I suppose to the three hypotheses, mentioned in my previous message,
I should add something about the apparent success of demi-filé,
probably around the same time that swannecks became "popular".
There are arguments about whether the extension on swan-necked lutes
had pure gut or demifilé, or wehether these lutes might have been
partially strung in demi-filé (see Mimmo Peruffo), but presumably the
reason that demi-filé finally caught on, around that time, while it
seems to have been around for at least fifty years, might also be
related to an enthusiasm for increased treble bass polarity
(hypothses 2); unless the technique for loading strings had been
lost, and demifilé finally won by default.
Relating to a strong interpretation of hypothesis 1, (that there
could be a necessary relation between a large number of courses and
fan-barring), we can easilly find evidence of lutes having had a
large number of courses and yet having survived with J-barring. See
the amazing archiluth Archiluth / E.544 / Anonyme / VENISE / ITALIE /
EUROPE / début 17e
http://mediatheque.cite-musique.fr/ClientBookLineCIMU/recherche/
NoticeDetailleByID.asp?ID=0255171&EIDSIM=CMIM000015072
There is an X-ray of the J-barring at P.66 Cahiers 7. This lute has
survived apparently in almost original form in spite of having many
courses and being j-barred.
However, it might well be the case that the body of this lute would
have undergone less distorsion had it had fan-barring and the forces
were more equally distributed on the table (weak interpretation of
hypothesis 1?).
Notice that the three hypotheses can coexist; it is possible that
several causes contributed to this new fashion.
David van Edwards suggests that J-barring was progressivley replaced
by fan barring. P.59. The only lute that I have seen which has a
mixed structure, is
Luth / E.980.2.321 / Tieffenbrucker, Magno II / Tieffenbrucker, Magno
III / VENISE / ITALIE / EUROPE / 1580-1589
http://mediatheque.cite-musique.fr/ClientBookLineCIMU/recherche/
NoticeDetailleByID.asp?ID=0244085&EIDSIM=CMIM000016581
The barring, however could be much later. You can see from the X-ray
page 59 Cahiers 7, that the fan barring is here both on the treble
and the bass side of a now straight J-bar, which has lost its curved
end, which has been replaced by fanning.
Are there many such examples showing a progressive change. If the
Rauwolf is historically fan-barred, then the theory of a gradual
change seems challenged.
It is unfortunate that the LSA database does not seem to give
indications about barring, and I suppose that might be because it is
very difficult to be sure whether the barring is original or not. The
same is true of the catalogue of the Musée de la Musique here in
Paris, although the X-ray photos and some photos of the inside of
tables, do allow you to see the present state of the barring.
Sterling
I understand that the fan barring on the 1755 Widhalm in
Nuremberg (with the triple-extension after Jauck) WAS historic-
original, and that is why Grant Tomlinson altered Benjamin's Widhalm
from J-barring to fan-barring. It was to correct it from a historic
point of view. If your 1764 Martin Brunner which is very similar to
the Jauch extension, also has fan-barring, then one would suppose
Widhalm might always have used such barring on his own lutes (at
least with such extensions). I wonder whether his two Maler
transformations (which look to be swan necked, but I might be wrong
there) also have fan-barring or whether he kept the original barring,
or something similar:
after 1615 [?]
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~lsa/associated/database/dbdetail.php?
PID=143
before 1550 [1740?]
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~lsa/associated/database/dbdetail.php?
PID=144
Now, considering that barring goes together with a specific
thickness distribution (j-barring thick at the edge, fan-barring
thick towards the bridge) how do you go about changing one to the
other without changing the table? I don't know whether GT changed
both the barring and the table, or just the barring.
Well this is a question for any lute-maker I suppose, rather than any
lute player.
Anthony
Le 15 janv. 09 à 02:25, sterling price a écrit :
I have a Widhalm that does have fan-barring and a soundboard
carefully thicknessed as the original (assuming that the original
has not been altered over the years). It also has a bass extension
based on the 1764 Martin Brunner which is very similar to the Jauch
extension. This pegbox, as you all know, helps with the transition
of sound for the basses. This lute is much louder than my
Burkholzer, but its also a bit bigger. I am still experimenting
with strings, and was thinking of trying gut soon.
--Sterling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Had this been the case, I presume that Grant Tomlinson would have
built Benjamin's Widham fan-barred from the outset.
Also we have examples of Railich and Rauwolf lutes today, that are
not swannecked yet apparently work better with fan-barring.
I believe, but I may be mistaken that Stephen Gottlieb builds even 8c
Railich with fan-barring. This may be historically incorrect
(according to your position), but if it is the case, I would think
this means that there are at least two schools of thought on the
question.
It is true that I am not a lute-maker, just an avid reader on the
topic, and as a phoentician used to formulate hypotheses so as to
allow them to be tested. It is quite possible that this is not a good
way to reason in terms of lute making, in which case of course, I
withdraw my remarks.
Best wishes
Anthony
--
Mathias
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
