| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8
..
13 |
bulerias1981
Oud Junkie
Posts: 763
Registered: 4-26-2009
Location: Beacon, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: John Vergara Luthier Lord of the Strings instrument making and repair
|
|
John,
I just want to take the time out to say I really appreciate your research and your work on this forum, even though I may not reply to many of your
posts, I am reading. In this matter of making and testing silk strings, I don't have a lot to share since I haven't attempted to make and test my own
strings. But it is something I intend on doing when I have the time at sime point.
I have one question. Why do you frequent here, and generously share your hard earned data in an oud forum?
I mean, you seem very much from the European school in terms of your training and methodology. I would think someone in that mind frame would spend
the energy and effort in a lute forum... the Western equivalent. So why the oud forum? What is it about the oud you are interested in? You seem to
have spent a lot of time touching up on the subject of an oud and the transition to the lute. Which I find fascinating.
Again, I appreciate that you share these things here, im not trying to discourage anything! I'm only trying to understand your agenda. I wish you to
continue of course.
I was also considering a lute forum. Are there any you'd suggest?
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you for your interest John.
I have been interested in the lute and oud - from an historical perspective - since the late 1950's/early 1960's when the modern lute and 'early
music' revival really started to 'take off' and when I spent a brief period of time working on an engineering project in Cairo, Egypt hearing at first
hand the classical oud being played in its 'natural environment'.
The oud and lute are said to be related historically so I undertake research of both instruments. What is relevant to the oud (historically) should,
therefore, be relevant to the lute and vice versa? However, as little or no evidence is provided by the historians in support of their claim that the
oud is the ancestor of the lute one of my current projects is to compare the geometries of old lutes and ouds - and other relevant data - to try to
establish if there is in fact a close historical relationship between the two instruments. The alternative scenario could be that the lute was
developed independently from the oud.
I post on Mike's forum - with subject matter related primarily to the oud - not only because this forum is about the best that possibly can be - with
superior design and facilities - but because I believe in freely sharing information and experience with others. This, in turn, tends to benefit
everyone when there is a reciprocal exchange of information that further expands the knowledge base. Also, for those of us who have no knowledge of
Arabic or Persian, the assistance of those forum members who are fluent in these languages, in translating and interpreting the old texts, is
invaluable and important.
I also write about matters relating to the lute (as well as the oud) in FoMRHI (The Fellowship of Makers and Researchers of Historic Instruments)
where I have been a member and contributor since its inception in 1975. FoMRHI was originally established as a publication to promote an informal and
free exchange of information about historic instruments - an organisation predating Internet forums. In the same spirit of free exchange of
information, all of the past articles (Comms) published in FoMRHI are now available for free download from :
http://www.fomrhi.org
Lots of useful information.
FoMRHI is a 'snail mail' not an on line forum. The only forum that I know about that is (but one that I do not contribute to) is LuteNet - an
unmoderated email forum.
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~lsa/aboutUs/lutenet.html
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
My silk string making equipment has recently been gathering a bit of dust but is not forgotten and otherwise is ready to continue with experiments.
This might be a good time to pick up the thread again as new member to the forum 'danyel' has some successful first hand experience in making silk
strings in accordance with the descriptions in Kanz al-Tuhaf. The problem - perhaps not altogether surprisingly - is that G.H. Farmer's translation of
the original text may not be correct when he states that 'gum' was used as a binder. Apparently 'boiled fish glue' is the correct translation.
This being the case it is important now to take a step backward and include 'fish glue' in the list of potential binders. Fish glue of ancient times
was (and is) a very pure form of gelatin (isinglas) obtained from the swim bladders of the sturgeon fish (although it is said that the Persians used
the material from the roof of the mouth of the sturgeon). A lower quality glue is said to have been made from the skin of the sturgeon.
Swim bladders of any kind of fish can also provide an 'isinglas' glue high quality (as it was in England in the 16th C in absence of the 'real stuff')
- its just that sturgeon are big fish so require less effort to collect the quantities required for glue production.
Luthiers have used both isinglas and hide glue (individually or in combination) for centuries for instrument construction and repair. Nowadays any
luthier contemplating using real isinglas as a glue must be prepared to lay out a lot of money in pursuit of historical authenticity as the stuff is
now very costly to purchase. Fortunately I have a small quantity of real isinglas available for testing - courtesy of Alexander Rakov, modern pioneer
maker of silk instrument strings (for lute and viol).
A lower quality of 'fish glue' (made from boiled fish scraps with modern chemicals added for preservative (so not strictly an historical alternative)
that I shall also try out is the Lee Valley fish glue that, hopefully, might be applied cold rather than hot in the case of 'isinglas'. I am sceptical
that either will work by being simply rubbed into a twisted silk string until the glue has fully penetrated the string (as directed by the Kunz
al-Tuhaf - according to Farmer) but will give it 'my best shot', testing with open mind nevertheless hopeful that the results will be successful.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
At this point, and before proceeding further, it may be of interest to provide some background information.
Some years ago - interested in 'authentic' stringing for the lute and having been disappointed in the apparently 'poor' performance (in my opinion
having tried them) of gut bass strings that were then (1970's) being sold as 'historically correct' - I began to wonder if materials other than gut
might have been used to make lute strings of the 16th and 17th C - for example silk multifilament (and monofilament) and other textile materials such
as linen as well as sinew. These notions were expressed in the pages of FoMRHI. I did, in all innocence, for example, wonder that if ouds used silk
strings (fact) and the lute was supposed to have developed from the oud then at some time - surely - lutes also would have used silk strings? Perhaps
silk was a superior string material to gut and might account for the observed significant differences between modern 'historical' gut strings and
historical accounts of lute strings. But no - such suggestions were met with resistance and (in one case) vehement denial.
I then received a phone call from Alexander Rakov in early 2001. He explained that he had examined a number of old instruments in various collections
and had observed that some of them had original strings that were not made from gut but from what appeared to be textile materials.
To cut a long story short, we spent the next two years in regular cordial correspondence brainstorming ideas about possible alternatives, researching
available records etc - with Alexander making experimental silk strings that he kindly sent to me (and others) for testing and evaluation.
The objective was not only to investigate if silk strings were a viable solution to the lute gut string 'dilemma' but to establish a method where
anyone could easily and economically (compared to gut) make their own viable silk strings.
Although the main interest was to develop strings for the European lute and bowed viols (his chosen period instruments as a professional musician) -
Alexander did also make - on request and as a second priority - experimental silk strings for other instruments such as the oud, harp and guitar.
His strings for lute and viol were finely crafted and successful for those instruments. Less successful has been the objective to persuade others to
make their own strings - not unexpected, I suppose, in this essentially consumer society!
One advantage of making one's own silk strings (at least for fretted instrument players) is that if a string does not turn out well enough to be used
on an instrument they serve well as tied frets in place of costly gut.
This thread attempts to continue the pioneering example set by Alexander but with more emphasis on freely providing information on making workable
silk strings for the oud (as well as for the lute) based upon what little historical data is available as well as a knowledge of the physics of silk
as a string making material.
All contributions welcomed!
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Dear John,
This is a matter of gigantic scope and it will take much care and hence time to comment on your formidable research.
Briefly, as to my own background: when I took classes in renaissance lute at the Frankfurt Conservatory back in around 1990, I was appalled by the
plastic strings my teacher and most "early" lutanists put on their lutes. But I was also disenchanted by the instruments as such. To cut a long zîr
short, I bought an oud and I found they had put equally disgusting strings on it (the instrument, though cheap, had much more sound than any lute I
had seen so far yet it is so bad I haven't touched it ever since I obtained real ‘idân). I removed them (the strings) and put some spare qin
strings on, and played with those for years. Later, when I finally found out that some people outside Germany built serious lutes (upon visiting
Stephen Barber whom I had contacted because of his article on the Elyass oud in The Lute), I strung my new, good lutes with gut strings first by
Kürschner, then Baldock. I spent many hours with Kürschner, Baldock, Daniel Larson, Seegerman discussing strings and finally concluded, string
making was a craft and the difference between acceptable and great strings was due to subtle improvements of craft over the years. Surely, beef gut
and all kinds of synthetics were ruled out, but still, how different various gut strings, made from the same sheep intestines, turn out when made by
different makers is frightening. It might be compared to playing music: Two people playing the same piece on the same instrument sound different. When
Rakov entered the scene I was exited that someone finally tackled the silk issue, but the strings he kindly sent to me were at first complete rubbish,
and on second try still utterly useless. They broke soon, were false and had a very coarse sound. Hence I went back to the infinitely superior Chinese
strings. Meanwhile I discovered that Japanese makers offer a range of very fine silk strings for various instruments, including roped and very smooth
chanterelle/zîr types. My own attempts at making silk strings according to the Kanz at-tuhaf was limited to thin types simply twisted from de-gummed
yarn and rubbed with glue. They came out quite similar to the strings I found on Central Asian dotârs. They are kept at very low tension and some of
them are still intact on my Tanbûr-dotâr instruments after many years (photo). Their players where apparently not so fuzzy with strings. With the
‘ûd kâmil it is different. Only the best strings work here. Maybe you could furnish us with a recording of your beautiful Urmawî-lute, playing
more than just a scale, in order we might get an idea how good those strings are? My experience is, that silk strings take a long time to settle and
have to be broken in. They improve dramatically during that process. They also are very mizrâb-sensitive, i.e. the position and movements and quality
of the rîshâ/turtle/horn/wooden mizrâb changes the sound produced much more than with gut strings.
The renaissance treble viol being (if it ever existed) maybe the most problematic of all instruments, string wise, I asked A. Rakov specifically for
treble viol strings. His 2nd set is still on (though without tension), because I gave up on that instrument after his strings, slightly better than
available gut in response, but dull in timbre and false, had all variously broken.
[file]26216[/file] [file]26218[/file]
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
this is a closeup of my silk strings (Chinese and Japanese) on the "Timurid" oud,
below self-made do-târ strings
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
it does not seem to work...
the attached jpg's are "lost in space", sorry.
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
[file]26220[/file]
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
now the kâmil-close up once more:
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you for your commentary and images danyel.
Sorry that you did not find the experimental silk strings made and given to you by A. Rakov for evaluation to be 'good'. Your experience does not seem
to match the assessment of other professional musicians who have used his strings but who am I to judge.
You say that you are disgusted at the sound of modern oud strings (presumably this includes the 19th C gut and metal wound on gut/silk core basses)
yet these strings are historically perfectly appropriate for any of the old ouds surviving today (as well as any 'replica' of an early oud that copies
the sound board bracing and geometry of these surviving ouds).
Like you I am curious to find out how the early instruments (that do not survive) might have sounded with their original strings. Others are working
on the historical gut string problem that as far as I know has yet have been resolved - unless you are happy to accept the dull flaccid 'thud' of
roped lute gut basses as musical. I am talking here about lutes where the strings (going beyond the fifth or sixth course of the oud) are plucked with
the soft fingertip rather than plectrum.
I am also curious to find out what can be achieved with strings made from silk filament (or even spun silk) which is the main thrust of this
thread.
As I would like to find out if it is possible to make a full set of silk strings for my five course (Urmawi) oud based upon the information in Kanz
al-Tuhaf I first need to know from you danyel how far the translation by Farmer (published in 1939) is incomplete or incorrect before I commit my
valuable limited stock of 'Kremer' genuine sturgeon isinglas glue to further experimentation (sturgeon fish are now a protected species under CITES so
the 'Kremer' supply comes as a by product from fish farms where these beautiful creatures are raised to satisfy the 'tastes' of the rich and famous
for caviar. Current cost of Kremer isinglas is over $700 per kilogram).
I would appreciate it, therefore, if you could provide a complete updated translation of the Kanz al-Tuhaf text as it relates to the making of silk
strings (the gut string information would be of great interest as well), including how the strings were twisted (plain or roped).
Your first hand exeperience in actually making the strings would also be of great value for those interested enough to follow this thread.
Of particular interest is the type and preparation of the ' boiled fish glue' that you used and say is the correct translation and the preparation of
the yellow 'essence of saffron' dye (or preservative?).
Time out ... more to add!
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
just briefly: by "modern oud strings" I mean plastic. I do like the sound of Udî Nevres Bey or Qassabgî very much and use (as I said before); gut
and copper-spun silk filament strings on my antique Turkish 'ûd. Still, I'd prefer no metal setups. BTW: Do you still have these gut/silk strings you
purchased in Egypt in the early 60s? What gauges were they? How many plain, how many wound strings?
I only dissolved some saffron in the glue, to be honest. I also used hide glue; I understand that sirîshim-i pukhta (serîshem-e pokhte) is more
likely to mean fish glue, but lit. just means hot (i.e. hide-)glue. sirîshimi sag-mâhî would be isinglas specifically. Again, there must have been
low and high end strings in the 14th c; from what I saw at Barber's workshop, Isinglas is a gorgeous substance. He heats it in a bain de marie with a
little Bombay Sapphire gin, apparently a recipe of his grand father, as far as I recall.
If you should need more, maybe this would do?
http://www.stoerleim-manufaktur.de/
I will see what I can do with the Kanz at-Tuhaf (at-Tuhaf rather than al-Tuhaf is German arabists spelling, as it is pronounced at-T..., though
written al-T...)
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you danyel - that is very helpful.
Alas, the strings that I purchased in Cairo (1963/4) I no longer have for examination. I was asked the same question more recently by historical gut
string researcher and maker Mimmo Peruffo. The strings were, as I recall, top three courses plain twisted gut and the three basses (silver plated)
copper wound wire on silk filament. They were in paper packets and of French manufacture (printed on the packets). Not knowing much about the strings
or the oud (or lute for that matter) at the time I gave them later (the gut strings at least as far as memory permits ) to Eph. Segerman, N.R.I. who I
thought then would find the strings of interest in his active research program. I directed Mimmo to contact Eph. (who was due to visit Eph, that year
on string related business) for more information but have had no feedback since (that was a few years ago) so I guess that the strings are no longer
recoverable. The original strings that came with the oud were of similar appearance and replaced by the new strings and then simply discarded - the
sad fate of all old strings - lost forever and gone to dust.
If we can use your updated translation of Kanz at-Tuhaf with reference to string making, twisting etc. that would be a great new starting point for
further 'hands on' trials on this thread. With your support I am hopeful that it may be possible to replicated a set of five silk courses based upon
the K.T. information alone.
I am not so sure about Barber's use of gin (or any other alcohol based additive) to supplement isinglas (or hide) glue. This would appear to be a 19th
C carpenters practice of dubious value according to some contemporary account. I did question Barber about this via email some time ago but was met
with a stony silence (i.e. no response). I shall look up my research notes again and post the results here for information.
Due to the high cost of isinglas I think that a hide glue alternative must be a potential alternative and should be proven if low cost silk string
alternatives are to ever gain any popularity. Perhaps hide glue mixed with cheap low cost purified food grade gelatin might also be worth testing?
The problem that I have found with glues so far is that it is impossible to get the glue to penetrate a wound string by just rubbing the glue into the
string - it is only a surface penetration not full saturation as implied by K.T. The only way - so far - that I have been able to achieve complete
saturation of a string with a glue binder is to saturate the string with an acid based slow setting hide glue before twisting. However this is still
early days.
If I succeed in making a full set (5 courses) of silk strings for my 'Urmawi' oud then this will be interesting to record to compare with the Rakov
strings currently fitted (but not specifically designed for this instrument) . The Rakov strings incidently have been in place for a year or so now
(at tension but unplayed) without failure. All being well I shall conduct the tests with the help of an experienced oud player later this year.
Note that the string length of this oud is only 56 cm. This will be a severe test of the capabilities of the strings. If I was to do the project again
- based on my more recent research - I would choose a string length of 67,5 cm. But that is another story for another time.
On the other hand my replica Maler lute is of that string length so will be an interesting alterative test bed.
Onwards and upwards!
|
|
|
Jono Oud N.Z
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1119
Registered: 12-14-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hi.
You have both done incredible research in this area.
I was just reading 'Music in the World of Islam' by Amnon Shiloah and came across this.
This may not be new information at all, but I thought I would post just in case it is at all useful.
(The first part written by Chevalier Jean Chardin who traveled in Persia in 1711, referring to music in Persia).
'..the strings of their instruments are not of gut, as ours are, because it is a contamination by their law to touch dead parts of the animals; their
instruments' strings are either of twisted raw silk or of spun brass' (Harrison 122:132). From the religious standpoint this statement conflicts with
evidence brought by Belon in 1553...; he praised the Turks as excelling in producing bow and lute-strings from intestines (Belon 140). This
discrepancy, of course might have stemmed from a divergent Sh'i interpretation or may be a residue of Zoroastrian beliefs'. (Shiloah, p.96).
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks Jono Oud N.Z. that is an example of a useful snippet of information that might help our overall understanding about both silk and gut strings.
I would encourage other forum members to follow your example to post what might be relevant information on the topic and not be held back by concerns
that the information may already be common knowledge.
Chardin unfortunately does not say which instruments of Persia at that time used raw silk or spun brass strings - typical though of these early texts
where key information is not included.
Interesting that there might have been cultural or religious reasons for not making strings from animal intestines (at least by the early 18th C) as
that situation did not seem to apply to earlier periods in the history of the oud.
I wonder why the same religious constraints did not also apply to the use of raw silk where the creature inside its cocoon of silk filament must be
killed (by heat and suffocation) before it can emerge as a moth by chewing its way through the cocoon thus destroying the continuity of the silk
filament?
There is however a commercial use for silk from cocoons that have been compromised in this way and that is to spin the short lengths of silk into spun
thread (using a spinning wheel technique). Spun silk thread has been made for centuries and may therefore have been used for making silk instrument
strings? This is another avenue for 'hands on' experimentation that I am following as spun silk thread is a lot cheaper than filament silk so might be
an ideal material for producing low cost strings.
I have just come across copies of my email communications with Alexander Rakov and others concerning the making of silk instrument strings (for lute)
- covering a period of two years from early 2001 to early 2003. I must spend some time going over that material again as there will be a lot of useful
information in there that I have likely forgotten about.
It should be noted that silk strings can be made from raw silk (i.e. with the natural sericin gum left intact) provided the sericin is first softened
in hot water prior to twisting. However - if the Farmer translations are anything to go by - the eartliest mention of oud silk strings first used by
Ziryab (early 9th C) were not made in the usual (Chinese?) fashion ( ie "were not spun in hot water as was the custom") - an indication that the first
silk oud strings may have been made from degummed silk, a practice that continued at least until the 14th C as confirmed by the Kanz at-Tuhaf. Further
possible evidence of the use of degummed silk is the colouring of the strings also mentioned at the time of Zyriab - yellow for the Zir (top string),
red for the Mathna (second course), white for the Mathlath (third course) and black for the Bamm (fourth course). Zyriab is said to have introduced a
fifth course but I don't know if the additional course was also coloured. The significance of the colouring is that silk will readily accept dyes but
only if the sericin gum coating has been completely removed. The other significance - yet to be tested - is that the colouring may indicate the use of
(coloured) chemical salts to artificially add weight (or rather mass) to a string - an ancient practice aimed at replacing weight lost in the
degumming process (silk being sold by weight).
Mimmo Peruffo (Aquila strings) has been experimenting for some time with the artificial weighting of gut strings in order to solve the lute bass
string problem but I am not sure how far this work has developed. Must check his website some time for an update.
Note also that Pierre Belon (mid 16th C) mentions the colouring of the Turkish chanterelles (top strings) that he says were made from gut available
in many colours - red, blue, green, yellow and white - that they were very fine (small in diameter) and could be taken as high (in pitch) as the
European lute strings but that they were not translucent (as were the European lute strings).
One question danyel why are you using 'historical' European lute gut strings on your experimental ud-i akmal instrument rather than completely
stringing the instrument in modern Chinese made silk strings - that you believe may have represented the correct historical stringing of your oud?
I should say again that I do not believe that any of this research work - even if it results in the making of low cost, simply made viable silk
strings - will persuade most oudists today to give up on their relatively low cost bright sounding plastic and metal overspun strings - but that is
not the point of this exercise of course!
Lots more to come.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
One problem with silk strings - at least as far as bowed instruments is concerned - is that they are prone to 'hairyness' at wear points as the
surface filaments are broken in use. This can be seen on the images of the Rakov treble viol string previously posted by danyel. This is not a
manufacturing fault but a fact of life and neither is premature string breakage - an unfortunate burden to bear for both 'historical' gut and silk
string users - particularly for the thin treble strings.
Interestingly silk strings for bowed instruments were still in popular use by violinists around the turn of the 19th/20th C in Europe. However, as
violin maker Ed. Heron- Allen ('Violin Making as it was and is') wrote in 1885 "All violinplayers are familiar with the now common Acribelle (or silk)
strings which are composed of an infinity of filaments of silk so twisted together and polished as to exceeed in uniformity and transparency the
finest gut strings. For players troubled with perspiring hands and for hot or damp climates, they are without doubt invaluable, for they are but
little affected by damp, and they make up in these respects what they certainly lack in tone. They are apt to fray and get ragged, and though it has
been recommended when this is the case to draw the string quickly through the flame of a spirit (alcohol) lamp, to remove the frayed fibres, an
Acribelle string once gone wrong, is ghastly with a ghastliness more easily imagined than described. The same applies to the twisted or plaited
strings, sometimes known as Chinese water-cord. These are quite the best for players with hot hands and are almost exclusively used by violinists in
India and other hot countries, where the ordinary (gut?) strings not only break easily, but are very difficult to keep. But of course their tone is
inferior to gut"
Time out more to add
|
|
|
Jono Oud N.Z
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1119
Registered: 12-14-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Very interesting.
I will follow this post.
Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
To continue with the silk violin string saga.
Ed. Heron-Allen was clearly not a fan of silk strings and although he was referring to silk strings for bowed instruments the same concerns must have
applied to silk strings for plucked instruments - due to abrasion wear etc.
His solution to burn off the offending silk hairs may have been a standard maintenance regime for silk string users - including Chinese made strings -
throughout history?
Ed. Heron-Allen does not mention where 'Acribelle' strings were made.
For information attached are images of the front and back covers of a book on learning the guitar published by Hawkes and son, London, England in 1904
- picked up a few years ago at a local antique store. There on the back cover is an advertisement for the dreaded silk violin strings. Difficult to
read here due to the required image compression of this forum but they are The 'Bimba' E, 3 cut lengths price 8d (pence), The 'Excelsior' E, 4 lengths
price 8d, The 'Golden Strad' 21/2 lengths price 7d, The 'Standard' E 3 lengths price 8d and The 'Standard' A 2 lengths price 10d. The side bar states
that Acribelle 'Bimba' strings are "universally recognised as the best English strings, good tone, strength and durability always assured" The source
of the strings is not known but likely imported - Middle East, Japan, China?) by Hawkes and Sons like the remainder of the gut strings advertised on
the same page.
Checking what the prices of the strings might be today based upon the UK retail price index - inflation of the pound sterling from 1904 to 2010 is
about X84 according to on-line sources. For English currency of 1904 there were 20 shillings (s) to the pound (L) and 12 pence (d) to the shilling (I
grew up with the currency before it all went metric).
So the approximate price today for Acribelle strings for violin would range from $3.65 US (for the 7d package) to $5.21US (for the 10d package).
The most expensive string advertised was the copper covered gut fourth E string for double bass at 15s. 0d (i.e. 3/4 of a pound sterling) which
converts to about $94US at today's prices.
[file]26238[/file]
[file]26242[/file]
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It is sometimes useful to go back over research notes and records dating back many years (in my case) as data can often be seen and judged in a
different light.
A few further observations come to mind on re-reading the Ed. Heron Allen comments on silk violin strings.
The first is that the Acribelle strings were only available from Hawkes and sons of London in two sizes - top string E and second string A (I am not a
violin player so assume that the tuning of the instrument is G D A E in the West?). Presumably the remainder of the strings were in gut? Interesting
then that the violin could not (?) be successfully strung completely in silk - for whatever reason.
It is unfortunate that Acribelle strings are no longer being manufactured (not surpisingly perhaps) so that they might be examined and analysed. I
would not be surprised, however, if somewhere in the world today that there is a violin gathering dust in its case with a packet or two of original
'Acribelle' 'Bimba' strings tucked inside the case waiting to be discovered!
One very interesting comment by Heron-Allen is that 'Acribelle' silk strings were "composed of an infinity of filaments of silk so twisted together
and polished as to exceed in uniformity and transparency the finest gut strings".
If 'Acribelle' strings represented silk string construction of a much earlier period in history (and we don't know that they did of course) - then how
could a viol player (or lute player even) of the 16th or 17th C distinguish between a string made of gut and one made from silk? Many of the well
known commentators of the period - English lutenists Robert Dowland (1610) and Thomas Mace (1676) for example do not say that their lute strings were
made of gut. They do describe the strings - colour, clearness where they were made etc. - but their descriptions might also apply, in some cases at
least, to strings made from silk. So, for example Dowland emphasises the clearness, freshness, strength and uniformity of good strings. He also notes
that some strings come coloured - 'seawater green', 'carnation red' and 'watchet blue' (i.e. light blue or sky blue).
Mace mentions that strings coming from Lyons were quite good for bass strings. Note that Lyons was a major centre of the French silk industry at that
time.
Just pondering the possibilities!
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Kanz at-tuHaf on silk strings
Ms Brit Lib, Or. 2361, fols. 260b–262a, several others compared.
Based on the German translation by E. Neubauer (Der Bau der Laute…Frankfurt 1993) from which I deviated in various but minute details. Farsi is
notoriously ambiguous. Therefore I provided lexical definitions of the most important expressions.
Fifth paragraph: On the twisting (fatl, as in a rope) of silk strings (outâr-e abrîshomîn, abrîshom: silk, musical string).
As distortion and straightness of sound (âwâz) depends on the quality of the strings and the latter are either made of twisted silk or sheep gut, it
is necessary to obtain silk that is white, smooth (amlas: even, smooth, sleek), even throughout its length (motasâwî [equal, straight] l-qadr
[measure, dimension, size] wa-l-ajzâ’, sing.: joz’, parts, portions, sections) and round (mostadîr-shakl. lit. circular form). It should be
carefully washed and firmly spun (or dyed in an elegant colour??) (khûb: good, beautiful, elegant…firm, strong; reshte: thread, line, rope. Or
roshte: coloured, dyed). It should be boiled in water and qalye [potash, black vitriol]-soap, taken out, rinsed two or three times in clear water and
hung up in the shadow to dry. While twisting one should seek the sunlight. The following gauges should be observed: 64 threads (târ-e abrîshom, lit.
strings of silk) for the bam, 48: mathlath, 32: mathnâ, 24: zîr, 16: Hâdd, gently (laTîf: elegant, graceful, lovely, pleasant, gentle, delicate)
twisted. Thereupon one heats glue (serîshem-e pokhte) and a bit liquid essence of saffron. When it has a suitable viscosity (mo‘tadel-e qewâm;
mo‘tadel: moderate, well porportioned, temperate, neither cold nor hot, equal; qewâm: consistency, substance, syrup) one applies it with a cloth of
fine linen (kerbâs, fine linen, muslin, lint) until the glue thoroughly soaked through all fibres (ajzâ’, lit: parts, particles). Now one leaves
it to dry.
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
btw: contrary to what Rakov and you, John, are mainly looking for, viz. improved flexibility of bass strings, the early sources recommend silk strings
for the upper registers and gut for the lower. (al-Kindî, Ziryâb acc. to Maqqârî, aT-TaHHân ("the stiff strings cause bright trebles and the
trembling one’s the soft basses. I mean silk and gut"), Kanz at-tuHaf: "The sages agree that the bamm should be made of sheep-gut because it
vibrates in all its parts." Hence we can assume that the M.E. silk strings were generally quite stiff and probably not of such complex construction as
the low qin strings. Still, such strings might have existed (our sources cover 500 years and 5000 miles in a handful of paragraphs) and maybe even
found their way to Lyon. Who knows, the entire silk industry was an imitation of eastern industries, as most other technical processes and gear were
at that time introduced from the M.E.
Unfortunately neither Maraghî nor any other Timurid author deals with silk strings in more detail. As I insinuated before, they might have had actual
Chinese silk strings or "complex" silk strings made like qin strings for the basses; maybe even loaded strings; the fact that they don't talk about it
(in any surviving document) means nothing. Even the existing world maps and coordinate tables of the Ma’mûn era had to be recovered from some
obscure source, passing unnoticed and unknown for centuries…
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
First of all danyel I should correct you when you say that Alexander Rakov (and now myself) are mainly looking for improved flexibility of bass
strings as we are also trying to find out how to replicate the full range of strings - from treble to bass - according to the historical descriptions,
inadequate as they appear to be. This requires hands on experimentation, of course, as no strings of silk or gut survive from the 17th C or earlier.
If you go to the start of this thread you will find that my first attempts to replicate silk strings according to Kanz at-tuhaf started with the
thinnest treble - as I figured that might be the easiest to replicate. Not so.
Also the fact that there is no historical record that Chinese silk strings of whatever construction were ever used on ouds may not mean that they
never were - but you or I or anyone else cannot use 'the unproven so it must be possible' approach as justification for an idea for that is simply
just speculation which carries little weight in historical research.
Thank you for the updated translation of KT. Why do you refer to a translation by Neubauer rather than your own translation of the primary source?
As there is some question about the use of both silk and gut strings on the oud, could you also provide a translation of gut string making in Kanz
at-tuhaf for information. I have the Farmer version so that would be of interest to compare.
The statement in KT "the sages agree that the bamm should be made of sheep-gut because it vibrates in all its parts" to me is contradictory when the
construction of all sizes of silk strings - from bamm to hadd - is described?! Is that reference taken out of context from the section describing gut
strings and simply refers to the preference for sheep's gut rather than that of goat? ("As for gut strings, the gut from sheep is better than gut from
goats" - Farmer translation 1939).
Also according to Farmer's translation ("Structure of the Arabian and Persian Lute", Glasgow, 1939) Al-Kindi recommends gut for the two bass courses
and silk for the first and second courses - silk being stronger than gut at the higher tension that gut strings are not capable of sustaining.
On the other hand, the Ikhwan al-Safa (10th C) recommend that all strings of the oud should be made from silk - the bamm having 64 threads of silk,
mathlath 48, mathna 36 and zir 27.
Usual practice for the European gut strung (?) lute was to tune the top course as high as possible in pitch (and hence string tension) while at the
same time avoiding frequent string breakage. The reason for this was to give the thicker bass strings of the fifth and sixth courses (16th C) the best
possible chance of producing some kind of reasonably musical sound (rather than a dull flaccid 'thud' ) - which meant operating at a much lower
tension than that of the trebles (about say 2kg compared to say 4kg?). That is, the strings were not set at equal tension throughout.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I should perhaps reiterate that the ancient Chinese did not make their strings as described by Kanz at-tuhaf - i.e. by rubbing some sort of glue into
the twisted string until the glue had soaked through all the fibres but boiled the raw silk strings in a concoction of glue (see page 5 of this
thread). The Chinese method was one method used by Alexander Rakov for his experimental strings (of all diameters) although he was more adventurous in
experimenting with other methods and materials as well to create viable strings.
The Ikhwan al-Safa (10th C) wrote an encyclopedia of 52 epistles (rasa'il) in four books recording all knowledge known to man at that time. Epistle 5
is concerned with music and the oud (the most perfect of instruments). English translations of Epistle 5 include 'The Epistle on the Music of the
Ikhwan al-Safa', Professor Amnon Shiloah, Tel-Aviv University, 1978 and more recently 'Epistles of the Brethren of Purity, Epistle 5' by Owen Wright,
Oxford University Press, 2010 (hard back £50 sterling - can't afford that).The former publication by Prof. Shiloah was once available on line for
very reasonable cost around $7 or so but appears to be no longer available (except for a version in Hebrew). I guess all copies may have found their
way into University libraries so are inaccessible to the general public (apparently though there is a copy in the library of the University of Ottawa
Samir).
All that I have are pages 43 - 49 (representing chapter 10) of the 73 page book that is interesting to read but does not include any mention of the
material or construction of the strings of the oud but discusses the relative proportions of the strings (4:3 ratio) and the significance of numbers.
Interestingly, the Brethren connect the four elements fire, air, water and earth with the four strings of the oud - fire for the Zir or treble string
and earth for the Bamm or bass string. They explain that the reason that an oud is strung the way it is with the zir string lower than the bamm (with
the oud held in its playing position - right handed oudist) is that the note of the bamm being low and heavy falls downward whereas that of the zir
is high and light so moves upwards. This, they reason, permits the two notes to blend better and unite in perfect harmony.
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Dear John,
I think there is a major difference between the two of us. You are looking for a recipe; I am looking for esthetics. You think, if someone translates
you a recipe for Sole Coquelin, you take up with Escoffier. That is not going to happen. Escoffier worked in a cultural framework. He learned his
craft in real kitchens from real chefs. He actually played his oud, so to speak.
After working and eating in countless French gourmet restaurants and studying 19th C culinary culture, you might after many years develop a sense of
how Escoffier would have wanted his sole to taste.
In order to interpret a text you have to establish the cultural framework; In order to establish the cultural framework of a text you have to
interpret numberless texts…
My entire life is a project that might eventually (after another 45 years or so) lead to the conclusion, what kind of strings Marâghî would have
expected on his oud.
After school I figured music was not a proper profession, hence I studied biology. Several years later I could not take the tedium of laboratory work
any longer. It made me sick. Literally ill. I restored my health by playing the oud and by studying the confucian classics (a couple of years of
university classes did not help nearly as much as actually reading, all night long, night after night, looking everything up in various (ancient)
dictionaries, brushing the characters after rubbing the ink on an inkstone). Then I escaped to the Institute for History of Arabic-Islamic Sciences
where I learned extremely much from E. Neubauer and Fuat Sezgin. They have all the sources in their library. They spent decades trying to make sense
of some of them. After I published the musical instruments book I joined work on other projects, mainly dealing with natural sciences. I reconstructed
astronomical and medical instruments. This helped me a great deal to form an idea of how M.E. scholars and artisans worked. Then I went back and
reconstructed the (Timurid) ‘ûd kâmil, spending years collecting relevant materials and pondering over details. After leaving the institute in
2005 I started playing music for real.
I have to be frank, maybe blunt. Your comments irritate me. They are impolite. So please forgive me if in answering I might get carried away a little.
I mean it in a caring way, as Dame Edna would say.
You judge how much weight my "simply just speculation" about Timurid silk strings carries in historical research? What do You know about historical
research? You conduct tedious and fruitless experiments worthy of the academy of Balnibarbi based on rather uninformed assumptions. You make an
"Urmawî-oud" based on an illustration in some manuscript made by the copying scribe, meant to annotate some terminology and not intended as a
delineation of lute morphology, let alone geometry beyond the crudest scheme (you are not familiar with the manuscript copying tradition in the
Islamic world, are you?). You use an American timber for the belly, because you can't be bothered to check the sources (no variety of spruce being
mentioned in any of them, as opposed to cypress…)? You believe you can make good silk strings in a week? With no instructions outside some rough
translation of a crude recipe? Only because you measure the exact point at which all your strings fail?
Though this be method, yet there is madness in’t. No, sorry, it's not madness, but a little stubbornness.
So how simple and "just" are my speculations? In Timurid court society everything material was either Chinese or imitating Chinese originals (probably
with the exception of food and drink). Oil varnish was discovered in an attempt to copy lacquer. The miniaturists used a (Chinese) brush and (Chinese)
ink, painting trees and rocks in unmistakably Chinese brush and ink technique. Ceramics and textiles were deeply influenced by Chinese models. Celadon
wares and silks were imported from China (silk road!). Marâghî gives detailed descriptions of Chinese instruments, such as the "pîpâ", the strings
of which he calls Hâdd, zîr… he mentions the wooden (rather than gut) frets, but does not comment upon any notable differences in string
material…
Just a few examples.
I studied Timurid culture, a unique fusion of Chinese and Islamic culture, thoroughly for many years, discussed the works of Marâghî with E.
Neubauer (in my book the greatest living authority in the field of "islamic" music, a great arabist and profound musicologist) and with Karîm
Othman-Hassan, (a virtuoso oud player, connoisseur of antique instruments and keen observer in organological as well as cultural-historic matters)
endlessly, worked on my "Timurid" ‘ûd kâmil with Stephen Barber, (nobody knows so much about historic lute-making), played that instrument with
various different strings and mizrâb-ha for almost 10 years (after having played other ‘idân, lutes, the qin etc. for many years) and my judgement
carries little weight in historic research? Fine, if so, please advise me how to improve my poor standard of learning. Would I have to measure the
point at which my scull cracks?
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Danyel - I am truly disappointed by your impolite response that not only fails to answer my previous basic questions (posed for clarification) but
which launches into a name dropping diatribe that I can only assume is an attempt to divert attention from your apparent inability to answer my
questions (perhaps because you do not want to admit in open forum that you do not know the answers?). From this I have to assume that you do not
suffer lightly any challenges to your ideas or speculations!
I do question your ability to judge the perishable (and so now extinct) artifacts (e.g. ouds and their strings) and sounds of centuries past,
regardless of your decades of study - not because I have any 'axes to grind' or personal prejudices.
So - to 'cut to the quick' and avoid further wasting of my time and money in 'stubborn' pursuit of 'tedious and fruitless experiments' I now want to
know from you - in precise detail, chapter and verse - how you were able, from your own 'hands on experiments,' to successfully replicate (in your
judgement) silk strings in strict accordance with the limited (and possibly incomplete) instructions - given by the Kanz ut-Tuhaf according to your
translation (or is it that of Neubauer?). I am particularly interested in how you managed to rub a glue binder (such as hot hide glue or is it
isinglas?) into a completed twisted string so that it penetrated completely the silk fibres of the string. If you can instruct me on how to make a
full range of such strings in only a week that would be great. I would also like to know how your self made silk strings have stood up to wear and
tear in practice (supported by photographic evidence)
On another tack (i.e. your early 16th C oud thread) I would like to know how you, or Stephen Barber or anyone else on this planet today can determine
the structure (particularly the sound board) of an oud like instrument depicted in a 16th C or earlier miniature painting. Perhaps, in support of your
claims, you can offer some early accounts of the geometry and sound board bracing design such as is evident in the Urmawi engraving (actually quite
precise geometrically as engravers tend to be) or the related bracing layout and matching geometry of the 15th C Arnault de Zwolle lute?
Sorry to be such an irritating fellow in asking such basic questions for information. Trusting, however, that they will not result in any cranium
damage!
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
I was trying to explain that I am not happy with your attempt to narrow down this topic to the kind of questions and answers you expect. My entire
approach is different, and for good reason: It was shaped by my "hands-on" experiences with the subject matter, in which period M.E. culture (in this
case specifically Ilkhanid-Timurid) is the key to understanding the sources.
If you want answers to all your questions, learn Arabic and Farsi, I am not your dragoman.
It would also be helpful, if you read more carefully, you'd find I answered all your questions already, only not in the form you expect. I gave you an
example of the difficulty in translating a short paragraph from the Kanz at-Tuhaf, I started out with Neubauer‘s extremely subtle rendition and
rechecked all crucial vocabulary but I failed to spare you from your own hands-on experiments with texts in order to see that a farsi text cannot be
translated into the kind of information you expect. If they had wanted to furnish you with a diagram they would have done so.
My own strings are still intact after roughly 10 years (as shown on the photograph I posted earlier), but, as I mentioned, only under low tension on
dotâr like instruments. They are thin. Whether the glue soaked right through every fiber I cannot tell. I personally preferred strings I made soaking
the twisted string in the hot glue and rubbing off the excess glue with a soft cloth. This issue is, however, of little significance as I am not a
string maker. I use Chinese and Japanese strings on my ’ûd kâmil. There are widely differing qualities and types available, most of which far
better than anything Rakov, you or I could ever dream of making. Chinese sources on string making are very frightening in their demands. They were
written by literati, not artisans. The parallel with ink making is apparent (ink was one of the four treasures of a scholar: brush, paper, ink and
inkstone.) I understand you rely in your knowledge about Chinese strings on John Thompson, which is good although he offers but a glimpse into a
secluded world which should not be narrowed down to "the ancient Chinese boiled the raw silk strings in a concoction of glue" or any such triviality.
The Kitâb al-adwâr illustration is found in Ms. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Marsh 521. it is dated 734 H = 1334 CE, 40 years after Urmawî’s death.
It is entitled "Sifat al-’ûd" (characteristics/attributes of the oud). Its geometry is not precise, but simplified. It is not an engraving. It was
drawn with a qalam. Another perplexing example of your ignorance, I must say. They did not have engravings. Every single copy was handwritten and
drawn by professional scribes, mostly without any knowledge of the content, only in certain cases (viz. geometry, where a lot of exact drawings were
required) would a specially qualified, more expensive scribe be hired.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8
..
13 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
