your work with Dan Larson is a model of cooperation between lutenist, lute and string maker (the last two being of course the same person) whiich has made your stringing sing. It is clear that such a piece of team work goes well beyond simple questions of historicity. Research can be a slow painstaking process, lutenists can not put their performances on hold, until a theory is proved and a string is finally shown to work. Meanwhile, if a person has adapted their playing (and possibly even their lute) to a particular string type, they must really reflect seriously before thinking of changing track. Even if it is somehow proved that such and such a string was definitely not historical, it does not mean that you should stop using it. It would surely only be worth doing, if the tonal result of the string you are using at present somehow already feels slightly wrong, in spite of how you have adapted to it (and that is clearly not your case), or if it gives serious intonation problems, causes a bad problem of homogeneity with Meanes and Trebles, or simply because you like the other type much more. The results of historic research should be used to help you attain a more convincing performance of Early music; while simplistic historic correctness just tends to close down research, and dangerously stereotype a player's style. (This of course does not mean that I am really very much in favour of such research). Keep up the good work! Regards Anthony Le 28 févr. 09 à 22:34, Edward Martin a écrit : I follow this discussion with great interest. IO am certainly no gut researcher, but my friend Dan Larson is. I have loaded gut, dense gut, pistoy gut, gimped gut, etc. I use it because it is the best sound. I have used gut in performance for the past 14-15 years, and for me, I have difficulty switching to synthetics for all the reasons that have been stated on this list for years. I use it because for me, it sounds best, especially for baroque lutes, both 11-course and 13-course lutes. The answer is that we are really not certain if strings were loaded, and there is evidence showing they were, as well as evidence to the contrary. Until we have definitive answers, we do not know what was used. ed At 12:34 PM 2/28/2009 -0800, 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 02/27/09 13:27:00 Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: e...@gamutstrings.com voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
Dear Anthony, Thank you for your kind words. You mentioned the cooperation between lutenist, lute, and string maker. I am most fortunate to have as a best friend _and_neighbor, Dan Larson. Dan and I are close, and my daughter even works for him in the shop, where she makes strings, and manages the office. I am in his shop at least 3 times per week, so I see what is gong on with strings and instruments, I started playing all gut around 1995, when Dan was becoming full-swing with gut production. Through the years, he has done a tremendous amount of research and development. Some things have worked well, some have been less successful. So, as in any kind of process, he develops what seems to work the best, and constantly is making improvements. Yes, I do get many samples to try out, because I am right by him, and it is convenient for him to have me test strings. I do not mean to gloat; I am fortunate to be so close to Dan, for I merely step into his shop if I have a string or instrument issue. I have also used Mimmo's gut; his strings are also fantastic, and his strings also keep getting better and better! His new loaded strings are a vast improvement over his old ones; some of his new trebles are much more longer lasting and durable than his older ones. Sometimes, there is great luck in finding a good combination of string and lute, sometimes it is with persistently working on improvements. I cannot speak for Dan, but I can for me.. I support the use gut in search of historical correctness or authenticity, but I use it more-so because it sounds great! Yes, it can be fussier that synthetics, but it is worth it, in my view. Toyohiko Satoh is also a good friend, and he encourages me to do his low-tension approach, and I recently tried it on my 13-course, but for me, I was unhappy with the results. So, I am at a moderate tension again, because I am happiest with the results. If I were to work on it for a year or so, I am certain I could adapt, but I chose not to do that, at this point. Isn't it great, that people such as Mimmo,. Dan, and Damian have done so much to provide us with these beautiful strings? If it were not for people like them, we would not have decent gut strings. Cordially, ed At 11:56 AM 3/1/2009 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: Dear Ed Your latest baroque lute recording is an example to us of what can be acheived using gut. It is not an easy thing stringing a Baroque lute in gut (compared to a renaissance one), and your work with Dan Larson is a model of cooperation between lutenist, lute and string maker (the last two being of course the same person) whiich has made your stringing sing. It is clear that such a piece of team work goes well beyond simple questions of historicity. Research can be a slow painstaking process, lutenists can not put their performances on hold, until a theory is proved and a string is finally shown to work. Meanwhile, if a person has adapted their playing (and possibly even their lute) to a particular string type, they must really reflect seriously before thinking of changing track. Even if it is somehow proved that such and such a string was definitely not historical, it does not mean that you should stop using it. It would surely only be worth doing, if the tonal result of the string you are using at present somehow already feels slightly wrong, in spite of how you have adapted to it (and that is clearly not your case), or if it gives serious intonation problems, causes a bad problem of homogeneity with Meanes and Trebles, or simply because you like the other type much more. The results of historic research should be used to help you attain a more convincing performance of Early music; while simplistic historic correctness just tends to close down research, and dangerously stereotype a player's style. (This of course does not mean that I am really very much in favour of such research). Keep up the good work! Regards Anthony Le 28 févr. 09 à 22:34, Edward Martin a écrit : I follow this discussion with great interest. IO am certainly no gut researcher, but my friend Dan Larson is. I have loaded gut, dense gut, pistoy gut, gimped gut, etc. I use it because it is the best sound. I have used gut in performance for the past 14-15 years, and for me, I have difficulty switching to synthetics for all the reasons that have been stated on this list for years. I use it because for me, it sounds best, especially for baroque lutes, both 11-course and 13-course lutes. The answer is that we are really not certain if strings were loaded, and there is evidence showing they were, as well as evidence to the contrary. Until we have definitive answers, we do not know what was used. ed At 12:34 PM 2/28/2009 -0800, 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,
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009, Mimmo Peruffo mperu...@aquilacorde.com said: 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 twist drills we enjoy use of today are not in fact erquired to make those small holes, any bit of wire (even brass) can be sharpened and made to drill holes. Flaten the end and file it into a diamond point and you can have whatever size hole you require. Leave the wire long enough to be flexible, spot the hole location with an awl to start it, and you can even flex to the angle required for the hole. 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. there may also be an issue with US law, apparantly textile silk is limited to 10% weight increase for garment use, dont know if musical instrument strings would be covered or even if anyone in officialdom cares, but should they take an interest we had better be prepared to argue in support. -- 2) I checked 70 lutes from which only 50% I had to suppose with original bridges. I dont think original should be the concern; if the set of holes in the bridge was conceived to one plan then it is of interest. -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
Getting to the core of the matter in this global rumination; a trip down memory lane (to show how far we've come...) In the early 1970's I got my first lightly built, historically informed lute- an 8 course tenor, Laux Maler body style, by the late keyboard maker Hugh Gough, in New York City. It wasn't long before I became deeply dissatisfied with the gnarly snarly sitar strings from Pyramid. Well, they used all gut back in the old days, right? I reasoned, so with Hugh's help I got gut trebles from Pirastro, and thick gut basses from Lyon Healy, the harp company. Of course I knew nothing of original bridge holes- didn't even occur to me. The thick, low-twist heavily varnished gut basses were as flexible as rebar, but nevertheless I got small hand drill equipment and became quite skilled in gouging great, huge holes in delicate lute bridges without quite destroying them (the still strong functioning bridge on my original Robert Lundberg lute is a frightening sight, when viewed eye level on the plane of the soundboard from the end cap.) And I gave performances with these thick, muddy sounding awful gut basses- the worst was a hot, humid evening that made tuning a joke. The audience received an object lesson on the manifold advantages of new, improved lute strings perfected by the most modern technology- and Mattheson's ghost was roaring with laughter. Of course Damian is correct about how thick a string can get before the bending for securing at the bridge becomes impossible- and yet I was attempting to force the impossible with stiff, 2.00 mm. gut rods-sometimes with the help of needle-nose pliers! -It would have been just as easy (and sounded just as good) to use raw spaghetti- I lived close enough to the Little Italy section of lower Manhattan to have gotten it fresh, too. Is it not interesting that the same people who have given us pasta (thank god that tradition wasn't lost! Who wants mercury loaded linguini for dinner?) also once provided us with thin, flexible, fine sounding gut bass strings? In spite of it all, I still find gut strings- proper gut of course- to be the only completely satisfactory string for sound and feel on my lutes vihuela, and I have a first generation loaded gut from Mimmo on one 7th course, but it's old and frayed- due for replacement one of these years. Sadly only the vihuela wears an all gut outfit for now. Loading may still have to be considered an unproven hypothesis, however plausible- but the Ed Martin-Dan Larson symbiotic relationship is no doubt a small example of the RD procedures of the old days- so may the work on all lines continue to bear fruit. Dan The string must still be secured in the bridge in the conventional way. I find that even with very high torsion strings that 1.75mm is the maximum that one can bend and manipulate. And that happens to be what I end up with as my 11th course. So here is a piece of practical information based on the properties of the material. Measure the holes... When I used to look at these instruments 30-35 years ago, I wasn't specifically looking at the bridges. 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. How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? 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 that 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
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
I follow this discussion with great interest. IO am certainly no gut researcher, but my friend Dan Larson is. I have loaded gut, dense gut, pistoy gut, gimped gut, etc. I use it because it is the best sound. I have used gut in performance for the past 14-15 years, and for me, I have difficulty switching to synthetics for all the reasons that have been stated on this list for years. I use it because for me, it sounds best, especially for baroque lutes, both 11-course and 13-course lutes. The answer is that we are really not certain if strings were loaded, and there is evidence showing they were, as well as evidence to the contrary. Until we have definitive answers, we do not know what was used. ed At 12:34 PM 2/28/2009 -0800, 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 02/27/09 13:27:00 Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: e...@gamutstrings.com voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
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
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
Measure the holes, examine the marks, scratches, toolmarks, analyze the strings, analyze the wood near the strings for trace residue, etc, etc, it is all very basic research. The biggest chunk of information will be a clearer picture of reentrant tuning. When I used to look at these instruments 30-35 years ago, I wasn't specifically looking at the bridges. Now it is much harder to examine the instruments. But I don't remember seeing a lot of double reentrant holes. Not saying they were not there, just doesn't ring a bell. I'm sure I could have missed it :) I will, however, be very surprised if they are all drilled out for double reentrant. Results never fit the theory. Can't think of a single example where that has happened. Can't wait. There is lots of knowledge to be gained by basic research, as there always is. dt 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
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
The string must still be secured in the bridge in the conventional way. I find that even with very high torsion strings that 1.75mm is the maximum that one can bend and manipulate. And that happens to be what I end up with as my 11th course. So here is a piece of practical information based on the properties of the material. Damian Subject: [LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th Measure the holes, examine the marks, scratches, toolmarks, analyze the strings, analyze the wood near the strings for trace residue, etc, etc, it is all very basic research. The biggest chunk of information will be a clearer picture of reentrant tuning. When I used to look at these instruments 30-35 years ago, I wasn't specifically looking at the bridges. Now it is much harder to examine the instruments. But I don't remember seeing a lot of double reentrant holes. Not saying they were not there, just doesn't ring a bell. I'm sure I could have missed it :) I will, however, be very surprised if they are all drilled out for double reentrant. Results never fit the theory. Can't think of a single example where that has happened. Can't wait. There is lots of knowledge to be gained by basic research, as there always is. dt 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
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
Dear Edward, The answer is that we are really not certain if strings were loaded, and there is evidence showing they were, as well as evidence to the contrary. Until we have definitive answers, we do not know what was used. I agree with you absolutely. As the lute players we choose the type of strings that make our lutes sound best (personaly, I use some different types as well), however we do not know what was used in past for sure. This subject needs a broad discussion, however it is a pitty that we can not hear the voices from the other side too. Best regards Jaroslaw To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
On Feb 28, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Martin Shepherd wrote: 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. I suppose lutemakers back then made what they regarded as standard- sized bridgeholes, for trebles as well as basses. Maybe it would help to know what a standard bridgehole size was for bass strings. At least standard for, say, 1648 to 1750. ;-) - 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 Who says that? , at least not if we have any interest in how the lute might have sounded before the invention of modern wound strings. Lots of variables there, going way beyond stringing! Can our 20thC ears possibly be attuned to the point that we would recognize the true sound if we heard it? (I hope it wasn't anything like the lute- stop on a harpsichord!) ...I would still like someone to produce a synthetic bass string with similar characteristics to the best gut bass strings we currently have. So would I!! Best, Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
