jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Traditional oud barring
Hello everybody - I have an interest in the oud as an instrument in its own right but also because of its connection to the early European lute that I
am also interested in as both a maker, player and researcher.
The European lute of the 16th and 17th C evolved from the oud but eventually fell into disuse in the mid 18th C - unlike the oud which has a
remarkable unbroken tradition dating back more than a millenium. Study of the development of the oud historically, therefore, might cast new light on
the structure of the lute (and possibly vice versa?!)
I am particularly interested to know if there is (or was) a standard method of geometrical construction which an oud maker would use to place the bars
on an oud belly? Geometrical bar placement was a method used by early European lute makers - dividing up the belly into segments and placing the rose
centre and bridge in proportion to the belly length - although individual luthiers introduced their own 'improvements' to the basic geometrical
layouts. Note that the lute - unlike the oud - was physically subject to many fundamental variations in design and development during the 16th and
17th C in order to cater for rapidly changing musical tastes.
Just for interest, here is an image of the earliest known description of a lute construction dating from about 1450, by the Dutch scholar Henri
Arnault de Zwolle (MS Latin 7295 Biblioteque Nationale, Paris) showing bar placement etc. He also describes the use of a mould for construction of a
lute - same as for the oud. A lute during this period was played with a plectrum - like its ancestor the oud - and was strung with four or five double
strings or courses.
All comments and observations welcome.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Also, for easy reference, here is a drawing of the lute belly currently under discussion in the thread ' Restoration of an Egyptian Oud'. Does the
barring of this oud represent standard barring practice?
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just for comparison, here is an image of an early 17th C lute belly by renowned luthier Magno Tieffenbrucker, Padua, Italy
(No. 144, Museo Bardini Florence, Italy - 1609)
The geometrical construction of the belly is typical of that found in surviving lutes of the period.
The location of the soundhole is first found by dividing the belly into 5 equal portions (belly length here is the distance from the bottom edge of
the belly to the termination of the fingerboard - at the "stings"). The sound hole lies on the third segment (measured from the bottom of the
belly).
The free (vibrating) length of the belly is then divided into 8 equal parts. The lower section of the belly - from the centre of the soundhole - is
thus divided into 5 parts with a bar placed on positions 2, 3, 4 and 5. For the upper part of the belly, a bar is placed at position 6 (just above the
soundhole) and the remaining space filled with two more or less equally spaced bars (this upper section of the belly being less critical than the
lower part)
The section from the bottom of the belly to position 2 is then further divided into 3 equal parts with the centre of the bridge located on part 2 and
a below bridge bar (the bass bar) on position 1.
Note that if, alternatively the belly length of the lute is taken as the distance between the bottom edge of the belly and lower edge of the neck
block, division into 5 parts gives a soundhole centre on the third part that would be a little lower than is the case - as is the case for the oud.
The geometrical similarity between this layout and that of the oud belly above made by Hosain Mohey al-Deen Helmy is clear except that the oud has a
single below the bridge bar in place of the bass bar in the lute and has a central single bar in the upper section in place of the two bars of the
lute.
Also, it is observed that cutouts in the neck blocks can be found in some ouds (?) as well as lutes - possibly to increase the belly free vibrating
length which in turn will affect the barring layout. In the layout of this lute belly, I have shown a cut out in the neck block but that is just
conjecture at this point in time for this instrument as I do not have specific information to confirm this detail.
Extra small section barring across the soundhole of the lute (on either side of the central bar) is provided to support the area under the rose that -
unlike the oud - is cut directly into the belly, the belly being reduced in thickness in this area to about 1 mm to facilitate this delicate task.
Some lutes also have additional multiple small bars glued across the rose for extra support.
|
|
|
Jameel
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1672
Registered: 12-5-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I assume you've read Lundberg's series of articles published by GAL?
The nature of historical oud construction is such that methods are only passed down to family members or apprentices. I think your drawings are a
good explanation in themselves. I'm not surprised that the brace layouts are almost identical. Of course, If you take into account that the human body
pretty much dictates the necessary dimensions for the instrument, and the string length dictates the rest (1/3 neck, 1/3 to hole center, 1/3 to
bridge) there is not much room left for variation, save for ouds of one hole where there can be more freedom of brace placement, and the area about
the bridge. My approach has been to copy what I've learned from others and observed on my own, then make the instrument and see how it sounds.
Basically its a mostly-controlled experiment. So many radically different bracing patterns are used for guitars (classical and steel) with great
success makes me wonder how the oud might be influenced by this. Even the master luthiers made ouds that were exceptional, and ouds that were
mediocre. With such variations in the wood itself, I think lutherie is basically an ongoing experimental process in itself. To me, that's what makes
it interesting. Please continue to share your interesting ideas and drawings.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you Jameel - no, I am not familiar with the GAL Lundberg articles. What was their context?
I should warn that I have been a bit out of touch in recent years with the most up to date research into the lute so I likely have quite a bit of
catching up to do. So please bear with me if I am repeating information that is now considered 'old hat' and familiar to most everyone - but there
will always be those new to this field of research who may benefit.
Your approach as a luthier to experiment with different barring arrangements is, of course, historically appropriate. The lute makers of the 16th and
17th C worked to a number of related standard barring geometries but did make variations from this based on their experience. I would guess that the
oud luthiers were no different.
Marin Mersenne in his theoretical work "Harmonie Universelle" of the early 17th C tells us how to lay out the barring of a lute but adds "But it must
be remarked that the makers add still other bars lower than the first of the large ones or in other places according to the weakness of the different
bellies or following the experiences they have made to give a better harmony to the lutes" he also states "Now it must be remarked that the goodness
of the lute depends particularly on the barring, which must be neither too strong nor too feeble; for when it is too strong the sound is not agreeable
and the treble strings (chanterelles) can not raise so high on that belly as they can on the weaker ones which tremble and shake more easily..." .
I have always regarded the thin belly of a lute (or oud) as much like a thin flexible membrane almost totally dependant upon the barring for good
response. I have yet to try this but I would not be surprised if use of thin high quality aircraft plywood, properly barred, might also give good
results!! Sacrilege I admit!!
A leading research paper about lute barring is "On the Construction of the Lute Belly" by Friedemann Hellwig, the Galpin Society Journal Number 21,
March 1968.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Note that the barring of the oud between the bottom of the rose and the bridge is canted - higher towards the soundhole on the bass side than on the
treble side. This barring geometry was clearly intended by the luthier and is not a result of indifferent workmanship because each bar position has
been carefully marked on the belly, in pencil, with two parallel lines.
I have found a similar canting of below soundhole bars in an early 17th C lute by Christofolo Choc, Venice (Victoria and Albert Museum, London, cat.
No. 7756-1862). Here the intended geometrical layout of the barring is evident in compass marks on the belly.
I am currently making a copy of this instrument and attach an image of the unfinished belly for information showing the canted bars as well as the
below bridge barring (bracing would perhaps be a better term) commonly found in lutes of the period.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
For information and comparison, I have laid out the geometry of the Arnault de Zwolle lute above according to a translation of the original Latin text
by Ian Harwood, "Lute Society Journal", 1960.
The construction shows a neck block and quite a large lower block - a feature not found in surviving lutes of a later period (or ouds?). Dividing the
belly into 8 segments can be done in two ways. In example A , the bottom block is excluded to give only the vibrating part of the belly and example B
includes the redundant section of the belly covered by the bottom block. It can be seen that neither analysis quite fits the more exact geometry found
in later lutes (or ouds?) so may be an earlier transitional phase?
Example A reasonably accurately locates the positions of the above soundhole bar as well as the two lower bars and bridge whereas example B better
locates the centre of the rose, the upper and lower edges of the soundhole (the usual location of bars at a later period) but not the lower bar
positions and is close enough for the bridge also.
The soundhole diameter is computed as 1/3 of the belly width at that location.
The information given by Arnault de Zwolle includes some interesting details of lute (oud) construction that I shall cover later as a separate
thread.
Hope that this is of some general interest
|
|
|
Hosam
Oud Junkie
Posts: 180
Registered: 12-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by jdowning
The location of the soundhole is first found by dividing the belly into 5 equal portions. The sound hole lies on the third segment (measured from the
bottom of the belly).
The free (vibrating) length of the belly is then divided into 8 equal parts. The lower section of the belly - from the centre of the soundhole - is
thus divided into 5 parts with a bar placed on positions 2, 3, 4 and 5. For the upper part of the belly, a bar is placed at position 6 (just above the
soundhole) and the remaining space filled with two more or less equally spaced bars (this upper section of the belly being less critical than the
lower part)
|
Thank you jdowning for valuable information and very interesting thread. Looking at the drawing above the center of the soundhole is deviding the body
by two different ratios
2:3 using the five equal parts then 3:5 using the eight equal parts. Can you further elaborate?
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you Hosam - your question made me re examine my sketch of the lute belly layout and I have discovered a draughting error in my drawing. The
division of the belly is divided into 8 parts measured from the bottom edge of the belly to the lower edge of the neck block - not as shown. If I then
divide this distance into 5 parts the centre of the soundhole on part 3 is lower than is actually the case. This is exactly as is found on the oud.
I apologise for this error and hope that it does not cause confusion but the net result of the correction is that this example of a 17th C lute belly
layout can be seen to be now almost identical to that of the oud. I have edited my posting above with a revised sketch of the lute belly geometry and
some changes to the associated text.
Note that locating the centre of the soundhole by dividing the belly into 5 parts only works on this lute if the belly length is taken as the distance
between the bottom edge of the belly to the termination of the fingerboard (which is higher than the bottom edge of the neck block). In lutes of the
period often the lower part of the fingerboard is carried over the neck joint onto the neck block and terminates in two points known as "stings". The
purpose of the 'stings' is not certain but the points sometimes are found to coincide with the lower edge of the neck block so might also be taken to
determine the measurement of belly length - which may have been the case in this example of a lute to determine the centre of the soundhole.
The division of a lute belly into 8 equal parts to locate the bar positions (with the soundhole centre on the fifth part and the beginning of the neck
on the 8th part) as well as the subdivision of the first and second parts into three to find the bridge position, is given by Marin Mersenne in his
"Harmonie Universelle"of the 17th C so this geometry might be taken as the basic standard from which to work although as we have seen - it all depends
upon how one measures belly length.
I would be interested to hear from others to learn if this geometry is commonly found in surviving ouds (or is current practice among oud makers), as
it was for lutes.
Thanks again Hosam
John
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
For information and illustration, here is an example of typical finger board "stings" on a 17th C mandolino (a tiny descant lute) Catalogue # 37, from
the van de Raalte collection, Dean Castle, Kilmarnock, Scotland.
The points of the fingerboard "stings" define the lower edge of the neck block - possibly as part of the barring geometry of the instrument.
So the question is, does the oud also have a similar indicator that defines this critical point in defining the barring geometry? I have recently
noticed that some ouds have a heart shaped inlay on the belly just below the fingerboard that possibly might perform the same function as lute stings
(which do not seem to be a feature of oud decoration?).
I have just been checking out the General Oud Forum, thread "1928 Oud in Bad Shape" and there among the interesting images that have been posted is
what appears to be confirmation that this heart shaped inlay does indeed mark the position of the lower edge of the neck block.
Is this feature common to ouds?
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have another correction to make after checking my files! Marin Mersenne in his "Harmonie Universelle" of 1636 gives the following method for barring
a lute. The belly is divided into 8 equal parts with bars placed on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th parts with the beginning of the neck at the
8th part - and with the centre of the soundhole on the 5th part.
I was, therefore, incorrect in imagining that the belly must be further divided into 5 parts to find the soundhole centre. So the basic barring
geometry given by Mersenne is even simpler than I had remembered it!
This does not affect the analysis of the barring of the Oud and lute given above - both of which conform closely to the geometry given by Mersenne -
but it does explain why my efforts to try to locate the soundhole centres by dividing a belly into 5 parts failed to work for these examples!
Apologies again.
|
|
|
Hosam
Oud Junkie
Posts: 180
Registered: 12-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks for the clarification/corrections. My understanding is the heart shaped inlay (some called it beard) on the face below the fingerboard is only
for decorative purpose.
|
|
|
Dr. Oud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1370
Registered: 12-18-2002
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: better than before
|
|
You may find your pursuit of the barring location pattern frustrated by the variation from one oud maker to another. I have done a study of the ratio
of the rose hole locations and the tone braces on recognized master made ouds from Turkish and Arabic luthiers including Manol, Hamza Usta, Karibyan,
Dicran Najarian; Roufan, George Abdo and Hanna Nahat and Garbis Awadikian. There appears to be no consistant ratio of the body length, width or depth
and the locations of these features. There are many stories of famous makers who would destroy instruments that did not produce the sound they or
their clients wanted. I believe this was in fact done to insure that only the best sounding ouds were released to the world. This is merely a quality
control process, and I think it worked well enough, although I find it difficult to destroy something I have labored 100 hours to produce.
I would surmise that the variabilities in the characteristics of the wood itself when an instrument is built at the boundary of structural integrity
as ouds are, makes it impossible to predict the exact outcome of the tone or other sound characteristics of the instrument. The more ouds I see and
measure, the more I believe that it is not an instrument that can be characteized scientifically. Even in the Turkish tradition where almost all ouds
are produced faithfully to the design developed by Manol in the turn of the 20th century, variation still is significant even between ouds from each
maker.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you Hosam and Richard - both "beards" and "stings" may well be just decorative. On the other hand there may originally have been another purpose
for these features that could have been forgotten over the centuries. I don't know the answers but am just curious enough to speculate - just to see
if there are any interesting correlations.
I should point out that the early 17th C "Mersenne" barring scheme for lutes is just one basic layout that was used by luthiers in Europe but that
there were many variations. I chose this system for illustration because it seems to agree with the barring arrangement on my early 20th C oud. Now
this may be just pure coincidence and perhaps my oud is unique in this respect but I am encouraged enough to look further.
Another geometrical layout was used by Chistofolo Choc (see above) and the "Mersenne" layout does not work for this lute. This lute has a more
'rotund' profile ( greater body width to length ratio) than other lutes. We know that the luthiers were working to a standard layout because of the
scribed marks left by dividers used by the makers to layout the belly but also that each maker had his own preferences which were variations on the
basic layout.
The question that interests me historically is did the luthiers of Europe independently develop their own schemes of barring for the lute or were
these layouts copied from Arabic sources? The problem is that while lutes from the 16th C survive to be studied, no ouds - apparently - exist that
were made prior to the late 19th C. So a lot of historical evidence about the oud has, sadly, been lost forever and comparisons may be difficult if
not impossible to achieve.
While there may be a lot of variation in geometry of ouds made by different makers of the early 20th C, I suspect that once an individual luthier had
found a formula that worked for him then he would stick with it and reduce the risk of ending up with a 'dud'. The question then is did each
generation of oud maker develop his own scheme of things or was he carrying on a tradition learned from the luthier that taught him? And how far back
does each master/pupil line go back in time? I can't imagine that there are no long unbroken traditions in the making of ouds as there are in the
music?
My quest then is to compare 'early' barring layouts of surviving ouds with those of surviving lutes of the 16th/17th C - not to make comparisons
between "modern" oud makers - to see if there is any correlation. To do that I need to have oud barring layouts for analysis so would appreciate any
information that others are able or willing to provide.
If the master luthiers are prone to deviate from possible 'standard' barring layouts for the oud it may be that more consistent layouts are to be
found in ouds by lesser makers who might be more prone to stick to tried and tested tradition in order to make a living?
However, at the end of the day, I am with everyone else in seeking an exceptional sounding instrument (by my standard of judgement) used to make
beautiful music in the hands of a master - regardless of how things might have been in the past.
|
|
|
Dr. Oud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1370
Registered: 12-18-2002
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: better than before
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by jdowning
... I suspect that once an individual luthier had found a formula that worked for him then he would stick with it and reduce the risk of ending up
with a 'dud'. The question then is did each generation of oud maker develop his own scheme of things or was he carrying on a tradition learned from
the luthier that taught him? And how far back does each master/pupil line go back in time? I can't imagine that there are no long unbroken traditions
in the making of ouds as there are in the music?... |
The unfortunate cultural tradition in Arabic and
Persian societies is that the makers would not teach anyone unless you were in the family. The Turkish makers on the other hand do have an apprentice
program, which has resulted in more consistently good quality instruments. The longest oud making dynastry known was the Nahat family of Damascus, Syria, going back 4 generations from the first Abdo in early 1800's, to George Abdo who made the last known Nahat oud in
1983 in Brazil. George Abdo was never married and did not teach any other descendants, so the knowledge of how to make these finest of Arabic ouds has
been lost. Nor did the indiviual family members make the same design. Each one had a unique size and shape of oud, but they all had a sound quality
sought after and coveted by players of the Arabic tradition. Other makers have of course copied their design with some success, but the level of
craftsmanship and tone has not been equaled...yet.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks for the information Richard. My line of investigation doesn't look very promising I admit but pretty much the same situation that you mention
concerning ouds in recent history seemed to exist in the 16th and 17th centuries among European lute makers. Mersenne himself commented on the fact
that perfection (here he means geometrical ratio perfection I think) in lute barring was difficult to establish in the absence of a large amount of
data because of the variations found in the barring. Yet we know that among all of this innovative development work by topluthiers of the period - all
striving to make a "better" instrument - many were nevertheless working to an established basic barring geometry - and that there were a number of
different geometrical arrangements used - partly because of the wide variety of lute designs, shapes and sizes that appeared during this two hundred
year period no doubt. We know this from the layout markings found on the bellies.
I am interested to know if oud makers also marked the position of the bars particularly if they made use of compasses or dividers for laying out the
belly.
If the tradition among Arabic luthiers was to keep their experience and knowledge secret within the family, then it could be that it was the Europeans
who developed geometrical layout schemes by first copying and analysing the work of Arabic makers from the ouds themselves - just as oud makers today
are trying to learn from the past master luthiers?
Interestingly, although there may be no general past tradition of apprenticeship for oud makers, the oud that I have in my possession went through the
hands of one Hosain Mohey Al-Deen Helmy who apparently was a third year student in a Department of Musical Instruments (sometime prior to
WW 2 ?). Unfortunately we do not know if this student made the entire instrument or just the belly as a repair job or even only the rosettes that
carry his signature. If he did make the belly then it could be that he was taught to bar it according to a geometrical layout that was standard in
Europe in the 17th C or earlier. He (or the maker of the belly) also carefully marked the bar positions in pencil.
I think that I shall continue to pursue this line of investigation which may or may not turn out to be futile but - like Mersenne - I shall need many
more examples of oud barring to analyse!
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
