danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Early Oud, 16th century
Bonjour!
After almost 15 years of discussions, my friend Karîm Othman Hassan and I decided to experiment with an oud belly as seen in various 16th and early
17th century illustrations, surviving in some tanbûr-family instruments such as the baghlama, buzurg: i.e. with (hardwood) "cheeks"; the musht/bridge
is rather low, according to both iconography and early descriptions (such as in Kanz at-tuhaf); it is 6-course ("'ûd-i akmal") now strung with silken
first and plain gut 2nd-6th course. Lower two are in octaves, as on renaissance lutes. The risha is eagle quill. Currently no frets (I used frets as
described by Marâghî on the oud for a while and still use frets on my large "Timurid"-oud I shall introduce in my next topic). The idea was to have
an instrument apt to play the "acemiân" and other 16th/early 17th century repertoire in Ufuqî and Kantemîrzâde. Evliyâ Çelebî mentions in his
siyâHat nâme (ca 1640) only 8 players of the 'ûd in istanbul, as compared to several hundred for various tanbûr-family instruments. Afterwards the
oud is not mentioned or depicted throughout the later 17th and the 18th century. The Egyptian-Ottoman instrument described by Villoteau ca 1800 is the
oldest one I know after that gap. Iranian sources don't feature the oud from roughly the same time (mid 17th century). Has it survived in Syria?
Egypt? Irâq? Anyhow, I feel it is quite odd that people today play early Ottoman compositions on modern instruments and in modern style. The strings
in particular are a problem.
The instrument used by Bezmara (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-XrUBviIbQ) called Şehrud looks ancient by its "cheeks" but otherwise appears to be an ordinary, only
inflated oud with rather ghastly metal wound strings. No effort has been made to reconstruct the true shehrûd as described by Marâghî. For some
obscur reasons Walter Feldman identifies the larger variety of the famous Surnâme/Hünernâme lutes with the shahrûd. But that's another topic.
for a first attempt to actually play ot, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFjZGFhpDmk&feature=youtu.be
[file]26137[/file] [file]26140[/file] [file]26136[/file]
[file]26139[/file] [file]26138[/file]
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Good luck with your trials danyel.
You note that 'The strings in particular are a problem'.
The difficulties in trying (not altogether successfully by those who have tried) to replicate the silk and gut strings of the 17th C and earlier is
well known among the European lute fraternity and much has been written and discussed on the subject in recent years. Some information about the
practicalities of string manufacture of gut strings survives in early (16th and 17th C) European sources and silk strings from much earlier Chinese
sources but there is still a lot of critical information that remains unknown about how these early strings were made and constructed.
If you have not already done so you might do a search for 'silk strings' on this forum for more information and discussion on the topic of strings
(including some prior discussion on multiple piece sound boards).
As far as I am aware - apart from a few references to silk and gut strings by sources Ziryab (9th C), Al-Kindi (9th C), Ikhwan al-Safa (10th C) and
Kanz al-tuhaf (14th C) - little is known about the manufacture of oud strings (although it might be assumed that - given the physics of instrument
strings - they may have been made more or less in the same way as early lute strings).
Even in modern times (prior to the 1950's) nothing seems to be known about where the plain gut and wound silk or gut core strings were made in the
middle eastern regions (if indeed they were and not just imported from Europe).
Any information that you can provide about manufacture and source of early gut and silk oud strings would be of great interest historically for the
oud (and the lute by association).
Also the source and construction of the gut and silk strings that you are currently using would be of interest.
|
|
|
aasuits
Oud Addict
Posts: 40
Registered: 2-6-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
very nice!
that must have been quite satisfying to make. I think it is a really good interpretation, and the strings have a unique quality- keep it up.
|
|
|
Jono Oud N.Z
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1119
Registered: 12-14-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Amazing!!!
Excellent work!
I am also very interested in your topic and projects.
|
|
|
Danielo
Oud Junkie
Posts: 365
Registered: 7-17-2008
Location: Paris
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Very interesting project thanks for sharing !
Is it established that the side panels are made of dark wood, rather than of some animal skin ?
Dan
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
..... or are the side panels simply a painted or stained decoration?
On the question of gut strings danyel you mention that you are using octave tuned pairs for the fifth and sixth courses. This was normal practice for
European lutes at the beginning of the 16th C (according to Robert Dowland, 1610) but what about the oud?
Do you have a documented source confirming that this was also the practice for early 16th C ouds? If so this would be a very important piece of
information historically.
Could you also confirm - for general interest - the vibrating string length of your oud and tuning/pitch and diameter of the strings?
Thanks
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here are a couple of related topics previously posted on the forum that may be of interest.
http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=12954#pid88...
http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=12283
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thank you!
As for the strings, Kanz at-tuhaf is the only detailed description of how to make silk strings (washing, boiling, twisting, rubbing with glue, dying
etc) outside China I know of. I tried it and still use some of those self-made strings on the dotâr and kemâncheh. Fonton gives clear instructions
on how to twist silk strings as used in Istanbul as late as ca 1750. The Institute for History of Arabic-Islamic sciences at Frankfurt, where I
published the instruments collection (Frankfurt, 2000) under my esteemed senior colleague Eckhard Neubauer, keeps various Central Asian instruments of
the tanbûr Family with original thin silk strings that could have been made as described in the Kanz at-tuhaf. I am familiar with silk strings from
the Chinese Qin and several Korean instruments. I currently use Qin strings for basses on the Timurid oud and Japanese biwa rep. shamisen strings for
trebles. They are very good. (btw. they are yellow, just like the Kanz at-tuhaf strings which are died with saffron). The basses are on my timurid
oud now for 10 years. Alexander Rakov made some silk strings for me years ago, but though he is a very nice man they wheren't any good. Gut strings
are by Nick Baldock, as I use them on my 6c Laux Maler bass lute made by Stephen Barber (plain gut with octave 5 and 6). The production of gut strings
is described in the Kanz at-tuhaf and documented by Pierre Belon du Mans, visiting Istanbul in 1547, and de Villamont, visiting Qairo in 1589. (cf.
Eckhard Neubauer's excellent and important paper: Der Bau der Laute und ihre Besaitung nach arabischen, persischen und türkischen Quellen des 9. bis
15. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt 1993) Octaves are described by Marâghî for the Shahrûd, on the 'ûd kâmil (5 courses) they are not necessary, the 'ûd
akmal (6 c.) as described by his son requires thick gut basses and I found the sound clearer with octaves; On the Timurid lute (80cm string stop) I
have unison silk basses. The new oud has a string stop of 62.5 cm, strung eb, bb, f, C, Gg, Ff. According to the "systematist" tradition
(Urmawî-Marâghî) I use the open mathnâ (3rd course) as Elif/râst (=f).
The side panels depicted in the miniatures could indeed be anything, but as I said, a considerable number of tanbûr-relatives with such panels,
invariably made of some hard wood, are extant. The reason Karîm and I wanted to try this was not a decorative one but the consideration that a large
spruce belly could possibly be enhanced by a little stiffening on the "cheeks". Comparing the new oud with regular ones of that size, the basses are
bone dry, strong but not overpowering as in, say, many Eqyptian instruments. In so far I am very pleased by the result. This oud speaks incredibly
easily and has a very balanced sound. Strong enough to compensate the lesser "boom" of the naked basses.
best regards
danyel
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
ps. when I wrote "The strings in particular are a problem" I did not mean the silk or gut strings, with which I am actually quite satisfied, but those
plastic and metal-spun guitar strings used by practically everybody today -- Except you, John on your admirable Urmawî-lute, and??? Anyone out
there?
Many years ago Kürschner made a couple of copper spun silk filament strings for Karîm and me, I still use them on my Udcu Riza (Istanbul 1926) 'ûd,
because I understand that's what they used in those days, and if you accept that the late Ottoman 'ûd is more like a tanbûr than a lute, they sound
fine.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you danyel.
I had forgotten about Pierre Belon's 'Observations de plusiers singularitez' of 1553. An English translation of the text relative to gut string making
in Turkey (taken from the 1588 edition) can be found in FoMRHI Comm 25 available for free download on line from the FoMRHI website. Typically for
these early texts it doesn't say much about instrument gut string making and curiously says that gut strings were used on the powerful Turkish reflex
archery bows. From research that I have done on the latter I was under the impression that these bow strings were always made from silk filament. So
perhaps Pierre Belon - not being a string maker (?) - confused strings made from gut with those made from silk filament for some of the chanterelles
at least?
I know nothing about how the early Turkish gut and silk strings of the 16th C were made so perhaps you could find time under a separate topic on this
forum to provide what details - you know for general information and for those of us who have a direct interest in early instrument string technology
related to ouds (and lutes)?
Early accounts of European gut instrument string manufacture, made from the intestines of sheep and other animals, indicate the importance of using
fresh gut (same day of slaughter- also as observed by Belon), the way the animal has been fed, the age of the animal etc. To this might be added the
breed of animal - domesticated breeds that are unlikely to have survived (i.e are extinct) into the modern agricultural era. In European practice
strings were once made from the whole gut - the finest coming from baby lambs not yet weaned. To ensure freshness, gut string makers workshops were
located in close proximity to the slaughter houses - conditions that likely no modern historical string maker endures. So one has to question if any
of the gut strings sold as 'historical' today come anywhere near to the way they are made and hence performance of those made in say the 16th and 17th
C. We know from the iconography that the (European) gut strings were very flexible so could be tied up in hanks (like bootlaces) without suffering
damage and that even the largest diameter (10th course basses) had a performance (sustain) matching modern metal overspun basses.
Like you, danyel, I also have attempted (so far unsuccessfully) to make workable silk strings according to the Kanz al-Tuhaf directions (ie with gum
dyed with saffron) - my detailed record of this work can be found here on this forum and is still ongoing. I hope to pick up that thread again some
time later this year with tests on loaded strings. My test rig for the strings BTW is a replica of a Maler lute (made by J.Downing of course!) - six
courses, 7 frets, 'low' bridge position, string length 67.5 cm
http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=10010
One problem with trying to replicate silk strings is that the domsticated silkworm has been bred (and raised under different conditions than in the
past) to produce a filament that can withstand the stresses of weaving silk fabric by machine so is not the same stuff (particularly in diameter) as
earlier silk of even a century ago. So here is a similar problem to that facing the historical gut string maker.
What seems to be apparent is that the instrument strings made for the oud were not made in the same way as Chinese strings. The latter (if the early
Chinese texts about Qin strings are anything to go by) were made from raw silk and boiled in a glue concoction whereas oud strings were made from
degummed silk filament glued together as indicated by Kanz al-Tuhaf. My English translation of the latter text (G.H. Farmer) makes no mention of how
the strings were twisted (just plain or roped like the Chinese strings?) but perhaps this is not a complete translation and omits that important
detail?
As your objective, danyel, is to try to replicate the sound of the type of oud illustrated in those Persian (?) miniatures - instruments and their
strings that apparently have gone the way of the dinosaur - the only way to come close is not only to accurately replicate the strings, be they gut or
silk but to replicate the structure and geometry of the original instrument - a difficult if not impossible task. Not that the project should not be
attempted - far from it.
However, it would be of great interest and importance to provide detailed information about the choices made in creating the instrument (supported
with appropriate quotes from historical sources) so that it is clear what unsupported assumptions (if any) have been made in the design or choice of
materials (such as strings and sound board design etc.).
Perhaps you intend to do this as part of this topic? Otherwise will you be open to responding to detailed questions about the instrument as the topic
develops?
I should mention that I was in frequent communication with Alexander Rakov some years ago when he first started his experiments in making and
developing silk strings by processes related to the Chinese 'cooking' method but have long since lost contact. He made some successful strings and
freely shared information and encouragement with others so that they could also make their own strings. If the experimental strings that he supplied
to you weren't any good can you tell us why that is?
|
|
|
danyel
Oud Addict
Posts: 30
Registered: 3-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thank you, John, for your commentary! In historical matters I would call myself a fundamentalist, as anachronism to me is a great horror. The Nazis
were expert anachronists, or their predecessor, Richard Wagner, for example. It is a very, very serious matter. Historical accuracy is a key to human
culture, I believe. Hence I feel very sympathetic towards your thorough attitude and I have followed your threads with great interest. Having failed
several times at registration for this forum, I did not comment on any of them so far. Still, my aim is to actually play music. I am not a craftsman,
and I have tremendous respect for every craft. I love rare Song dynasty ceramics, unfortunately nobody can replicate them in Europe. It took
generations from Bernhard Leach to experiment with kilns and glazes, to little avail. Now in China some forgers have always retained the exact same
kilns, clay, glazes and some of their fakes can only be told apart from authentic Song ware by physical methods. On the other hand, excavations and
ship wreck discoveries have brought to light tons of low quality, but genuine Song ware I would not like to have. You see, this is my point: surely
many lutanists in Egypt or anywhere in the world would have used bad, nevertheless "authentic" strings even in the heyday of Islamic or renaissance
culture. On the other hand, Abdalqâdîr al-Marâghî, who described various Chinese instruments and lived in a Timurid court society surrounded by
Chinese luxury goods and local products attempting to copy them, would have used completely different strings from the Turkoman dotâr player, who
twisted his strings from ordinary silk yarn shortly before performance (as described in 19th century travelogues). For Marâghî, Chinese silk strings
might not have been as expensive or hard to get by as Roman gut strings for Eizabeth I;
Anyhow, the main problem with your kanz at-tuhaf strings is, that the text does not in fact say "gum" but sirîshim-i pukhta (serîshem-e pokhte),
lit.: boiled (fish) glue. Farmer was great in giving an overview of a matter, but he was not in the position to go too much into detail. With timbers
(as mentioned in the kanz at-tuhaf and elsewhere) the mess is complete. Craftsmen have very special expressions and Farmer was not a craftsman.
Possibly the difference between gum and glue wasn't even apparent to him, just as Neubauer, who is a formidable linguist, does not distinguish Kleben
and Leimen (paste and glue); you have to have some insight into the craft. I shall address the timber issue in my next topic on the Timurid oud, on
which I am already working.
Best wishes
danyel
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you danyel.
It is regrettable that you have failed several times in the past to register as a member of this forum after several attempts. Now that the situation
has been rectified I would encourage you to catch up by providing informed constructive comment on any of my threads be they related to my luthier
work, string making or whatever. This way some progress might be made in separating historical fact from fiction (or uninformed speculation) - if that
is possible.
The problem is that the primary source documents are essentially inaccessible to many researchers like myself (and I suspect the majority of forum
members) particularly due to linguistic limitations - so we can only depend upon secondary source translations for information. So if you are in a
position to fill out some of the missing information or correct misinformation this would be of great benefit and might even eventually result in more
oudists abandonning their modern plastic strings in favour of 'authentic' silk or gut (but I somehow have to doubt that will happen!). It might be
particularly useful if you could provide detailed translation into English (the primary language of this forum) of the relevant parts of those early
texts relating to instrument string making, design and luthier activities (as it relates to the oud) - for example the al-Marâghi and Kanz al-Tuhaf
texts that you refer to.
I agree with your comments about the Farmer translations - his work does indeed need to be treated with caution and critical review as I have
discovered from just trying to make sense of some of his writing - but then so does the content of earlier original texts that are sometimes
(frustratingly) lacking in critical detail or subject apparently to scribal error. Nevertheless, in the absence of more accurate informed information
Farmer's work can still be a useful reference and will have to do for now.
Thanks for the information about the binder used for silk strings according to the Kanz al-Tuhaf texts. By 'boiled fish glue' I assume that isinglas
is what is meant (i.e. glue made from the swim bladders of sturgeon - not what passes for fish glue in this day and age). If so, it happens that I
have some genuine isinglas to hand (kindly given to me by Alexander Rakov who was using isinglas for making some of his early experimental strings -
in the Chinese fashion). This stuff is still available on the market but is very expensive so I have been saving it for a worthwhile cause. This might
be it as I am now curious to see if this glue (applied hot) will fully penetrate (by rubbing with a piece of linen) into the fully twisted strings any
better than dilute gum arabic (or the alternative liquid hide glue compositions that I am currently testing). I shall report my findings on my thread
about making silk strings on this forum so this might afford a good opportunity for you to comment danyel about how it should be done based upon your
own first hand experience in making silk strings.
On the other hand I don't know if Chinese made silk strings would have been expensive or hard to get for lute players in the days of Elizabeth 1 as
the English at that time apparently had a trading relationship with the Ottoman Turks to supply munitions and other materials of war via the Barbary
coast (much to the dismay of Catholic Spain). Indeed we do not know if silk strings were ever used on English lutes in the 16th or 17th C - the
historical record does not say (or even confirm that gut was used exclusively).
BTW is there any record confirming the cost of commercially available Chinese silk strings relative to Roman gut strings in the 16th and 17th C?
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just for my information and record danyel - do you have any written historical evidence (court inventories/accounts, statements by the author etc.) to
confirm that Chinese made silk strings were purchased for use on the ouds described by al-Marâghi (that are the subject of this topic?). If so, what
type of string were they - like those of the Chinese qin perhaps, that we know are silk 3 or 4 ply wound roped construction with silk wrapping for the
basses?
Also, surely the court musicians would have used the best quality strings available - be they gut or silk - not some inferior grade?
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
