Ekna Dal Cortivo

Quarterly No. 55 April 1989 FOMRHI Quarterly

BULLETIN 55 2 Bulletin Supplement 8 Plans! Museum of Instruments, Royal College of Music, London 9 Check List! Instruments by named makers! Jeremy Montagu Collection 11 Membership List Separate Cover

COMMUNICATIONS

904 New Grove DoMI! E.S. no. 13! N and O entries E, Segerman 16 905 FoMRHI and conservation / restoration R. Chiverton 18 906 A response to Cary's Comm. 900 on conservation and accreditation J. Montagu 19 907 University of Edinburgh Collection ... progress report 1983 A. Meyers 21 903 Response to Comm. 389 J. Swayne 22 909 Plastic, ivory, gold and South Africa A.Powell 23 910 GPS Agencies artificial ivory W, R, Stevens 24 911 Instrument drawings R. Chiverton 25 912 High tech in instrument making S. Bezinger & J. Evald 28 913 The of Robert and Willem Wijne M. C. J. Bouterse 29 914 Observations on the wear of two keyboards separated by 200 years R. K. Lee 37 915 Ho percussion in more part [polyphonic] dance music B. Neumann 41 916 Rhetoric for the voice and instruments E. Segerman 43 917 The Birmingham wire gauge and its musical sisters R. Gug 45

FELLOWSHIP OF MAKERS AND RESEARCHERS OF HISTORICAL INSTRUMENTS

Hon. Sec. J, Montagu, c/o Faculty of Music, St. Aldate's, Oxford OX1 1DB, U.K. *>•> bull.55, p.2

FELLOWSHIP of NAURS and BSSEAICHEIS of HISTORICAL HSTRITMEHTS Bulletin 55 April, IMP I have been getting a few complaints about not receiving Q.54 from those of you who renewed your subscriptions after the January Quarterly was printed and sent off to all who had by then renewed. This I am afraid was due to Eph not having had the time to get the back stock of Qs down to Barbara, and for this we apologise. However, we dont apologise very much because if you had sent In your renewals in time (ie soon after the October Q arrived with the renewal form, and anyway before Jan.1st), then you'd have got the Q with everyone else! The ones we really do apologise to for this delay are the new members, and to them we apologise most sincerely. Bear with us please; Eph Is now trying to run NRI more or less single-handed, and since for all three of us (Eph, Barbara, and me) FoMHRI has to fit down the cracks of time between the Jobs we're really meant to be doing, this Is particularly difficult for Eph until he can get reorganised. PRIST SIZE: Several comments asked me please to go back to proportional spa­ cing, so I have. I like it better, too. I hate the wide space round the 1 and the 1 of the other sizes. FURTHER TO: ComuuMP: Marsha Taylor writes: In response to Bruce Haynes' communication #889 "...In Death I sing", Oct. 1988, I too can only whole-heartedly support his concern for the preservation of African elephants and others, especially in light of the film, Gorillas in the Mist which focused on the slaughter of apes for their hands to be used as ashtrays.

To date in my production of I have not offered turnings either authentic because of the stated situation or artificial because I haven't found a suitable substitute, including Vigopas or homemade resin experiments. I am intrigued with celluloid which I see used on cutlery handles from the turn of the Century England at flea markets. I wonder about its flamability. I ask the FOMRHI membership if anyone might know of present-day manufacture of celluloid possibly somewhere in Great Britain.

In response to Bruce Haynes' plea for on the elephant situation, 1 suggest we as individuals write to the African Consulates in our respective cities in protest and as an organization possibly discuss starting a fund to help refurbish lost African funds under the auspices of FOMRHI. See also Artificial Ivory below. Bull.-4, p.4, The Permuted Index: Charles Stroom wrote to me: Dear Jeremy,

I have just received Fomrhi 0-54 with the index as appendix. To make a small correction to your explanation: the author names are included in the list of keywords (which I have selected), just as the other keywords, and that is why they appear in the middle of the Permuted Index, as you have correctly noted. However all ­ words are printed in an alphabetically sorted order, thus not immediately after the author name. As I said, the list of keywords is the list of words forming the middle word and this list can be modified easily enough to accommodate changes or additions. The Permuted Index is generated fresh from the Chro­ nological Index, which is the only index I have to type in. bull.55, p. 3

I entirely agree with Eph Segerman's comments: it would be very useful indeed, if the tide would include the important keywords of die Communication. You may have noticed that, in the Permuted Index, each entry is limited to one line only, if a line is too long to fit, it will be truncated automatically, so long tides are no problem, not for me at least. The other disadvantage (not covering the Bulletin) is due to die author's lim­ ited amount of time. Anyhow, I invite anybody to let me know of any mistake, omission or modification to be included. Berthold Neumann's Comm. herewith: To amplify one of his points towards the bottom of his second page, the drum does indeed act as a drone, and when I was playing with Muslca Reservata I used not only to tune the heads of the big tabor (a very deep drum with a low sound, based on a Provencal tambour- in), but also the snare. Jon Swayne's Comm. herewith: I've told him that some people are farming and coppicing box in this country. We were told during the recent Week­ end here that someone from the Shop goes down to Chequers every couple of years and buys box from the Prime Minister, and also that several other stately homes have plantations of box. If anyone can produce addresses and also if anyone knows of plantations of other useful hardwoods in this country, and in any other country where we have members, do please let me know. This is a more important environmental issue even than the elephants, for if the rain forests of hardwoods go, it won't Just be the elephants that face extinction. ARTIFICIAL IVORY: Jon Swayne: I have recently come across another source. This material is casein based (reputedly, goatsmilk). It's available only in flat sheets, figured or non- figured. Price 184Ff/Kg. I have obtained a sheet to try, which measures 500 x 400 * 12.5ram (demi-pouce?), weight about 3kg. French users I have spoken to report that it is much better to work than Vigopas or the GPS Agencies material; the swarf smells a bit like , rather than the strong, fumey smell of plastic, and does not stick to itself in a feathery mass by electrostatic attraction; it does not have the same alarming tendency to shatter. It is not available in rod form, and the pattern on the figured version might be too strong for some purposes, though that may only be so on my sample. A set of hole-cutting saws would be an economic way to convert the material for use as ferrules. I will supply a small sample to any member who sends a SAE, otherwise the source is Jean SAUZEDDE, Chevalier, St.Remy sur Durole, F-63550, France. Jon sent me a tiny sample of the figured type. The figuring is rather like a piece of figured maple on a back, not in concentric circles like ivory usually is, but I suppose as Ivory might be if it were quarter sawn. It has a good firm polished surface and would certainly be excellent for keyboards. It feels smooth on the lip. One reason for the last remark is that I found the original GPS material, which was on show at the Horticultural Hall two years ago, very unpleasantly sticky on the lip, and this Is important for recorder makers, who use 'ivory' for beaks, and for anyone making 'ivory' flutes, and presumably for keyboards as well, since it might also feel sticky under the finger. I have had a couple of letters from Mr .Stevens of GPS Agencies, the longer of which (written after he'd seen Q.54) appears as a Comm. herewith. His add­ ress is in the List of Members herewith, too. He sent me a sample of their latest variety. This, as far as I can Judge from the partly polished surface, is not at all sticky, and, like Jon's sample, would work well for mouthpieces or keyboards. I've passed the GPS sample on to Lewis Jones for him and his colleagues at the London College of Furniture to experiment with. Lewis has promised me a report on it for the next Q, because I gave It to him just as bull.55, p. 4 their vacation had started, so there was no chance to work with it before this Q went to print. This isn't a subject that's going to go away, and more reports of Ivory substitutes will be welcome, particularly from people who have used more than one variety and who can therefore provide comparative reports on the working qualities and on the feel in use. You might aso bear in mind that GPS Agencies produce imitation tortoise- shell, useful for keyboards and string instruments, and also imitation horn which one would have thought was in ample supply from the nearest abbatolr, but I suppose that now that more and more farmers dehorn their cattle, horn may also become scarcer. On this subject of Artificial Ivory, see also Further to Comm.889 above, and several Comms In this Q. QUERIES: Luis Artur Esteves Pereira asks if any member can give him the pre­ sent address of the International Society of Organ Builders, formerly c/o D.M.A.Vente, University of Utrecht. Jan Kalsbeek Is trying to locate "round-tall German with Italian features because I think these are the most specific German harpsichords". He has succeeded in getting a grant to study such instruments in museums in Europe. So far, he has traced the two "Mletkes" in Berlin; the Zells in Ham­ burg, Aurich and Barcelona; the Fleischers in Hamburg, Barcelona and Berlin; the Harras in Sondershausen; the Hass in Gothenburg, Copenhagen, Oslo, Brus­ sels, Paris and Edinburgh; the Oesterlein in Berlin; and the Vater in Num­ ber g. This is fairly urgent for him, so if you can add any instruments to this list, please do so as soon as possible; I presume that he would also be grateful to hear of any in accessible private collections. His address, and Luis Pereira's, are in the new List of Members herewith. OTHER JOURNALS: I said In the last Bulletin that Cathy Folkers and Ardal Powell are producing a new quarterly, Traverso. The first issue has arrived. It Is only four pages (one American equivalent of an A3 sheet), two of them text, one of a bulletin board of fluting events, instruments for sale, etc, and one outer cover and subscription form. Since it costs $12 in USA and Canada and S15 overseas, one assumes, or anyway hopes, that it will become more somewhat more substantial as it gets going. I referred also to Larigot In the last Q (In Comm.895), and I have now had a subscription form from them. It costs 130 French francs, plus another 50 F if you want airmail abroad, for 1989. Back issues are 40 F each, or 100 F for the three that there have been so far. The address is Hugues Molet, 98 bis rue du cherche-midi, 75006 Paris, France, and cheques etc should be made payable to A.C.I.M.V. (Association des Collectlonneurs d'Instruments de Musique a Vent), which Is the Society that you are Joining in order to get Larigot. EXHIBITION: The Early Exhibition at the Horticultural Hall will be 29th September to 1st October this year. Unfortuntely for me, this clashes with the Jewish New Year, so that I shan't have a stand and can only be there on the Friday. If you want to save trouble and get your renewals in then, you'll find me around Barbara Stanley's stand, or Eph's, or wandering round the hall. Barbara will, of course, be there, but I think that she hopes to be too busy selling instruments to spend too much time on FoMRHI. So try to catch me on the Friday. MUSEUMS: There have been a variety of rumours flying around recently about The Royal College of Music, that they were closing the museum (towards a new building for which many of us contributed only a few years ago), selling it off, and so forth. We hope that all these are groundless, but certainly they are, like so many academic institutions in this country, including this Uni- bull.55, p. 5 verslty, in considerable need of money. The Curator of the museum, Elizabeth Wells has sent me the following note, and she has also sent an upt-to-date list of their plans, which you'll find elsewhere here. Elizabeth Wells, Curator of the Royal College of Music Museum, has sent this statement from the Director of the College: Alternative sources of funding are being urgently sought to improve the service offered by the Museum and it is hoped with better accessibility to the public. In the meantime, however, it is regretted that, although the Curator cannot respond to requests for information, the Museum is open from 2.00 - 4.30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays during College terms. (Parties and special visits by appointment only). The following are available: A set of 13 postcards (£3-00, or 25p each) Catalogue of Wind Instruments (£4-00 + p&p) Guide to the Collection (£1-00 + p&p) Working drawings (see attached list)

The Bate Collection has recently acquired an important clarinet. It's in high F and is marked I.B.Wlllems. Hoewver, it looks much earlier than the dates for the known maker of this name, and I suspect that it is by his father or even his grandfather. It has two keys and looks much like a Denner or an Oberlender. Only the one-piece body and the bell are original, but Brian Ackerman has made us a one-piece and barrel, and it now plays very well. I had hoped to announce the availability of a plan of it in this Q, but it's not ready yet. What we do have is a plan of the Hendrlk Richters drawn by Dick Earle. This costs £10 and Includes xeroxes ot photos of the engraved sliver keys and the turned ivory mounts. The xeroxes have come out very well, and they are cheap enough that they can be Included with the drawing, whereas photographs would cost £30 for a set of six, and also mean my wife having to chase down the other end of Oxford twice every time any­ body wanted a set. They are available if you really want them, but do look at the xeroxes first to see if they will do. There will be a full description of the instrument, and of the technology involved in its manufacture, in the Galpin Society Journal, but not till 1990 I'm afraid; it was too late for 1989. We have also a new, and much more accurate, set of plans for the two Miller Bb portrayed in the famous Zoffany painting of the Sharp Family. These are by Charlie Wells, and they cost £10 each or £15 for the pair. The two instruments are not quite Identical, which is why he has drawn them both. One has a one-piece mouthpiece and barrel, and the other has a sepa­ rate mouthpiece and barrel, and there are other differences as well. Another clarinet plan in preparation, also by Charlie, is the 9-key Heinrich Grenser.

I've had a note from David Shaw of Darwin College, University of Kent, Can­ terbury, CT2 7NY, who came in here while I was away. He was recently work­ ing in the Biblioteca Nacional in Lisbon, and found there a large collection of musical Instruments which he thinks may be little known. It included a crumhorn (Boydell type 5), which the young lady there said was a and which Is not listed in Boydell's book, a with name and date (he only remembers that it was Nancy, 1531), a curtal, serpents and lyzarden, and lots of keyboards and plucked strings. MEASURING: I • told you a while back about a bore-measuring machine which Tom Lerch brought here from Berlin, which had a wider range to its bull.55, p.6

probe than Rod Cameron's, was more stable, and had an electronic digital read-out, rather than a chart recorder. Herewith as a Comm. is a note by Its inventor, describing this machine In passing but concentrating on his newer model, which puts the information into a computer. To my mind, this Involves one of the major disadvantages of Rod's machine: more clobber to carry about, more space to set It up, more things to go wrong. What attracted me to the simpler version was that it all went into a box about the size of a renais­ sance basset recorder case; long enough to take a base about a metre and a half long and less than 10cm wide and deep. There is also a very consider­ able price difference between the two versions! The simpler version costs about 2100 DM, and the computerised one about 11,000 DM (plus the cost of a PC-compatible computer of course); neither price is definitive since the former is subject to inflation, etc., and the latter machine is not yet completed. One reason that I asked Mr.Evald for more Information about the device is that, like Rod's machine, It makes very light contact with the bore of the instrument. The ideal is no contact at all, but while this Is theoretically possible (for example with ultrasonics), the equipment necessary is wildly expensive unless you happen to work in a hospital which has already got it, and I don't know how portable It is. In this Imperfect world, Rod's and Evald's machines are by far the best and safest ways of measuring bores that I have yet met. I Just wish I could afford to have one of them here. GOMES BT FAX: This is not a good Idea. Mr.Evald sent a copy of his by fax in case the post missed the deadline. Luckily the posted one got here in time, because the fax version was not reproducible In the Q. It was legible enough to read, but by the time it had been photocopied, reduced, and printed I doubt whether you could have read it. So, except in extreme emergencies, don't reckon on fax as a way to get your Comma here. BURSARIES AVAILABLE: John Barnes writes: J J K Rhodes Bursary Fund A new source of grants for keyboard research is available. Would you please communicate this to FoMRHI Members?

The Fund was set up by members of the Friends of St Cecilia's flail and the Russell Collection in memory of the work: of J J K Rhodes who died in December 1985.

The purpose is to encourage research into either the technical or decorative aspects of historical keyboard instruments or into the musical matters that can be illuminated by such instruments, particularly if connected in some way with the Russell Collection, University of -.dinburgh.

A first grant of up to £750 is available for award in 1989. Anyone with a research project within the above guidelines is invited to apply. Applications should be submitted by 31st May 1989 on the form available from: The Rhodes Fund Committee, University of Edinburgh, Faculty of Music, St Cecilia's Hall, Niddry Street, Edinburgh EKL 1LJ. bull.55, p. 7

The Conservation Unit has announced the first Marks 4 Spencer Textile Con­ servation Bursary of £16,800 over two years, and hopes to be able to follow this up with bursaries in other subjects sponsored by other companies. Let us hope that there may be firms interested In music which are similarly generous. RECORDING: Uta Henning tells me that Peter Widensky has made another recor­ ding, this time of mostly unpublished Carinthian music of the 18th and 19th centuries on a chamber organ probably of Egedacher workshop of about 1700 which is now in a museum in Klagenfurt. Copies (LPs) are available from her at DM 25.--. ACOUSTICS: Jacques Leguy says that he is now inscribed on the list of Judicial Experts for problems dealing with acoustics and organs in France. COURSES: Martin-Christian Schmidt has sent me a list of seminars and con­ certs run by his Forum Alte Muslk, Rostock. Re*my Gug is running one on his­ torical brass (2-4 June), and Raphael Alpermann and Martin-Christian one on music and making (27-29 September). There are several one-day seminars also, but Rostock's a long way for most of us to go for one day. Bernard Brauchll Is running courses again In Magnano. from 12th to 20th Au­ gust, with himself teaching , Esteban Elizondo on organ, and George Kiss on harpsichord, with concerts and lectures as well. Further information from Festival e Cor si Musica Antica a Magnano, Via Roma 48, 1-13050 Magnano (VC), Italy. There's no Bate Collection Weekend this term, but there are the four Summer Schools: Recorder with Alan Davis, Lewis Jones and Helen Rees on recorder, and Lynda Sayce & , August 7-11 (£60); Recorder, also with Alan, Lewis and Helen, with Warwick Cole harpsichord, August 13-18 (£70); Baroque _ Classical Traverso with Lisa Beznosiuk and Lewis, and Lorna Fulford harpsichord and , August 20-25 (£70); and Baroque Oboe and with Paul Goodwin (we hope, but he's had a clashing recording come In, and we're trying to find out whether Bruce Haynes might be around this part of the world instead), Dick Earle, and Lorraine Wood (oboes), Andrew Watts nad Paul White (), and Warwick Cole (harpsichord), September 10-15 (£100). Booking forms are available from me. The Lutherie Society of The Welsh School of Instrument Making and Repair have recently joined us, and their secretary, Andrew Carruthers, has kindly sent me a copy of their prospectus. There are three full time courses, on making and repair; tuning, repair and restoration; and repair. The courses are all designed to lead to a professional career, and they intend to widen the scope with further instruments as time goes on. The address of the School Is under the Lutherie Solcety in the new List of Members. COMPETITION FOR ENSEMBLES: The Swedish Baroque Festival has announced an International Baroque Ensemble Competition at the MalmO College of Music, August 12-19. Applications must be in by May 12th on a form available from the Information Officer, Mr.Ove Torstensson, Swedish Baroque Festival, Musikhb'gskolan 1 Malmtf, Box 13515, S-20044 Malm., Sweden itel: 040-19 22 00). I have one copy here, but I don't know whether they would accept photocopies of It. LIST OF MEMBERS: The new list herewith. Please use it to make contact with your colleagues, especially when travelling to other countries. There Is one change from previous practice: I have put all the universities together under U; previously there was a question whether they should be under the city, their library, their name or what. I hope that there are no errors, but I bull.55, p.8

often find the odd spelling mistake, but not usually until I'm doing the new one a year later! So, If I've done you a mischief In this way, please let me know so that I can correct it in the next Supplement instead of leaving it till next year. Also, do please tell me if you've moved; It's your money it wastes when a Q comes crawling back to us marked Unknown or Gone Away, and it's you that doesn't get the Q when you're a Lost Member. CODA: That's it for now; I've kept this open while I did the List of Members In case anything more came In, and a few bits have done so.. When I wrote it first, I was going to say Have a nice spring, but the day before, we got home from Jerusalem to find a blizzard raging between Heathrow and Oxford, so I decided not to. The weather is much improved now, most of a week later, so perhaps I will. DEADLINE FOR NEXT Q: June 30th, please; then I can get it started over the weekend. Jeremy Montagu Hon.Sec.FoMRHI

BULLETIN SUPPLEMENT Ephraim Segerman Conservation Training? I have received a booklet just put out by The Conservation Unit of the Museums & Galleries Commission entitled "Conservation Training - An initial survey of full-time courses in the United Kingdom" by Mary Giles OBE. It analyses the returns of a questionnaire sent by The Conservation Unit to the organizers of the courses. The names of 17 of the courses mentioned have the word 'conservation' in them and 9 have 'restoration' (this includes 4 that have both). Then there are 2 about bookbinding which use neither word. None mentioned so far involve musical instruments. The London College of Furniture had no course title other than 'B/TEC H.N.D.' and it is not clear whether this included furniture, musical instruments or (most likely) both. The remaining 4 courses included the 3 at the Newark Technical College (Piano Maintenance and Repairing and Violin and Woodwind Making and Repairing) and the West Dean College course on Making Early Stringed Musical Instruments. The questionnaire did not ask about the conservation content of each course, and indeed for the majority of the courses, judging from the titles, conservation is a major component. But this is obviously not the case with the instrument courses. Nevertheless the booklet consistently assumes that all are conservation courses. Table t- gives 'Numbers and Percentages of Students Entering Employment in Conservation over the Six Year Period' (1982 to 1987). It lists 152 such in the field of musical instruments. The previous table gives 157 students who completed the courses on musical instruments. It seems that all but 5 (3%) of the students who went through musical instrument courses took employment in conservation, and that all were apparently properly trained for the profession. What I was afraid of in my Bull. Supp. of Q 52 (and did not express properly) was that professional repairers of musical instruments will call themselves professional conservators (and dominate the musical instrument conservation field) without thorough training in the field and without embracing the ethics of it. These ethics often conflict with their financial interests as repairers and the natural aesthetic predisposition to experience instruments and the results of one's work acoustically. See Comm. 864 for the fate of a student's request for a lecture on the ethics of conservation in one of the leading instrument courses. I am now worried more than ever. In the current social climate where 'green' issues are increasingly popular, conservation is bound to become a good bandwagon to climb onto without necessarily taking it seriously. Let us hope that the conservation profession can assert its standards more effectively than this booklet implies. continued on p. 17 MUSEUM OF INSTRUMENTS ROYAL COLLEGE OF MUSIC PRINCE CONSORT ROAD SOUTH KENSINGTON LONDON SW7 2BS Telephone 01-589 3643

PLANS OF INSTRUMENTS

Technical drawings of the following instruments are now available. These dyeline prints are detailed full-scale plans on stout paper for the benefit of those wishing to carry out organological research or build copies.

The prices shown below do not include packing (in cardboard mailing tubes) and postage. VAT at 15% has to be added for UK orders. Please do not send money with your order, but wait until you receive our notification. On receipt of your remittance, we will send you the drawings.

For orders from abroad, please send a cheque or bank draft in sterling, payable by a bank in London. If, however, you wish to pay in your own currency, please add the equivalent of £5.00 to your remittance to cover the bank costs which will be payable by us. Please do not send a Post Office money order.

RCM No. 48 by Gieronimo Campi, Italian, late 16th century £10.00 Lacks rose and bridge. Overall length 728mm. Original string length 433mm approx. (1 sheet, 850 x 600mm) Drawn by Ian Harwood, 1974

26 Chitarrone by Magnus Tieffenbrucker, Venice, 1608 £18.00 Stringing 6 x 2, 8 x 1. Body length 679.5mm. String lengths 933mm approx and 1700mm approx. (3 sheets, 850 x 600mm) Drawn by Ian Harwood, 1974; revised 1977

171 by Belchior Dias, Lisbon, 1581 £22.00 Vaulted back, body length 365mm, belly not original. (2 sheets, 1120 x 770mm, with additional notes) Drawn by Stephen Barber, 1976

32 Guitar, attributed to Jean Voboam, Paris, c.1680 £22.00 Length of back 456mm. Bridge not original. (2 sheets, 1280 x 950mm and 950 x 810mm, with additional notes) Drawn by Stephen Barber, 1979

46 Division by Barak Norman, London, 1692 £2^.00 Length of belly 634mm. Present string length 658mm. (2 sheets, 1370 x 1040mm) Drawn by Stephen Barber, 1976

63 Recorder (treble), I. Denner, Nuremberg, early 18th £6.50 century. Carved ivory. Pitch: A=415 approx. (1 sheet, 585 x 470mm, with additional notes) Drawn by Friedrich von Huene, 1968; revised 1978 10

1 , ?German, c.1480 £37.00 1x8. Present compass E-g2; original compass thought to have been E'E*' F G-g2. Overall height 1415mm. (1 sheet, 2360 x 1030mm, with additional notes) This new drawing replaces the less detailed one made by Derek Adlam and William Debenham in 1976. Measured and drawn by William Debenham, 1983

2 Harpsichord by Alessandro Trasuntino, Venice, 1531 £38.00 Formerly 1 x 8, 1 x 4, now 2x8. Present compass BB/GG-c3; original compass thought to have been C/E-f3. Overall length 2250mm. Outer case not drawn. (1 sheet, 3480 x 1030mm, with additional notes) Drawn by William Debenham, 1977

175 Harpsichord, ?Italian, c.1575 £30.00 Originally 1x8, now 2x8.' Original compass C/E-c3; present compass C-d3 without Cfc Overall length 1860mm. Lacks original outer case. (1 sheet, 2130 x 1030mm, with additional notes) Drawn by Grant O'Brien, 1974

3 Bentside . English, 1708 £25.00 Compass BB/GG-d3, the lowest two sharps being divided to give both the and the sharps. Overall length 1680mm. (1 sheet, 1930 x 1030mm, with additional notes) Drawn by William Bright, 1975

209 Regal, German, 1629 £25.00 Compass C/E-c3. Metal resonators. Overall length 1165mm. (1 sheet, 1875 x 1025mm) Drawn by Christopher Clarke, 1979

-oOo-

A series of photographs of each of the above instruments is also obtainable. Details will be sent on request. (There is a large number for some of the keyboard instruments, so it is unlikely that a complete series would be desired.)

Prices: U x 6" prints £**. 50 each 6 x 8" prints £5-00 each 8 x 10" prints £5-50 each

plus postage, and VAT for UK orders. II

JEREMY MONTAGU COLLECTION CHECK LIST OF INSTRUMENTS BY NAMED MAKERS p.l of 5 cat, no, maker _. instrument

I 142c Acme, foghorn III 230 Acme, silent dog V 146 Acme, skylark ft warbler V 148 Acme, plover call II 226 Johann Adler, descant recorder II 18b P.O.Adler, Markneukirchen, IV 20 Gebr.Alexander, Mainz, alto VII 224 Gebr .Alexander, Mainz, Almenrader system bassoon V 104 American Plating ft Mfg Co.Inc. 2241 S.Indiana Ave, Chicago 16, fife VI 136 Hans Karl Andersson, Evertsberg, Sweden, spil&plpa V 108 American Plating ft Mfg Co, swannee whistle V 50 Aulos, Japan, plastic treble recorder VI 131 Aulos, Japan, sopranino recorder V 230 Avalon Industries Inc, 95 Lorlmer St, Brooklyn NY, twirl-a-tune III 224 Barnes ft Mulllns, London, toy clarinet VIII 158 M.Barr, London, Zah-zah flute eunOque VII 122 Philip Bate, pibcorn IV 34 Baumg.rtel, Muhlhausen 1, German simple system Bt> clarinet I 36 Besson, London, simple system Bb clarinet II 112 Besson ft Co, Bb duty V 242 Besson ft Co, 198 Euston Rd, G/D or G/C bass/contrabass trombone IX 160 Besson ft Co, London, rooster crow II 68a F.Besson, 198 Euston Rd, with all crooks ft 2-valve slide V 192 Jdzsef Blge, Bocskai iil.31, Budapest, hungarian V 138b Black Duck, Whiting, Indiana, goose call II 12 Blackman, Blackfriars Rd, 8-key flute VII 154 Blackman, Blackfriars Rd, 4-key Bb flute IV 132 Bohland ft Fuchs, Graslitz, flugel horn I 40 Boosey ft Co, simple system Eb soprano clarinet I 52 Boosey ft Co, french horn III 144 Boosey ft Co, F flute, Pratten system IV 42 Boosey ft Co, Eb natural V 160 • Boosey ft Co, Eb soprano VI 18 Boosey ft Co, Pratten's perfected flute VI 226 Boosey ft Co, F bass cavalry valve trombone VII 216 Boosey ft Co (banner marked D1stin), (bell only) VIII 144 Boosey ft Co, Bb with Blalkley compensating valves II 158 Boosey ft Hawkes, side drum IV 22b Boosey ft Hawkes, Eb twice round IV 216 Boosey ft Hawkes, dance band IV 208 W.Brown ft Sons, 323 Kennington Rd, french horn II 14 Buisson, Paris, Boehm system flute (name used by Dallas) V 138a Burnham Bros, Marble Falls, Texas, fox-call IV 124a/b Busson, 2 knee organs II 102 Butler, Haymarket, soprano trombone III 14 Butler, Haymarket, 1900, pitch pipe VIII 154 Butler's Vibrating Horns, 57 Greek St, helical cornet VI 168 CBS Masterwork, modele FAR-WEST jews harp VII 226 Cabart, Paris; Guiraud, Toulouse, conical Boehm flute VII 230 Castegnier ft Mlcollier, Paris, oboe to low A V 168 Catania Carmelo, Catania, Sicily, flat-back VIII 174 F.van Cauwelaert, Bruxelles, Bb tenor valve trombone IV 202 S.A.Chappell, Siccama system flute IX 70 Clarke, *mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm*mtmmmm. 12

JEREMY MONTAGU COLLECTION CHECK LIST OF INSTRUMENTS BY NAMED MAKERS p.2 of 5

S--A* n°-t maker 4 instrument

I 244 Clement 1 ft Co, 8-key Nicholson flute V 4 C.C.Conn, Elkhart, Bb euphonium IV 70 Couesnon ft Cie, 94 Rue d'Angouldme, Paris, C melody II 108 Antolne Courtois, Rue du Caire, cornopean V 156 Antoine Courtois, 88 Rue des Marais St.Martin, Paris, tenor horn with all crooks VII 52a John Cousen, Huddersfield, renaissance F flute VII 52b John Cousen, renaissance (body only) VII 70 John Cousen, soprano curtal VII 78a John Cousen, G treble recorder, 'Praetorius* VII 78b John Cousen, treble recorder, 'Virdung' (non-player) VI 178 P.Das, Calcutta, Bengal flute (transverse) VI 28 J.C.Deagan, Chicago, aluminum chimes [8 only] II 2 Delusse, 1-key flute VII 42 Dipper, small tabor pipe VII 216 Distin ft Co, 9 ft 10 GR* Newport S\ ballad horn I 56 Dolmetsch, descant ft treble recorders I 38 Dore\ simple system C clarinet II 6 Drouet, London, 4-key flute (not by Drouet - RM-P) VI 222 Dupont, Milano, tenor saxophone X 66 David Dushkin, USA, IV 44 J.H.Ebblewhite, 24 High St, Aldgate, bell-over-the-valves cornet with all crooks, probably made by Adolphe Sax V 140 Roger Eddy, Newington 11, Conn, audubon bird call VIII 130 W.T.Elliott, Dundas NSW, copy of my Stanesby Jr flute V 106 H.K.Elton, fife with duct mouthpiece VI 214 Jose Fernandez, Saxony, tenor ukelele VII 88 Firth. Hall ft Pond, Franklin Sq», N-York, 1-key F flute II 16 G.French, 19 Laystall St, fife IV 204 Gautrot-Marquet, Paris, systeme-4 oboe VI 146 GlanchorlA, tenor valve trombone VI 8 Geerligs, Deurningen, midwinterhoorn VII 84 Generation, metal tabor pipe IX 12 Generation, D tin whistle V 226 Geraldo, Germany, piano accordian VI 52 rOC MV3 OKA yHIPOMKOMbMHATA, JIEHHHrPAJI, Bb tenor trombone II 62 Gould ing, Pall Mall, 6-key bassoon II 118 W.Grayson, 5 Princes Str, V 142 Gretsch, humanotone VII 222 John Grey ft Sons, London, mandolin II 66 Guichard aine ft Cie, Paris, trompe de chasse VII 226 Guiraud, Toulouse, (see Cabartl, conical Boehm flute VII 156 J.H. ft London hall-mark, conductor's baton IV 184 Peter Harlan, supertreble recorder in A I 76 Hawkes ft Son, side drum II 60 Hawkes ft Son, 17-key bassoon II 114 Hawkes ft Son, Bb trumpet III 124b Hawkes ft Son, ratchet III 222a/b Hawkes ft Son, simple system Bb ft A clarinets IV 196 Hawkes ft Son, simple system metal Bb clarinet IV 218 Hawkes ft Son, 'Long D' trumpet V 176 Hawkes ft Son, G bass trombone II 216 P.Henderson, Glasgow, highland great pipes VI 186 Herouard fr, 13-key Bb clarinet II 226b Herwig, descant recorder VII 170 George Higgs, small rote 13

•••...•• ii mm* JEREMY MONTAGU COLLECTION CHECK LIST OF INSTRUMENTS BY NAMED MAKERS

p.3 of 5 cat, no, maker _ instrument VI 128 VI 258 J.Hlgham, 2 Victoria St ft 131 G* Ducie S*. Manchester, cornet VI 150 J.Higham, Manchester, C tenor trombone with Bb turn valve VII 204 Hill, late Monzanl ft Co, 28 Regent St*, 8-key flute [see GSJ 271 III 52 Tim Hobrough, gothic harp V 194 Hohner, mouthorgan V 224 HC?ohnerl, panpipe V 124 Hohner, piano accordian V 126 Hopf, sopranino renaissance recorder III 126 Hopf, gar klein renaissance recorder II 20c J.Hudson, 244 Barr St, Birmingham, police whistle III [46a Improved, London, 4-key IV 64 Improved, London, 1-key Bb flute I 182 Improved, London, English V 116 Inalcy, Hong Kong, Chinese shawm VIII 118 T.K., Japan, whistle II 68b Lewis Jones, fiddle bow after Cantigas IX 68 Hy Keat ft Sons, 105 ft 103 Matthias Rd, horn mute II 110 Kelischek, plastic tabor pipe VII 146 M.J.H.Kessels, Tllburg, Bb fidgelhorn IX 154 Key, London, 13-key Eb soprano clarinet IV 58 Kitchen ft Co, Leeds, toy trumpet II 94 Kohler, Henrietta St, McFarlane's Improved Cornopean V 172 KChler ft Son, 35 Henrietta St, bass trombone IV 32 Kohler ft Son, 116 Victoria St, pair of timpani VI 248 Gflnter Korber, renaissance flute IV 198 Giinter Korber, tenor crumhorn IX 86 Louis Lachenal, concertina reed tuner II 10 Alojz Lan£ari£, Sen lea, CSSR, nightingale II 180 Lawson, Tottenham Ct Rd, 7-key flute III 200 Leedy, pedal timpani VII 130 J.Lfpa, Nymburk, German simple system C clarinet V 80 Lubberink, mldwinterhoorn IX 32 W.F.Lludwigl.Drum Co, Chicago, American 1-valve duplex bugle IX 80 Cajsa Lund, Stockholm, snorra IV 256 Anton Luptak, Detva, CSSR, walking stick fuyara III 256 AM, Paris, celluloid 'tin' whistle VI 66 MacConnell, Woolwich, pair Ward patent timpani II 120 MacDonagh ft Son, E.Saintem€me, Paris, Boehm piccolo III 186 C.Mahillon ft Co, London, F trumpet VII 62 C.Mahillon, Bruxelles, Bb baritone, 4 valves, close folded V 138c/d C.Mahillon, Bruxelles, F trumpet, short model VIII 138 Mallardtone, 2901 16th St, Mollne, IL.crow and coon calls III 162 Simon Mana, Gumini, New Guinea, jews harp IV 36 Mayer Marix, Paris, Bb Boehm system clarinet VII 112 Martin fr, simple system Bb clarinet II 138 Bob Marvin, descant recorder IV 188 A.F.Matthews ft Co, London, 1937, guards model side drum II 204 Melnl ft Lauber, Wolfratshausen, 'Haas' trumpet II 96 Metzler ft Co, 35, 37 ft 38 Gt.Marlborough St, concertina IV 10a Karl Meyer, tenor trombone (name used by Selmer) VII 230 Bobby Mickleburgh, trumpet mute I 188 Mlcollier, Paris [see Castegnierl, oboe III 170 Milhouse, London, 2-key oboe IV 130 W.Milhouse, 337 Oxford St, 5-key clarinet IX 52 W.Milhouse. 337 Oxford St, 5-key flute John Mill-tan, whizzcr 14

JEREMY MONTAGU COLLECTION CHECK LIST OF INSTRUMENTS BY NAMED MAKERS p.4 of 5

---^ B0-1 maker £ Instrument

II 210 Moitessier flls, guitar Invented by Moline VIII 128 G.Mollenhauer ft Sdhne, Cassell, reform flute to low H VIII 190 Anthony Moonen, Maastricht, bird flageolet IV 56 Christopher Monk, cornettino IV 134 Christopher Monk, VII 144 Monzani ft Co, 28 Regent St*, 1596, 8-key flute VI 188 A.Morhange, Paris, Eb alto saxophone IV 26 John Morley, clavichord V 150 Motohashi Toy Mfg.Co, Japan, swiss warbler VI 220 MUller, V 164 B.R.Narborough, Birmingham, Maker, pace stick [also Hy.Potter] IX 8 Gray Nicol, Auckland, N.Z., puutorino v VI 6 Henny Nijhuls, Vasse, midwinterhoorn V 28 Noblet, France, metal Boehm system Bb clarinet V 30 William Nuernberger 'American Artist', Germany, metal Boehm clarlnet I 142a W.Nunn ft Co, London, fog horn VI 54 Adolf Oberli, Gstaad. V 20 F.E.01ds, Los Angeles, Bb tenor trombone (converted to ) VII 172 Andrew Parkinson, II 130 Parsons ft Co, Birmingham, xylophone II 190 Parsons, Birmingham, I 2a Paxman Bros, horn mute IV 60 Pediwest, toy clarinet VII 142 Manuel Pereira, successor M.G.Teixeira, Lisboa, guitarra VII 148 Phillips, London (with Prince of Wales feathers), 1-key F flute II 4 Phipps ft Co, London, 1-key flute VI 42 Pinfold, metronome IX 88 FrantiSek Pok, plastic renaissance recorder I 30a Potter, London, boxwood flute, lower body ft foot to CJf only III 248 Potter, London, 1-key piccolo IX 104 Fotter, London, boxwood flute, foot with 1 key ft register only II 8 Potter, Johnson's Court, 6-key flute II 182a Potter, Aldershot, pair of timpani VI 16 George Potter, Aldershot, Bb natural trumpet V 164 Hy.Potter ft Co, 36 ft 38 West St, pace stick [also Narboroughl VI 64 Hy.Potter ft Co, 5-key F flute IV 200 Wm.Hy.Potter, Johnson's Court, 8-key flute II 158 Premier, side drum V 252 Premier, side drum VII 198 Keith Prowse ft Co Ltd, 1..9 New Bond St, red-hot fountain pen VIII 188 Felix Raudonikas, Leningrad, copy of Hotteterre flute VIII 14 John Rawson, London, clavichord VII 220 Reliance, banjo VIII 110 T.Repo, Finland, duct flute II 256 RiviSre ft Hawkes, 28 Leicester Sq, Bb euphonium IV 232 Riviere ft Hawkes, 23 Leicester Sq, Bb baritone II 70 Roehn, 131 rue du Faubourg St .Den is, F tenor horn IV 126 Rudall Carte ft Co, 23 Berners St, vocal horn X 4 Rudall Carte ft Co, 23 Berners St, thumb-plate oboe III 192 Rudall, Rose, Carte ft Co, 20 Charing Cross, 1851 system flute VII 218 Rudall, Rose, Carte ft Co, 20 Charing Cross, 1867 system flute VI 62 Rushworth ft Dreaper, Islington, Liverpool, 6-key Bb flute IV 112 GHS, Fabrik, Marke, 6-key musette I 2 Sachslsche Musikinstrumenten Fabriken, Klingenthal/SA, french horn 15

JEREMY MONTAGU COLLECTION CHECK LIST OF INSTRUMENTS BY NAMED MAKERS p.5 of 5 cat. no. maker ft Instrument

VI 66 E.Saintem€me, Paris, Boehm piccolo [see MacDonaghl VII 150 Adolphe Sax, Paris, Eb alto saxophone [see also Ebblewhitel IX 82 Friedrich SchlUtter, Zella-Mehlls, DDR, bark 'carp scale' IX 84 Friedrich SchlUtter, jews harp in A V 14 Adolph Schmidt, Eb I 34 Karl Schwarz, Molln, collection of jews VIII 258 Karl Schwarz, Molln, Jews harp IX 2 Rune Sellm, Mora, Swedish alphorn IV lOb/c Selmer, Shastock cornet and trombone mutes VIII 34 Richard Shann, Glan y Gors, miniature harpsichord [his loan! IV 242 Sherwin, Woolwich, cornet I 42b C.Silvanl ft Smith, 45 Wilson St, London ft Paris, Bb echo cornet III 258 Alfred Smith, Kingston, banjo III 154 Stanesby jr, 1-key ivory flute IV 4 J.Starck ft Co, London, 6-key piccolo IX 4 Egil Storbekken, Tolga, Norway, selJe-flSyte I 132 W.Stowasser's SChne, Graslitz, cavalry french horn III 34 Swaine ft Adeney, proprietors of Kohler ft Son, hunting horn V 180 B.J.Tenniglo, Ootmarsum, midwinterhoorn II 98 Jer6me Thibouville-Lamy ft Co, 10 Charterhouse St, tenor trombone VI 10 Je[rome]t[hibouvillell[amy], musical saw VII 228 J[-rdme].T[hibouvillel.L[amy], Boehm system oboe I 134 A.de Toni, Verona, upright tenor valve trombone V 232 Tri_bert, systdme 3 oboe X 12 M.Troman ft Co, Curzon St, B'ham, Phono Harp (jews harp with tin- plate bell) III 254 Turner, 84 Leadenhall St, 7-key flute I 210 J.A.Turner, London, picco pipe II 142 M ft G Voigt, Markneuklrchen/SA, sexton's timpani IX 238 RW, pellet bell I 256 J. Wall is, french flageolet III 172 Joseph Wall Is, keyless Glorgi flute IV 210 Walton, Dublin, 'Irish' harp VII 66 Wessex Crafts, Langport, Somerset, rattlewattle , III 220 H.Whitaker,58 Arthur St, 9-key flute VII 32 Paul Williamson, small tabor VII 34 Paul Williamson, deep tabor VII 36 Paul Williamson, wooden nakers VII 38 Paul Williamson, copper nakers VI 244 J.Wood, London, 6-key Bb clarinet I 242 Wood ft Ivy, 4-key flute (Bb key removed) VII 86 Laurence Wright, Llanfairpwll, treble shawm IX 50 Yamaha, Japan, small V 8 York Band Instr.Co, Grand Rapids, Mich, Eb melophone (tenor cor) V 16 J.W.York ft Sons, Grand Rapids, Eb VIII 26 Anatoly Zajaruzny, Kiev, reed rozhok IX 26 Anatoly Zajaruzny, Kiev, Ukrainian bagpipe II 152b/c Avedis Zildjian, USA, 2 cymbals II 156 K.Zildjian, Constantinople, pair of cymbals VI 126 K.Zildjian, Istanbul, cymbal IX 82 K.Zildjian, Istanbul, pair small cymbals I-X represents volume of the Catalogue; 2-256 represents page number. Addi esses are given only when, and as, marked, with the exception of some contemporary makers, for whom a town has been added. 16

FoMRHI Comm. 904 E. Segerman New Grove DoMI'. ES no.l3S N and O entries

Nakers (by J. Blades) Naqqara. (by W. J. Conner, M Howell, R. At'ay an)

There is a problem with relative sizes and pitches of the two drums. The Nakers entry states that they "vary little in diameter" though a minority of European medieval illustrations show them clearly different in sizes. The Naqqara entry states they are tuned to different pitches, being ambiguous about historical and modern practice. Lawence Wright has quoted me a 1553 reference by Pierre Belon stating that the Turkish instruments were of different sizes. Yet the 17th century painting illustrating the Naqqara article shows pairs of equal size. It seems that pairs of equal and unequal sizes were used in both cultures. One would expect different pitches with different sizes, but not necessarily the same pitches with equal sizes. We should be on the lookout for pictorial and literary information that might throw light on this.

Neck (by D. D. Boyden)

The entry mentions that had from 6 to 14 strings instead of courses. A large d'amore is said to have a neck broader that for strength to bear the tension of the many more strings. Added strength is not needed for the tensions involved, and if it were, added depth would be better than width. The change of neck angle on violins around 1800 was not associated with any increase of string tension, as stated.

New Violin Family (by C. Hutchins)

The author's modesty does not give herself proper credit for developing these instruments. She cites Praetorius as a precedent for 8 members of the fiddle family, while Praetorius gave at most 6 (she included the and contrabass ).

Norman, Barak (by M Lefkowitz)

I know of no reputation of this maker for making lutes, as stated.

Nut (by D. D. Boyden)

If, as stated, the nut "adds a fictional resistance that helps the pegs in holding the strings", it is not set up properly.

Ocarina (by Anon)

I missed mention of the Gemshorn (Virdung 1511) which works on the same principle (as a Helmholtz resonater).

Ornaments (by R. Donington)

This extensive entry is a considerable improvement on the author's previous writings on the subject because it includes much more Renaissance information. In the introduction he distinguishes between gracing and division, missing one of the major differences, which is that graces are slurred whenever possible and division generally not (i. e. in graces there is no new breath or pluck or bow stroke, while divisions are articulated like other notes). This distinction is not clear on keyboard instruments. The author's keyboard-centrism is illustrated by his error in stating that the simultaneous appoggiatura (acciaccatura or tast) "is confined to keyboard instruments", not realizing that its keyboard manifestation is an imitation of this common grace on the lute and viol, which was usually performed by playing an open string while playing a lower appoggiatura on the next-lowest string ending up on the same note. 17

Mace's description of how to perform the hard and soft shake is misunderstood. It is not a description of a trillo (on one note) but a proper shake involving two pitches. The difference between the hard and soft shake was therefore missed, and should be included amongst the varieties listed (the hard shake emphasizes the main note and the soft shake emphasizes the upper ancillary (or auxiliary) note. Mace's sting is not quite like the modern vibrato, as stated, because it involves taking the thumb away from the back of the neck to make the vibrato very wide, and the hand is waved only several times.

The section on the English virginalists' strokes would be clarified by reference to my Comm 398, considering them as indicating members of the fall class of graces (starting from below the main note) or the relish class (starting on or above the main note). Lute gracing is here mentioned but reference is made to the Ornamentation section of the Lute entry where it is extensively discussed. That discussion would also benefit from consideration of Comm 398.

Qverspun string (by F. Hubbard)

The entry does not mention silk or plastic as core material, or copper (silver plated and not) or brass as winding material, or the use of plastic winding between core and metal as in modern violin strings.

continuation of BULLETIN SUPPLEMENT from p. 8 Pitch Standards? Bruce Haynes sent a friendly note encouraging me to write the reply to his Comm. 891 that I promised in the last Bull. Supp. I must apologize to him and any others who might be interested for not getting it done for this Q. I'll try my best for the next one. Fellows! In Comm. 864 there are some critical remarks about Fellows of FoMRHI which reveal misunderstanding. The organization was set up to further communication about historical instruments, promoting historical accuracy. Membership is open to all, including many who don't share the information they have and who don't share the commitment to historical accuracy. If the organization were made fully democratic, there has always been the possibility of a shift away from this commitment. Therefore, voting was restricted to a group of members (who we called 'Fellows') that we could reasonably be sure had this commitment, and who also freely shared the information they had. Issues requiring a vote rarely occur, so the distinction between Fellows and members who are not Fellows is rarely significant, this distinction is only an insurance for continuity of policy, and does not imply that Fellows are any better makers or researchers than non-Fellows, nor does it imply that a non-Fellow is any less committed to historical accuracy than a Fellow. If being a Fellow carried any real prestige or power (which could be the case if we had to make corporate decisions, such as establishing criteria, in other than our own limited activities), then it would be appropriate to consider making the system either more democratic or more rationally selective. At the moment, the main function the Fellowsplay is as an easily consulted group that Jeremy, Barbara and myself are answerable to. 18

FoMRHI Cmmm. 9o_" FoMRHI and Conservation/Restoration Roy Chiverton

I value my membership of FoMRHI, but I look on it as a some­ what diffuse information-and-viewe-sharing group, barely a "body", possibly rather a federation of autonomous republics. I may make contributions to the Quarterly, but they reflect what I know or think. I don't speak for anyone else. Similarly, other contributors don't speak for me (unless they've asked me first). Under the title of this Coma, I am obviously thinking of Eph Segerman's remarks in Bull. 52 Supp on conservation. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have made them. The freedom to express even provocative views is an im­ portant part of what FoMRHI is about. But I don't agree with them and I don't see why I should, under the name "FoMRHI", be coupled with them by those who object to them. Given the democratic nature of PoMRHI, it also seems a little illogical to leave it because of the not necessarily representative views of one member. And what is the alternative? Censorship? Having got this far, I may as well offer my two-pennyworth, put my head on the block, as it were, and be prepared to get the chop from anyone who disagrees (as I am eure Mr Segerman was in making his Bull. 52 remarks). It seems to me that the nub of the matter is in Jeremy's remarks on p26 of Q50 (top para) (although, if Jeremy will forgive me, his 5) lower on the page seems to re­ flect the confusion he warns against in this upper para) and in his comment in p2-3 of Q51 (" 'what business is this of FoMRHI's?' ... I thin/, they are probably right"). To me, restoration and con­ servation are clearly two different fields, although they inevit­ ably overlap. Conservation, as Cary Karp suggested years ago in Early Music, is ensuring that the heap of splinters is available for study with no further deterioration. Restoration is putting them back together again, with all that this may mean for the destruction of evidence and the impeding of the application of later diecoveries. Conservators have a continuing responsibility for the items in their care. Restorers usually have a transient responsibility. Thu6 conservators are presumably more concerned about environment and the implications of restoration for long- term preservation, while restorers will use their skills to meet the user's/custodian's requirements.They will have common ground in their understanding of the benefits of different methods of restoration. And so on. There should be no difficulty in produc­ ing workable distinctions. How you choose your conservators and restorers is another matter. In the latter case, I imagine you would go for something like an Institute of Musical Instrument Restorers, and have AMIMIRs like we already have AMIEEs, AMIMechEs and BO on. You define stan­ dards as well as possible to start with and then refine them for a generation or two. The IMIR would not equate to FoKRHI, although it would be odd if FoMRHI could not be very helpful to those who set it up. Such developments need debate, and FoMRHI is also a valu able forum for debate. It would be the greatest pity if, rather than develop and inform debate, those with much to contribute opted out. The committee member who resigns has surrendered his chance to influence the committee to a good outcome. It would be heartening if Cary Karp would reconsider his decision to quit FoMRHI. My head is on the block - I await axe-wieldere with, I hope, fortitude. But if you're preparing your axe, aim it at me - mot FoKRHI.. IS

FoMRHI COM. 906 Jeremy Montagu

A Response to Cary's COBB. 900 on Conservation A Accreditation.

I didn't Bake any response in Q.5+ to Cary's Comm, according to our normal practice of Eph and I not taking an unfair advantage by responding in the saae Q as somebody's Comm, unless they permit us to do so. However, I did of course write to Cary in response, and I would like to make rather aore public some of the things that I wrote to hla. What follows is an edited version (cutting aatters irrelevant to this discussion such as why I still do not have E-Mail facility [no money]) of two letters to him, one in response to his Comm, and the second In response to his reply to the first letter. Some explanatory Interjections have been added in 1...I "Also In the post yesterday was your Comm. I'm very sorry if I've offended you, and even sorrier if it means you dropping out of FoMRHI. I'm well aware that I'm not a conservator, but I'm also aware that I'm one of a very small minority In the musical instrument world in this country that's even Interested In conservation, as distinct from restoration, and one ot an even smaller minority that has even heard of the difference (which is why I stopped belonging to UKIC [the United Kingdom Institute of Conservation!-, remember my comments [Comm.501, Q.34, January 19841 on their VAA Christmas Symposium a few years back), and I'm interested enough to belong to IIC [the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works!. I was asked to attend those meetings [at the Museums a Galleries Commission; see Comm.849, Q.50, January 19881 because they knew of no other organological organisation with even a passing Interest in conservation, and nor did I. As you saw, there were representatives from most other specialist subjects, and they wanted to know what the situation was for musical instruments. The Conservation Unit seems to want to approach things from a subject aspect, recognising, I still think rightly, that there are different conservation problems from one specialist subject area to another. As you may know, I have been arguing with Bob [Barclay] about this (and apparently was at that stage the only person who'd even bothered to reply to him), and would still prefer to trust an Instrument to a musical Instrument restorer who is also knowledgeable about conservation, and can be trusted to conserve and only to conserve, than to a conservator who Is trained only as a picture conservator.

The Conservation Unit was putting some pressure on all of us at that meeting towards a general UK accreditation system. Judging from David Leigh's letter in the Q [Comm.863, Q.51, April 19881, they've been compelled by general reaction to back-pedal on this, but we were all asked to investigate, within our own areas, what could be done about this, and we all had a carrot waved at us in that grants from the Museums and Galleries Commission (of which the Conservation Unit was a part) for conservation work (and we're all short-funded enough that these grants are vital) would in the future only be available for work done by those conservators who are accredited. That, also, it looks as though they are back-pedalling on, and they'll obviously have to, since we're not the only specialist area which isn't going to be able to pro­ duce any accreditation scheme for ourselves and for which nobody else is go­ ing to produce one either. There is still a crying need for training for conservators in this country, both in general and in a number of specialist subjects. There is an even greater need for the awareness of conservation, for a distinction bet­ ween it and restoration, and a greater need still for that awareness to per- 20

colate through the musical instruaent world, and world-wide, not Just in this country. You criticise the Bate (and ae) for keeping our instruments in playing order and for having them played (possibly quite rightly). I would point out that they are kept stably in that condition, as they were designed to be by their makers,, that they are not, froa tiae to time, hauled up into that condition, subjected to the rigours of Intensive practice and recording, and then relaxed again, which to ay aind is much aore of a strain. I would point out, too, that anybody who gives or sells us an Instruaent knows that that is our policy. At least I have ay eyes open [to any resulting dangers Involved In this policy]. Tf you feel that you can only work in the museum world, so be it. I've stressed to you before that the auseua instruaents of the future are in the hands of the collectors of the present. Where do you think we got the Edgar Hunt Collection froa? Where did the Shrine [to Music Museum, Vermil­ lion, South Dakota] get the Witten Collection froa? Where, for that matter, did Boston [Fine Arts Museum] get the Leslie Lindsay Mason Collection [the original Galpin Collection, purchased In 1917 and described In one of the greatest catalogues, Nicholas Bessaraboff's Ancient European Musical Instru­ ments] froa and the Met/ronoJ/tan Museum of Art, New York] the Crosby Brown? If you're not willing to go on bashing away at present-day collectors, trying to aake them aore aware of their duty to their instruments, less 'It's mine, I can do what I like' minded, the auseua collections of the future suffer and will go on suffering. You have the knowledge, you have the ability to commu­ nicate, you have the status which means that some, at least, may listen to you, but it's up to you whether you use it. *Vith ay thanks for all your help and encourageaent In the past."

To this Cary replied, arguing and disputing some of the above points, and particularly apologising that he had, apparently, offended me. I was going to omit ay response to this, but I have decided to include some of it because it is, I think, while not relevant to this discussion, iaportant in its empha­ sis on debate without offence.

"Sure I took your Coma personally; my memory Is that that was the strong implication of it (memory because it's at the printer). But why be dismayed? We've told each other often enough before what we thought and we've never been on each other's shit list yet, and I hope we never will be. Sure you've been judgmental about the way I run the Bate. How not? And why not? We have different ideas in that respect, and what's wrong with that? You've certainly taught ae a lot, and made me much more cautious on what we do with the Instruments."

At least I hope that Cary and Bob Barclay will see this Comm, for although neither Is still a member, Cary's auseua has renewed for '89, and I hope that Bob's institute will also do so. One advantage of FoMRHI's informality is that Coaas can coae froa anyone, and not only froa individual members, so I hope too that they may respond. Conservation is far too iaportant a subject to be abandoned like this. Bruce Haynes and Ardal Powell have been writing about conservation of elephants (every piece of ivory you use means a dead elephant). My concern is more with the conservation of instruments, for our instruments can die, too. They can die because they are kept in front of unscreened windows that admit too much ultraviolet light; they can die because they are kept in centrally heated rooms without , but they 21 MP-WP'II —'' can also die because they are kept in unheated huts without dehualdlfiers. They can die, too, by being played, wind instruments by having wara moist air blown into thea when they're not used to it, string instruaents by being suddenly hauled up to tension; this is why many museums won't allow their instruaents to be played, and one of the areas that Cary and I have often argued about. Perhaps I should say, parenthetically, that I believe that there Is a valid distinction between the collections foraed froa recent play­ ing collections, such as the Bate, and those that are historic auseua collec­ tions, consisting of instruaents that have not been played for aany years. Instruaents can, if not die at least coae very close to it, by being messed around by restorers who, while knowledgeable about auslcal instruaents, are Ignorant about conservation and about what can and what cannot be safely done to antique artifacts. This is why we do need accredited conservators, people who can be trusted to do the right thing to our instruaents, and it is also why we must be aware of the Importance of conservation, as distinct from restoration. It has been said so often that it hardly needs repetition that while conservation preserves an instruaent in its present state; it halts time, as it were, and maintains the status quo, restoration inevitably implies destruction; some things have to be reaoved, destroyed, even if only pads on woodwind keys, in order that the instruaent may be put into playing order. The reason that I believe so strongly in the necessity for conservators who know about musical instruments is that there are many ways of conserving wood or metal that alter its ability to vibrate; a coat of lacquer will conserve metal beautifully, but it will also totally alter the sound of the instruaent. If the Instruaents are to be played, as some at least are (here we go round the same circle again), then the conservator must know something at least about the instruaent as well as about conservation. Finally, this Is why we do still need conservators in FoMRHI. Many people have ignored all that Cary, Bob, and others have written, but some have list­ ened to thea. I know it's no fun being a voice in the wilderness, being a prophet without honour, and so forth, but as long as soae people listen and respond, it's worth while, and it does have to be done if the instruaents, which are our concern, are not to die.

FOMRHI _'OWM«.907 Uhiv-vs'v+i, tff EJmbvn-^ Collictl'o* oX H-fst-oric hWio* \ I* «+-,;,* *„+£ Progress Report 1988 /W'J M_yt«_

In the year, the University has been given instruments by Mr George bwilt, Mr Dennis Lofthouse and Miss Kathleen Moodie. A tew •further items have been lent to the Collection.

Two important purchases have been made. A fine viola da gamba b/ Mathias and Augustinus Kaiser of Dusseldorf, circa 17 00, together with two bows have been bought with assistance from the Government's Local Museums Purchase Fund, the University's General Council Trust, the Pilgrim Trust and an anonymous benefactor. The two Wagner needed to reunite in University ownership the historic set of four (brought to Britain by Sir Thomas Beecham in 1935) were purchased from the London Philharmonic Orchestra.

The Collection has published as a booklet the text of Alan Lufflsden's lecture 'The Sound of the Sackbut', given to celebrate the acquisition by the University of the tronbone by Anton Schmtzer dated 1594.

CM rIM ow p. 27 22

r%MRUI C»wn^. 908 Response to Comm 889 Jonathan Swayne

Bruce Haynes asks for a response to his FOMRHI Comm 889, "...In Death I Sing", in which he describes the impact of the current world demand for ivory upon the existence of the African elephant. A recent responsible newspaper article and TV programme in this country have also drawn attention to the problem so that it is now impossible to avoid the conclusion that unless something changes the elephant faces extinction soon.

When I started making woodwind instruments some ten years ago, I decided not to use ivory out of respect for the elephant. As it happens, a friend recently bought a small tusk in a street market; it was clearly very old, and was fitted with brass bands and a chain, and had hung on somebody's wall for many years. He offered it to me, and I took it. I felt that I could not harm elephants by using this old tusk, and I very much wanted to try this prized material once in my instrument-making career. I used perhaps a quarter of it for a special instrument, and I found that it is indeed a wonderful substance to work, can be manipulated so delicately and finished so finely that it brings delight to the soul of a craftsman. But I am not sure that I was right, or what I will do with the rest of it.

Like many ecologically-related questions, the problem is at once very complicated and very simple. I feel that instrument makers who use ivory do not do so wantonly, and our consumption is miniscule in comparison with world use. Moreover, although the material Is for the most part used by us ornamentally, we are not making mere ornaments. One can argue firstly, that there can be no objection if the ivory comes from approved sources, and secondly that its limited use is Justified in terms of the aesthetic value of human art and artefacts. I do not believe that either of these arguments can be upheld. In the first case, leaving aside the question of whether the approved sources are properly managed and free from corruption, can it be right to take a legal share in a natural resource about to be overwhelmed by illegal use ? As to the second, what is the value of the most exquisite work of art or craft in comparison with that of any living species, let alone the elephant ? - Not to use ivory is the single most important contribution that can be made; it will assist in the first step towards change, which is a change of consciousness. We can act by lobbying and by lending our support to such pressure groups as exist, but above all by ceasing to place the value of an aesthetic ideal above that of part of the life of the planet. The inconceivable beauty and richness of the Earth, so easily taken for granted, which has been and daily is being diminished by the destruction of species both animal and plant must be worth this small gesture.

Without wishing to dilute or distract attention from the above, I should also be interested to hear the views of members on the use of tropical hardwoods, and whether anyone knows if any steps are being taken to renew homegrown timbers such as box. 23 FoMRHI Comm. 909 Ardal Powell

_I_l_i___I_9C___Ggl.d_and_Sguth_Afri.ca

At the risk of sounding like FomRHI's resident moralist, drawing inappropriate comparisons between ivory's and gold's support o-f Apartheid, or flogging a dead elephant (and now bad taste as well), I would like to pass on without comment (even though its magnificent split infinitive tempts me sorely) a passage -from the National Flute Association's F_ut_st_Quarter_y. It was written by Robert Dick, who is a very well-known avant-garde flute player and composer.

"South Africa's connection to the flutists' world is through its role as a major supplier of the gold and platinum used in flutes. I've asked several makers "Where does the gold come from?" and I've had to cut through a great deal of obfuscation to get to the honest answer, which is, while it is difficult to know where the ore of a particular piece of gold or platinum tubing was mined, basically, the likely source is South Africa. Can't we, as artists and people involved in the search for the highest of human expression, demand that flute makers address this problem and not avoid it? To buy a new gold or platinum flute or headjoint is to, in virual certainty, knowingly support the economy of the most repressive regime on Earth. Such a purchase is a vote with _gur_dg__ars for the government of South Africa and a vote with yourdollars against the freedom of all but the White minority there. I realize that a lot of money is involved here, and that flute makers are not working against the South African Blacks, but until we all confront the issue, it will continue to be too easy for them and us, the purchasers, to look the other way.

I admit that it's easy to criticize, and that I personally have no income to forfeit through the loss of a sale of a gold headjoint, for example, so I want to make a positive suggestion. I propose we seek out and support any makers who can assure us that no part of their flutes originated in South Africa. To my many friends who make flutes, I apologise for the inconvenience this will cause. This is not personal: it is one of the major social concerns of our time, a life and death issue for those involved. We must respond."

***

It's reported in the _n_ma___elf_____Q___tute_Quarter__, Vol 37, Nos. 3/4, that Econgnews, November 19BS, reported the -following (my emphasis):

"Delegates to the Piano Technicians Convention Council have approved a resolution opposing the use of ivory in the manufacture or_ re_tgrat_gn of .

The resolution, noting that the very existence of the largest land mammal is threatened, also supported a ban on all trade in ivory."

Hmm.

GPS flgpncips hc->s recently re-entered the -field of artificial ivory manufacture, and has come out with an "improved" resin. Mr. W.R. Stevens will prohably send you a sample if you contact him at:

GPS Agencies The Clock House, Woodend, Downs Rd. West Stoke, Chichester, W. Sussex P018 9BP Engl and

He's also been showing up at various exhibitions lately, FAMM and Musicora for two. 2+ Raschig GMBH produces the other good ivory substitute, which they call Vignpas P71A, and other people F.D.E. (Fake Dead Elephant). Their minimum order is rather large. In Europe they are at: Raschig GMBH and in Amprira- - - -sricai M . _ . "* " Raschig Corporation Mundenheimerstrasse 100 p _ _o- 7656 D-6700 Ludwigshaven-am-Rhein 5o0o Osborne Turnpike (Rt. 5) Richmond VA 23231

F-MRHT Comm 910 GPS Ajc»»cit$ Artificial £v«*y W. R- StevewS

May I first of all mention that I have not received the back copy containing Bruce Haynes Comm.889 concerning Ivory, but have read with interest Ardal Powell's article in the January FoMRHI Quarterly. What he says is largely true, but there is no mention of a satisfactory substitute, see page 62 fourth paragraph.

The work that my company has done over the past few years to develop a simulated Ivory has had marked success, particularly in the last year since we have been appearing at the Early Music Festivals around Europe, and many instrument makers have now given up real Ivory for our material. The machining qualities, general workability even for carving, as illustrated by Ronald Wick's Stansby Recorder that he showed at F.A.M.M., Munich and at Musicora, Paris, shows the sort of work that can be done.

There has been criticism at our first attempt that it tended to have a marbled appearance in certain diameters, but what is very important is that as a result of further development work earlier this year, we have greatly improved the configuration to a more vertical grain, and this was borne out by the success we had at Munich and Paris when it was shown for the first time. It is our intention to change our stock to this new pattern immediately in stock sizes from 20mm. dia. through to 75mm. dia. We can also now manufacture 90mm., 100mm. and 130mm. dias. on request. The rods in these larger diameters are only one metre in length. The working qualities of the improved pattern are in no way affected.

Referring to Ardal Powell's article, he has now sampled our material and we understand that he will be changing over to this in the near future. It is of course possible that his article was written before he had finished testing our material.

The development necessary to simulate natural products such as Ivory, Horn, Tortoiseshell, etc., is very time consuming and expensive for our chemists and will only ever represent a small part of our industrial activities in synthetic products, but in view of the importance of the conservation factor we are pleased to do this, providing we get support from instrument makers and other specialist industries looking for an alternative to Ivory.

We are at present working closely with the Animal Welfare Institute in Washington, U.S.A., and the World Wildlife Fund in the U.K. who are taking our raw materials, together with some finished articles made by artisan musical instrument makers, to Japan in the very near future in the hope of persuading users of real Ivory that there is an acceptable alternative to the real thing. 25

PoMRHI Comm 9it Roy Chiverton Instrument Drawings This Comm results from a suggestion of Jeremy's that it might be interesting to have comparisons between different drawings of the same instrumentt be is not otherwise to blame for what follows. My aim in taking up his suggestion is not, of course, to reflect adversely on specific drawings. With one exception, proposed by Jeremy, I have, therefore*not identified the drawings I discuss. Those drawings which I have been able to examine at leisure pro­ vide information on three different instruments. The first is an important treble recorder. It will not be ex­ pected that details will be identical. They should, however, be close. Measurements of the recorder differ generally by 0. 1mm between both drawings at most. But surprisingly, the I) hole (hole no. 3, holes being Th, l-7» 7 being on the foot-joint) is 5.7~~- in one drawing but 6.1mm in diameter in the other, the smaller hole being only oTfc of the area of the other at the surface. The second instrument is an equally important flute. In one of the drawings, most measurements are consistently 0. 1mm smaller than in the other, suggesting a different basic setting for the measuring device(s). More importantly, perhaps, one mouth-hole - centre - to - tenon distance is 0.5mm less than the other, one heartpiece is 1.35mni longer than the other, and one main joint is 1».8___ shorter than the other. Presumably at least in part he a result of this, in one draw­ ing the notehole centres are 1.77, 1.5, 2»55, 1.37» 4.1> 3.47 and 3.17 mm further from the mouth-hole centre than in the other (or should I say "nearer to"?) . NB I have checked and rechecked these figures, but since the draughtsmen measured in different directions* my figures are dependent on the accuracy of my arithmetic. I believe them to be correct, however. -r %,v__«wv, I_WW0-C-.II Junior^ The third instrument is Jeremy's ivory Stanesbj^f where I could really only compare bore information. The drawing says explicitly "uniform bore diameter" of 19.2mm for the headjoint, where the elec­ tronic traceishows a taper from above the mouth-hole to the socket of 19.2x19*4mm to 18.5mm, although according to the trace this taper is mainly in the half of the headjoint nearer the socket. The trace of the upper joint has much the same outline as that derived from the measurements given in the drawing, but it averages 0.2mm narrower. The lower joint trace averages 0.4mm less in bore diameter than the drawing and the footjoint trace 0.2-0.4mm less. If two of us make instruments using drawings which differ to the extent (only to the extent?) that theee do, have we made dif­ ferent instruments? Have we made instruments which will differ sig­ nificantly? C.J. Nederveen, in his "Acoustical Aspects of Woodwind Instruments", suggests that a 1> change in the acoustical length of an instrument, a 10% change in a hole diameter or a 20$ change in hole depth is necessary to produce a 10 cent change in pitoh. He does not say whether changes are linear, and we should probably assume that they are not. In my second example above, the greatest difference in length was also accompanied by a 6% reduction in hole size (in drawing 1, hole 5 was at 423.q mm from centre and 6.5 * 6.35mm in diameter, but in drawing 2 at 428mm and 6.2mm diameter). I put holes of these sizes at these distances from the embouchure 26

in two cylindrical plastic tubes (20mm bore, wall 1mm) with iden­ tical mouthholes and accurately set corks, and could not reliably demonstrate any difference in pitch between the resulting notes on my pitchmeter (Seiko TOLV). This doesn't prove anything, but sug­ gests that any difference may not be all that great. In "fundamentals of Musical Acoustics", A.H. Benade says that a difference in cork position of 0.1mm in relation to the mouthhole can have "a recognisable influence on the playing beha­ viour of the instrument" (p497), and appears (p.499) to allow the possibility that aji elliptical bore could sound differently from a round one, due to greater wall excitability. If we cannot have absolute confidence in the accuracy of our drawings, if, however, inaccuracy may not make that much difference to tuning, if the aspect regarding which we can have least informat­ ion, ie the exact cork position, is so important, and if we cannot be very sure about the desired sound, then thi6 seems to me a reas­ onable argument for not trying to replicate early flutes, but rather to recreate them within the external outlines, a.out which we can be pretty confident. To oome at this point from another angle, some drawings also give the pitches of the individual notes of the flute or recorder which has been drawn. If we make so as to reproduce these pitches, with a satisfactory sound, might we not diverge from the drawing measurements - and yet make an instrument more truly like the one we are "copying"? Looking at these drawings brought me to examine others I have rather more closely than before, and I found that on one (still flutes and recorders, I'm afraid, because that's what I've col­ lected), the depth of the headjoint _oclc_.t was lacking. On another, the bore of the headjoint wa6 not included. Others lack information on fingerhole (and mouthhole) undercutting. Some half of all draw­ ings have no information on individual note pitches, one or two not even giving the overall pitch of the instrument with any exact­ ness. Some exemplary drawings have everything. Jeremy has been asking what FoMRHI members think should be the right charge for drawings. One must pay for knowledge, and if you are going to make one or more instruments which will sell for several hundred pounds, then £10 is not a large sum - you could easily pay more for the wood from which you make your instrument. You certainly paid more for your lathe, your deep-boring augers and some of your turning chisels. Besides, if you are a professional maker, such outlay is part of your allowable expenses. If you are not selling at high figures, or if you are making just for your own pleasure, and if you would like to try the differences be­ tween different rrakers' designs, this is another matter. Other comparisons are possible. Sheet music, for example. Here, however, the initial investment is higher - but so is turnover. My well-printea and -bound Benade (500 pager) cost £12. T can't earn money from it, but I could after reading the little Shire pub­ lication on dry stone walling (c. £1.50). So I could if I had a computer (the software writer's lathe), and laid out £5-10 on a programming language textbook. 27

I don't know that any of this helps much, beyond suggesting that there is something to be said on the side of higher as well as of lower charges for drawings. My own conclusion is that £10 is quite a lot to pay for two A4 sheets of paper (the Zen-On drawings of the Briiggen collection went on sale at £25), but that I would be much encouraged to do so by a clear drawing containing all measurements and details of undercutting, the bore being given in 0.1mm incre­ ments, on stable, good-quality paper, preferably plasticised, to withstand the rigours of the workshop, where the outlines on the paper are in close agreement with the measurements. Note pitches (for all playable flutes and recorders, and, to the extent possible, for reed instruments, these also to have details of workable reeds or reed/staple combinations) should be given for the full range of the instrument, together with the temperature at the time when they were recorded. One of the aims of producing drawings is to generate revenue for suitable reinvestment. High quality drawings (a lot of which exist already, so my specification isn't for something in the future) will encourage this. Maximising revenue may also be helped by the "discount for quantity" approach already being operated by one insti­ tution in this sphere. This sort of competition should encourage those offering inferior products to revise and improve them.

The work on technical drawings has proceeded: seven further drawings, of oboes, were published this year, making a total of 23 workshop drawings now on sale.

The Scottish Museums Council's Antiquities Conservation Officer undertook work on two of the instrument cases in the Collection, the work being grant-aided bv the Council.

The Honorary Curator represented the University at the CIMCIM (The I COM Committee on Musical Instrument Museums) meeting in Berlin, where he read a paper 'Cataloguing Standards for Instrument Collections'.

A number of brass instruments have been lent for display at the Quakers Friars Museum of Music in Bristol.

The Collection has been used for teaching purposes by University Staff, in particular for courses in the Faculty of Music on the History of Instruments, Ethnomusicology and Musical Acoustics. Several parties have made organised visits, and various scholars and instrument makers have visited to study particular instruments.

Arnold Myers, Honorary Curator.

AM/URA88 31st December 1988 00 High Tech in Instrument Making Personal computers have in the last few years found widespread use, also among instrument makers. As no modifications to the computer are by Stephan Blezinger et Jesper Evald required, lowering the costs by reusing an existing computer is quite feasible -n 0 without impacts on its normal use. A major problem in investigating and building woodwind instruments E is the examination and control of the bores. Be it the unharmful, however The personal computers which have found the most extensive use, are precise measurement of a historical instrument, be it the production control the IBM PC compatibles. This is not the least due to attractive pricing and a large selection of quality software. Furthermore portable computers of this o of a new instrument in comparing with a master - until now, no measurement e equipment was available, which could fulfill all reasonable requirements as type are available today at reasonable prices. Using such one, it would be J to accuracy, reliability, innocuousness and ease of use. practicable to carry the whole equipment around. 5 A promising method of measurement, using a thin spring as a mechanical Thus it has been decided to write the measurements program for PC's sensor, converting its deformation electronically and plotting the measure­ and compatibles, running under MS-DOS. However, if interest exists, the ments on a paper recorder, until now had serious problems in use, as those program could be rewritten for other types. early equipments suffers from electronic and mechanic wavering as well as The program to be installed on the PC is very easy to use. It takes care of severe unstability of the adjustment. all low level functions such as detailed calibration, control of the mechanics The technique has, however, now been improved by the undersigned and storage of the measurements, and provides the user with error-proof manufacturer, eliminating the problems mentioned. A series of these new high level command options. equipments has already shown their value in praxis, giving stable and reliable Some of the more advanced functions of the program are measurements results. They comprise a measurement sensor rod connected - Manual input of existing measurement data. by a cable to a handy electronic unit, giving a direct digital readout in - Simple calibration by known-size test rings. millimeters. - Organized storage of measurements on floppy disk or hard disk. Together with some instrument makers, this equipment is now being - Printout on the screen or on paper as tables in different formats or as further developed in order to have an augmented version, connecting the drawings. electronic measurements results into a computer and providing automatic - Comparison to any reference measurement. traction of the sensor rod. - Transfer of the data into standard PC programs, e.g. spread sheets, for The advanced equipment retains the good stability and measurements further advanced analysis. reliability of the handheld version and in addition offers further comfort - Intelligent guidance of the user. of use, such as automated measurements and organized storage, together In order to keep the cost of the new equipment on an affordable level, with a series of facilities for drawings on paper and comparing different also for smaller instrument makers, it would be advantageous to spread the measurements with each other. development costs (most of which concern the computer program) over a The standard maximum mearuring depth is 95 cm, however it may be number of units. made to other requirements also. With the standard sensor rod, the smallest For this purpose, the manufacturer and the instrument makers involved measurable bore diameter is approximately 6 mm. A miniature sensor allow­ so far have agreed to invite further interested parties to join the group, thus ing measurements down to a narrow 4 mm is under development. Upwards, gaining lower price with increasing number of units. practically no limit exists, as any measurement range (each with a span of This subscription club will be closed for further members at a later date. 20 mm) may be selected by mounting a correspondingly sized auxiliary feet For orders hereafter the manufacturer will set the price. on the sensor rod. For further information, please contact The electronics for control, sensor signals conversion etc. are all build into one box, which is connected via a standard interface available on any Jesper Evald computer. Kasernenstr. 9 D 5300 Bonn 1 FRG.

Telph. international: + 49 228 639856 as F»MMI C-^i-. 9>3 THE FLUTES OF ROBERT AND WILLEM WIJNE M.C.J, _ov.te.rse

A- Seven baroque transverse flutes with the mark "R.WIJNE" and one with the mark "W.WIJNE" survived in several collections; there are also three recorders and two oboes by R.WIJNE, and one bassoon and one rackett by W.Wyne. One recorder and the rackett are also stamped "NIJMEGEN". Nijmegen (in english "Nymwegen") is an old town in the Netherlands, not far from the border with Germany. Archives tell us that the flute-maker Robert Wijne (1698-1774) lived in Nijmegen and there is no doubt that the instruments stamped R.Wijne were made by this Robert Wijne- W.Wijne is more problematical: the same archives in Nijmegen tell us that Robert had eight children, two of them were flute-makers too and among them Johannes Wijne (1743-1807, no instruments are found) and Wilhelmus Wijne (1730-1816). The problem is that the rackett looks like an instrument from the beginning of the 18th or even from the end of the 17th century. About the bassoon there is some confusion: some people think the instrument is early, some that it is later. To solve these problems an uncle is invented, elder than Robert who could have made the two -beautifully made- instruments. No question that the father of Robert could be the maker, his name was "Hendrik". But, there are no records in the archives of an uncle with the name W.Wijne and with the discovery of the there are strong indications that the son Wilhelmus (short: "Willem") could be the maker as well. About the spelling of the name "Wijne": Wijne and Wyne are both possible in the dutch language. The "ij" is in modern dutch common, is in fact one character on dutch typewriters. The "y" occurs only in old-dutch and foreign names and words.

HP RHP

Di» _? I BLtU ID L- J SL L SL J LHP FP _n _S=B L Pi F_ *1 UtlJ - t» -I L...L L _ L . . J '

B- Seven transverse flutes by one maker give us the opportunity to compare the instruments; what are the differences and similarities, what was the'importance of Robert Wyne in the Netherlands or even in Europe. A short description of the instruments, all baroque transverse flutes with one key for d-sharp and in four pieces:

1- flute in african blackwood, ivory rings, silver key. Flute plays at a= 405- 410 Hz. Haags Gemeentemuseum, The Hague, Netherlands. 2- flute in ivory, key not original, cap missing. A new mouthhole is made lower on the head, the old mouthhole seems to be enlarged. The LHP is shortenend, perhaps on both the upper and lower side. Haags Gemeentemuseum, The Hague, Netherlands. 3- flute in boxwood, ivory rings, silver key, three exchangeable centerpieces. The longest plays very well with a pitch at about a-405 Hz, the middlepiece plays rather good at about 410-415 (the flute is with this middelpiece perfectly divided in a golden section) and the shortest at about 430-440 (with many bad tones). The difference in length between the centerpieces is rather great. Private collection, Netherlands. 4- flute in boxwood, ivory rings, brass key. A part of the RHP is new after a restauration. The flute doesn't play at the moment. Museum "Commanderie van St. 3o

Jan", Nijmegen, Netherlands. 5- flute in fruitwood, no rings (except one ring from horn, a restauration on the headpiece), brass key engraved with a tulip. The LHP has a broken tennon, the flute doesn't play on the moment. Collection Ehrenfeld, Utrecht, Netherlands. 6- flute in fruitwood, head missing, found in an old refuse pit in Delft. No rings, key silver(?). Collection Ton Stolk, Vlaardingen, Netherlands. The instrument is in very bad condition, many cracks. 7- flute in boxwood, bone rings, brass key. A new mouthhole is made lower on the head. The old mouthhole is enlarged to plug it with a piece of cork. Museum "-Ede", Ede, Netherlands. The flutes 1 and 3 are playable, the other flutes have problems due to cracks and broken tenons. The flutes 1, 3, 4 and 5 have original mouthholes. All flutes are stamped "R.WIJNE", with a crown above and a double headed eagle (from the arms of Nijmegen) below. Some instruments show an asterix on the front or on the backside of some of the pieces.

The diversity in performance is striking: ivory, blackwood, boxwood, fruit­ wood, ivory and bone rings, no rings, silver and brass keys. Also striking are the similarities: - original mouthholes are small, round (8.5 mm or less) or slightly oval (8.0 x 8.6). - the bore of the HP's is always cylindrical, 19.4 (flute 1 and 2), 19-3 (3), 19.0-19.1 (4,7) or 18.8 (7). These differences perhaps due to differences in shrinking of the various materials. - the bore of the other pieces is doesn't vary much: 19.0 to 15.5 (15.0) for the LHP's, 15.5 to 13-0 for the LHP's; the FP's show more variation, with a bore widening from 13-3 up to 14 or 15 mm. - wallthickness: rather thin: 28.5 to 28.9 for the outside-diameter on the place of the mouthhole. - fingerholes are all undercut, hole 6 only slight, the holes on the ivory flute more heavy. The undercutting is straight and simple, without the more complica­ ted or sophisticated shapes in flutes from the late 18th century (Grenser etc.). - there are two cap-forms, see drawing. No indications of screw-corks. - the keys: all of the same shape; the springs are attached in the groove, not riveted on the key. - all ivory (or bone) rings are broad, and include the maximum-diameter of the flute-pieces. - the place of the mouthholes is rather high on the head-pieces; but there is a great variation on the flutes in this point. - the RHP's are almost the same length, sounding length is about 141 mm. The longest flute (7) has a shorter RHP! - the flutes that play well give an good pure sound, speak easily, even in the third register (also f-3), a good intonation but not very loud. - the pitch of the instruments: most of the instruments play at a-410 or slight­ ly lower. Two instruments (7 and 3 with the longest centerpiece) play even lower (a- 400-405). Two instruments (3 with the shortest centerpiece and 2) play higher, a-430 or even more but not very satisfactorily. - about the turnery: good work, sometimes very delicate, good details but not very original or exciting. The bore of most flute-pieces is very smooth, mouth- and finger- holes very well made. In spite of the similarities no flute has exactly the same length or the same bore: perhaps due to individual tuning and intonating, or due to the different ages of the flutes. Most characteristics points to early flutes, made before 1750. Robert Wijne could have made flutes between 1718 and 1760, so the flutes are indeed early four-part flutes or flutes made in an old-fashioned way. There are no indica­ tions that the flutes are forgeries. I don't believe that Robert Wijne was an old-fashioned man, for he made an oboe in c (private collection) with many modern features: the outside-shape, the bore an fingerholes are not like the oboes of Rijkels and Richters but show late-baroque details. The other oboe, 31

the tenor-instrument in f from The Hague (Gemeentemuseum) is quite different and has many details of an early instrument.

C- There are some differences between the instruments. We have to consider the following points:

- Ivory should shrink less than most woods. Perhaps true, but the bore of flute 2 (in ivory) is now quite oval in some pieces, ands ovality points to shrinking. The bore is not wider than the bores of the wooden flutes, the walls on the flute are thinner, the undercutting is more distinct. - Flute 5 has a smaller head-bore. Perhaps the fruit-wood was less stable than the other harder woods, but the bore is very regular and lower on the instrument (RHP and FP) not smaller than the bores of other flutes. In the RHP one place in the bore (between hole 5 and 6) is wider and less conical than on the other flutes. Perhaps a correction with an other reamer? But: the FP of the same flute is reamed out with the same reamer and shows the same shape! Therefore I think that flute 5 was made with different tools. - It is very difficult to estimate shrinking of the various woods. How dry was the wood when used by the flutemaker. And too: is the flute after a while by the maker corrigated with the same reamer. We know that most shrinking is in the beginning and extra-reaming in that time is very effective to get back the original characteristics of the instrument. But modern researchers will have even more problems to find out the differences between the original and the present dimensions. - I think that Wijne made the RHP's with only one reamer (not always the same reamer) and that he made corrections while intonating and tuning just in the FP (he reamed out the FP's from the end or from the end and the beginning) and -perhaps- also the LHP. Only in one flute (1) the RHP is reamed extra, from the beginning to hole 4. - There are two instruments with bores that are perhaps reamed out with a RHP- flute reamer: the recorder in g (The Hague, Gemeentemuseum) in the middlepiece (15.4 to 13.0 mm over a length of 135 mm) and the oboe in c from the private collection. The recorder and the oboe are longer, the bores of the two instru­ ments continue in a different way, I think that Wijne had seperate reamers for the section below 13-0 mm. Other possible bore-congruences: the LHP of flute 1 and a part of the tenoroboe in f (middle-piece), and (from Peter van der Poel who discovered this) the sopranorecorder (collection Frans Bruggen, Amsterdam) middlepiece and the same tenoroboe in f, headpiece. But: the tenoroboe is a very difficult instrument to play in tune, perhaps it was a bad instrument. It is interesting to see the same bore-dimensions in different instruments. It shows that Wijne (and perhaps other makers) didn't always design a new instru- ment with new reamers, but tried to save time and money using existing reamers. I think that this triaail-and-error method resulted sometimes in bad or "diffi­ cult" instruments.

D- What are the relations between the Wijne-flutes and other dutch flutes. We can compare three different points:

a- details in turnery, keys, etc. All of them of little of no importance for the sound of the instrument but subject to fashion and thus useful1 for dating and comparising. The details of the flutes by Robert Wijne are not obvious: we find many features on other flutes by makers in the whole 18-th century, b- "technical"-details in shape of mouthhole, undercutting, screwcork etc, usually important for the sound of the instrument. Also the pitch, the possibi­ lity to play some difficult notes, and fingering. Mostly very usefull details, especially if the flutes can be dated. The flutes of Robert Wijne are showing few or no of that kind of technical details. c- the design of the bore of the instrument, wallthickness, place of the finger­ holes. It should be the most important fact in comparison, but most historians in art have no experience with this point. During my activities as flute-maker 32.

I have seen many instruments or their drawings and I am grewing more and more cautious to give conclusions about bore-history. I think many differences are accidently, due to the accuracy of reainer-___king etc. Nevertheless this point c is the most important one in the Wijne-research.

We know that several dutch makers made transverse-flutes, but from some of them we have only flutes d'amour (Haka) or bass-flutes (Beuker). From Terton and Van Heerde very few instruments are left, and they show many different details. Other dutch transverse-flute makers: Hemsing, Borkens, Beukers. I see more rela­ tion to instruments of Frederich Eerens (from Utrecht, also one of the few makers who didn't live in Amsterdam): about the same bore, a small mouthhole etc. I cannot say that there was a strong tradition in Amsterdam in transverse- flute making (flutes in d), this in contrary with the oboe-making. Robert Wijne was in the Netherlands one of the more important flute-makers, I conclude from the homogenuous quality of the surviving instruments, the relative great number and the variation in performance of these flutes

I couldn't discover flute-makers between 1700 and 1750 in the north-western parts of Germany, close to Nijmegen. I can see some relations with early four-part instruments by J.Denner (Nurnberg, Germanisches National Museum) and Naust (private collection, Netherlands). But I cannot prove these relations, I think there were many commercial contacts also in musical instruments within Europe those days. There were influences from France to Germany, to England, via England or Germany to Holland and perhaps also direct to Holland. But it is still obscure where Robert Wijne learned the job of flute-making: perhaps he was a self-taught man

E— The transverse flute by W.Wijne is made in boxwood, ivory rings, silver key, with a screwcork-mechanism and three exchangeable centerpieces. These pieces play well, all of them, the difference in length between the pieces is smaller than the pieces on flute 3 by Robert Wijne. The flute can be seen in Albstadt Lautlingen, Western Germany, in "Schloss Lautlingen". We found some differences with the flutes of R.Wijne:

- the bore is in every piece 0.1 to 0.3 nm wider, in all places. - the wall of the all pieces is thicker (30.0 outside diameter near the mouth­ hole). - the mouthhole is slightly bigger, with 8.5 x 9-0 mm almost round. - the pitch with the three centerpieces: a= 410, 418 and 425 Hz. - the turnery: smoother, small ivory rings, key is more simple. The cap is strange: in wood and ivory. - the design of the bore of the centerpieces differs from the centerpieces of flute 3 by Robert Wijne. Robert Wijne: about the same borediameter on respecti­ vely the place of fingerholes 1, 2 and 3. (In fact: 17-3, 17.0 and 16.4 mm). Willem Wijne: shorter centerpieces with narrower bores but with about the same conicity. Most features (and I think the most important) point to a later (after 1750) instrument than the flutes of Robert Wijne. Only the wider bore is perhaps puzzling, the mouthhole is conservative too. The instrument is well-made, convincing in its design and needs only a small restauration to get it in perfect condition. I believe that W.Wijne was the son of Robert Wijne, I believe that he was a very good woodwindmaker. For a person who lived over 80 years it is astonishing that only 3 instruments survived I think that it is good that some research is done on the age of the bassoon and rackett. The rackett is in Berlin (see page 190 in Langwill's Index), the bassoon in The Hague (Haags Gemeentemuseum).

Drawings from flute 1 by R.Wyne can be bought at the "Haags Gemeentemuseum" Stadhouderslaan 41, Postbus 72, 2501 CB Den Haag, Netherlands. Price: about 10 33 pounds. Please mention "Technical drawings musical instruments" on your order. I have made some drawings too: flute 3» flute 7, in one drawing flute 4, 5 and 6, and the flute by W.Wijne. I have also a drawing of the oboe by R.Wijne. I'll send you the drawings only after receiving a post-office order. Prices: 15 dutch guilders (about 5 english pounds) for each drawing. My adress: M.C.J.Bouterse, Sandenburg 69, 2402 RJ Alphen a/d Rijn, Netherlands. It is also possible to exchange drawings, I am allways interested in measurements of dutch recorders, oboes and transverse flutes. Write me for information.

/ /j

-bJUjo _ £L> t_, s~

_77tMp on ^ Rur_-3 "v/- l)

fluted 3

lVC*~j WUbjnc.: HP

Cap 1"\* _3,o

Coups flute. jflote-s- 3 3* MEASUREMENTS

1 8(W.WIJNE)

HP:L 238.5 - 224 234.2 236.5 232 235.5 SL 174 177.5 160.5 224 228 218 224

LHP:SL 153-5 122 180 152 151.5 156.5 166 160 t1 27.5 24. 26.5 26.2 28.2 26.0 27.2 25.5 t2 22.5 21 21.8 22 22.5 21.5 20.5 21.5 F1 59 39. 80 59 58 62 70 66 F2 96.5 75 116.5 96 95 99.5 107 102.5 F3 134.5 111 155.5 133.5 133 137.5 144.5 141 Measurements are taken from the longest centerpieces of flute 3 and 8 (W.Wijne)

RHP:SL 141 141.5 141. 141.5 141.5 141 137 142 t1 18 15.5 16. 15.3 16 17-3 15 F4 44 43 42. 44 44 43.5 42.5 42.5 F5 80. 80 79. 81 79 80 80 79.5 F6 118 117.5 116 118 117 117 117.2 117 FP:SL 98 96 97 96.7 96 96.5 98 94 F7 36 34 35 35 34.5 34.5 39 34.5 SOME BORE-MEASUREMENTS

HP: 19-4(5) 19-0(5) 19-3 19.1 18.8 19-1 19.5(6) LHP: beginning 19.2 18.5 19.0 19. 18.0 19-0 19.5 at F1 17.5 17.0 17.3 17. 17.2 17.2 17.6 17.8 F2 17.0 16.6 17-0 16. 16.8 16.9 16.9 17.2 F3 16.4 16.0 16.4 16. 16.4 16.5 16.3 16.6 at end 15.6 15.4 15.0 15. 15.0 15.5 15.0 15.5

RHP: beginning 15.6 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.2 15.4 15.2 15.8 at F4 15-3 15.2 15.2 15.1 14.9 15.2 15.0 15.4 F5 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14. 14.7 14.4 15.0 F6 14.2 14.1 14.1 14.2 14. 13-9 13.6 14.2 end 13.1 12.8 12.8 13.0 13. 13-0 12.3 13.1 FP: beginning 13-6 13.3 13-2 13.8 13-1 13-6 13 ,8 13-4 narrowest 13-3 13.3 13-2 13-4 13.1 13.6 13 .4 13.4 end 14.5 14.5 14.4 14.4 14.5 15.0 14 .0 14.6

Diameters Mouthhole 8.1 8.7 8.2 8.0 8.0 8.6 x8.1 x10. 5 x8.5 x8.6 x8.6 x9.0 F1 6.6(8) 6 5(10) 6.9(14) 6.7(9) 6.7(12) 6.7(15) 6 9(14) 6.4(6) F2 6.2(5) 6.5 6.6(12) 6.2(3) 6.3(10) 6.8(15) 6.3(8) 6.2(3) F3 5.8(9) 5.7 6.0(3) 5.9(19) 6.1(2) 6.5(10) .1(7) 5.1(7) F4 6.1(2) 6.2(5) 6.6(10) 6.0(2) 6.2(7) 6.7(10) .6 6.0(2) F5 6.2(4) 6.2(4) 8 6.1(3) 6.2(7) 6.5(8) • 3 5.8(12) F6 5.0 5.0(2) 2(3) 4.6(8) 5.0(2) 5.5 .0(3) 5.0 F7 7-3 7.6(7) 3 6.8(10) 6.0(1) .5 7.7(10) 5-6(8) means: 5 6x5.8 6.7(12) means: 6.7x7.2 Measurements not given for making copies, but for a brief impression of the instruments. / O 20 Mo 60 i_ mo 1.0 i<9c loo ° lo u,o (o<3 <0o 9}

I! (t_50aO FI u/ Rotfc > t£.^n<-)

0 19 Hut*- byi ^J.w^rK. _0 (UP) Cvg-0

I, id

It H all rKri. 12, 9>

P

l_ 'H o %-TriouriSvelj+i. x o R-Ujru_ Ufl*JTC-\iUr\P* id -r- — 1 j•" x o x ryvt dd k- pi _.oe (jocvHj o X Ojr\c

0X\ 1 "it «P __* o xO o

o _ oboe. iA c_ j rv^idoWt-fte.ee., 03% ft L_ 4 _r_-*_- . . m____<-T__* ___d<_ XO __ D o o = y^cor^c-r uo 9, rwiddltpaoc, 13 X 12 1-1— I-" • ©• - I 1- -J- 10 l.o lOO 2_o 0 10 lo MO 60 6b \QO ILO IMO IJI. l-O to tkn- potrxr- tKe. ^Cuv\_. r_-ur\£r( <2boe A.r\-\ r_.6orc(_r. 3"7

FoMRHI Comm. 914 R. K. Lee

Observations on the Wear of Two Keyboards Separated by 200 Years

In the early 1970's, I undertook the restoration of a made by Ferandi Rossi in 1597. This instrument belongs to the Robert and Dorothy Rosenbaum collection in Scarsdale New York. Because of the recent death of Robert Rosenbaum, and the consequent further delay in the publication of his catalog, I am describing here some of my observations of this instrument which were to have been included in that catalog.

The Rossi instrument was made in Milan. Ferandi Rossi was the son of Annibale Rossi. Together, the father and son made a number of virginals between 1542 and 1597 which are consistent in design (with the exception of the 1542 instrument). The most magnificent example of their work is the familiar jewelled instrument in the Victoria and Albert Museum that is dated 1577. An instrument of related design is the 1562 virginals in Milan's Civic Museum made by "B.ctus Floriani". The earliest Rossi of the recessed keyboard polygonal form is the 1555 instrument that is also in the Victoria and Albert Museum. The Rossis, therefore, flourished in the second half of the 16th Century, and produced virginals of outstanding workmanship and sophistication.

The 1597 instrument was additionally remarkable because of the large amount of wear that existed in the rather thick boxwood and ebony key coverings that were used (naturals and sharps). It occurred to me that the large amount of use of an early keyboard might be a useful guide to establishing the authenticity of a keyboard; i.e., determining if keytops had been moved or transposed from their usual positions, perhaps taken from another instrument as I suspect some Italian workmen of doing.

Tribology is the science of wear of one material on the other caused by relative motion, two body wear (a file or scraper on wood); and there is also three body wear which describes the wear caused by a free abrasive between two solid bodies (sand between a lap and a piece of glass). In general, the amount of wear is proportional to the force exerted between the bodies and the distance travelled over any area. In this paper, we consider the wear produced by fingers on the material of the keyboard. The depth of wear is proportional to the amount of force used and the number of times that the key is attacked by a finger or fingernail. The distribution of the observed wear patterns tells us directly how often the key was used in playing upon the keyboard. The location of the wear can tell us which fingers were used most and where. The wear at the front is caused by thumb or little finger use; the wear in the key center indicates second, fourth, or possibly little finger use; and finally, wear further back indicates third finger use. 38

Wear can be fairly easily measured on antique keyboards which usually have wood key coverings. I use a machinist's depth micrometer which allows measurements to less than 25 micrometers resolution. If we assume that keyboards were made flat to begin with, deviations from flatness can be attributed to key use. The deviations occasioned by reasonably good workmanship are generally much less than 25 micrometers. In making the observations, I rest the crosspiece of the micrometer on a flat appearing part of the key and measure the maxiumum depth of the depression. On the front edges of the key, the micrometer probe can be lined up visually with the low part of the edge wear that is visible, but with less accuracy than the pits in the middles of keytops.

Figure 1 shows the wear observations taken from the Rossi virginals. The wear observations were taken in inches which we still use in this country (as well as because of my micrometer being inherited from the 1930's). The location of the thumb wear pattern is shown as left, center, or right on the front edge of the keytop; the amount of thumb wear is indicated on the lower histogram. The finger wear was measureable on both sharps and flats. Because of complexity in drawing, I did not report the coordinates of the deepest wear patterns which could tell us more about third finger use.

Figure 1 Wear Observations Taken from the Ferandi Rossi Keyboard of 1597 C/E-f", 50 notes .IS- ^^l^l^^l^l^ll^ll^f fivnituetr CtnUruy

The patterns show static two hand use; i.e. two maxima exist at g and (_''. Front edge wear tells us about hand placement. Maximum thumb use occurs on d', which could be either hand. Measurable front edge wear disappears at g''; however, a little change in profile was observed on e''' presumably cause by little finger 39

action. Measurable center wear occured on keys as high as b'*, c''', and d'1'. Wear presumably from the little finger can be observed on the front edges of C, E, G, A, B, and c; much more wear occurs relatively on d. Presumably the escalation in wear beginning on g is that due to the left thumb. The most frequently used chromatic was d'#

For comparison, I conducted the same observations on my own Johannes Petrus Bull harpsichord which was made in Antwerp in 1778; this is a very large two manual harpsichord equipped with 8'8* 1* on the lower, dogleg 8' and lute on the upper the same as an English harpsichord; the dogleg is also fitted with a second left facing tongue for a peau de bufle which can be engaged by a machine stop or handstop; in addition it was once fitted with a damper bar that worked from a knee lever. Its keyboard is made of bone with ebony naturals, so the amount of wear because of the harder naturals is less; in order to make the comparison more easily visible, 1 have exaggerated the scale of the wear measurements by five times in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Wear Observations Taken from the J. P. Bull Keyboard of 1778 FF-f' ",61 notes I IIIIIDIHIHfflfl ll: yantBcy <§5

••ilFini1"!

The maximum central wear in the bass occurs on a, while the maximum in the treble occurs on d''; some change in frequency of use caused the left hand to move from g (Rossi) to a (Bull) in comparing the two instruments. Maximum thumb use occurs on g', a fifth higher than on the Rossi. Front wear extends to C, becomes observable at F, escalates somewhat at d and much more at g the same as the Rossi. In the treble, front edge wear is observable all the way to ('''. The most frequently used chromatic was either f'#, c"#, or f"# (small wear differences). The Bull harpsichord was in use presumably at least until 1857 (a date Ao

found on the lid by a repairman H. Bodeman); I have played upon it myself as long as it was used in the 18th Century (it saw little use in this century because of the decrepit condition in which I found it). I have not yet found a piano with ivories that compares in the amount of wear with either of these two instruments; presumably ivory is more durable than bone.

We can conclude that the frequency of use of keys has not changed much between 1597 and 1857 (plus 1968-1988). Thumbs were always in use as well as little fingers. There seems to be a change in tonality to a higher testatura in the case of the Bull harpsichord. The wear on the upper manual of the Bull was not observable by comparison with the substantial wear showing on the lower manual; this suggests little use of the Lute stop (Nazard) or the solo 8'.

I made a very limited investigation into the frequency of key use in a few periods. The observations were limited because they were very tedious to compile on my computer; what is needed is a set of microswitches and counters connected to a keyboard so that one can merely play the piece of music in order to obtain a histogram of the music.

Figure 3 shows histograms compiled from hopefully typical pieces by and Telemann. Observe that the Frescobaldi shows little handedness compared to the wear on both harpsichords; the Telemann histogram by contrast shows a marked handedness as well as a maximum note use on d''. From these, I tentatively conclude that both instruments saw their most frequent use in the later 17th Century and the 18th Century; if I had more thoroughly compiled statistics, I could make a stronger case for this conclusion.

Figure 3 Histograms of Music by Frescobaldi and Telemann (Rossi numbering)

f+eito&aZcC*

Cm^rr-cc^coSbpr^^ Z'Ar*a\ 7w uf *•_-» ""--_ lo- *mf js**y efo "Sat"

- O-S-

_flfl_ .j_L _. R'.z.' - f-1 It <• ** ». n * v a I iftS 1/• 131 U es to Jf 4-1

Comm. 9i5 Berthold Neumann

No Percussion in more part music Jeremy Montagu asks in Comm. 887 which different dance rhythms might have been drummed in Renaissance dance music. He complains about the rare evidences on this matter in the contemporary literature, though he assumes that iconography supports the use of percussion in dance music of that time. I myself undertook research on the application of percussion in Renaissance dance music some years ago. I found some hints on military rhythms (i.e. Arbeau, Mersenne) but none on dance rhythms (with the exception of Arbeau, who refers for didactical reasons to the even in his time oldfashioned combination of pipe and tabor to explain the concordance of dance rhythms and dance steps). Screening a lot of contemporary iconography and other sources I had to conclude that there is not one serious evidence for the use of percussion in more part Renaissance dance music. On the contrary, there are direct (Virdung, Praetorius) and mediate (Mersenne) indications that percussion should not be used in music. I invite everybody to show any contradicting evidences to me and I promise to give a comprehensible explanation according to my findings. Regarding the fact that nearly no instrumental group playing Renaissance dance music today dares to renounce the sensational application of percussion, I think my finding itself is challenging. The earliest expressive description of how to use side drums and all kind of percussion in Renaissance dance music I found in F.J. Giesbert's preface to his edition of Tielman Susato's "Derde musyck boexken...1551" (which he called "Danserye") in 1936. This shows clearly that the use of percussion in more part Renaissance is an invention of our century, only being possible after , Dalcroze and Orff. Adding a carpet of drum beatings to the music of Attaingnant, Moderne, Gervaise, Mainerio, Praetorius, Dowland, Brade, and others means a modern arrangement and not historical practice, even if historically reconstructed percussion is used.

Having published my findings elsewhere (CONCERTO 1985, Vol.2, Heft 2, Febr./March 1985, pages 21 to 28) I only want to mention here the following points. My findings lead me to speculative consequences to explain comprehensively the evolution of dance music in the 15th and 16th century: 41

Drums were used in dance music until the 15th century in combination with a melody instrument, usually the three-hole-pipe or another member of the flute family. I assume that the drum had to produce the drone and that the combination of pipe and tabor shared the same repertoire of tunes and dances as bagpipe, hurdy-gurdy, and Jew's harp. The importance of rhythm then was not so essential as in our modern understanding, it could be removed as in the case of the bagpipe. When round 1500 middle and upper classes changed over to more part dance music the combination of flute and side-drum came out ot use. By the way, there was a short time when flute and drum were used parallel to the more voiced ensembles, but never together. The Renaissance dance music needs additional effects like drumming, multifarious instrumentation, and extreme variety of tempo only when played in a modern concert situation. The presence of dancers immediately changes the character of the dance music: there is a new fluency, the dances get more different characters, interesting interferences between dance rhythm and steps can be seen. One doesn't feel the necessity of drums. If percussion is used with dance music of the Praetorius time, the question arouses in which epoche drumming came out of use. Is it still allowed in the suites of Schein, or even in later baroque dance music? Where is the correct threshold? Following my suggestion that the drum was the drone in the combination with flute, it consequently disappeared from dance music of higher classes in the beginning of the 16th century because it was repugnant to the new changing harmonies. The later use of the drum then was restricted to dance music of the lower classes (like bagpipe and hurdy-gurdy) and also to military and nautical signalling..

My statements on use of drums have some organological implications: Presuming the drum serves as drone it has to be tuned to a definite pitch. This is opposite to modern meaning, but Mersenne and Anasthasius Kircher describe exactly the relation of pitch and volume of the drum. And the snares, today neglected, are described by Mersenne als tunable. The development of sometimes complicate tuning devices for snares as they can be seen e.g. in the Praetorius pictures, only make sense if they really were used. They help to maintain the tone between the strokes of the drum. They make virtuoso drumming impossible and are thus switched off by most performers today. Today we know fairly well how historical percussion was constructed, but it seems to be still a future task to discover how it was played. 43

FoMRHI Comm. 916 Ephraim Segerman

RHETORIC FOR THE VOICE AND INSTRUMENTS

A declamatory type of singing imitating the rhetoric of an orator seems to have been the dominant style in European courtly music till well into the baroque (surviving much later in France than in Italy). In this style emotion is expressed primarily by the meaning of the words and secondarily through expressive rendering of individual words. This is opposed to another tradition in European music where the vocalization is supposed to express emotion directly, being sustained ornate renderings of sighs, sobs, cries, groans, chokings, etc., with the words being quite subsidiary. This latter tradition could well have entered Europe with Moorish music in (surviving in Flamenco singing today). Its use in Monteverdi's 'Lamento d'Arianna' became very popular and subsequently it became a standard feature in Italian opera. By the 18th century this shift of emotional expression from full words to vowels led to a standard swelling type of note production called 'messa di voce' for both voices and instruments. Modern vocal and instrumental style is strongly influenced by this tradition, with the emphasis on the vowels shifted from vocal agility and expressive variety to accuracy and a powerful and beautiful tone. The long modern musical phrase seems to be another remnant of this tradition.

The rhetorical manner of speech is rarely heard nowadays because it seems ludicrously exaggerated and unnatural. A mild version of it can sometimes be heard from the ecclesiastic pulpit. The intention of rhetoric is for both the text and the delivery to fascinate by their conviction, to delight by their elegance, and to persuade by their cogency.

Following is a primer intended to help vocalists and instrumentalists who are interested in exploring the rhetorical style as I understand it. Since it is very difficult to reject influence by modern style and its satellite, early-music style, each step should be mastered thoroughly before going on to the next. Avoid subtlety - it is a refinement for the more advanced practitioner. Practice privately to avoid the embarrassment of ridicule. Since the articulation is so different from that expected in any 'serious' music nowadays, when the style is mastered, don't expect instant approval from audiences or critics.

(1) A Provisional Primer for Declamatory Singing

A. Recite the verse in a rhetorical manner. Clear enunciation is essential, with strong consonants. To be clear in disadvantageous acoustic environments, the delivery is considerably slower than in conversation. Appropriate spaces between words, phrases and sentences (or lines) are important both for clarity of delivery and for getting the points across. A large dynamic range of the voice is used, with important words or syllables often considerably louder than unimportant ones. Make note of the important words deserving emphasis. There is usually at least one such word in each verbal phrase.

B. Recite the verse again, but in the time uf the note values given in the music. Try to maintain as much as possible of the rhetorical manner as in A. When there is melisma (multiple notes for the same syllable) repeat the vowel for each note, but consider whether repeating the whole syllable, word or preceding words could be more convincing. Pick a tempo that does not rush any word or syllable. When a syllable has more time than in A. above, do not lengthen the vowel to fill more of the time unless it is followed by another syllable of the same word, or it is part of an important word. If the time values do not provide adequate space at the end of a phrase or line, consider breaking time to provide it.

C. Repeat B. with singing instead of reciting, keeping the same verbalization as much as possible. Contrary to modern singing habits, one should be a) keeping consonants strong with extra strength at the beginnings of important words! if these words start with a vowel, start it explosively (as pronounced when repeated quickly), b) ending notes before the ends of the written note values to provide space between 44

words, more space between verbal phrases, and more space yet between verbal lines or sentences', breathe frequently in these spaces, c) not extending the length of a vowel unless the following note is part of the same word or it is part of an important word.

D. Repeat C. but apply the various musical conventions* a) use gracing for emphasis, substituting for much or all of the loudness in reciting important wordsj thus a long important word is usually given one of the wide variety of shaked graces on its vowel, and a short important word is given a short grace such as a short shake, mordent, appoggiatura or turn, b) decorate cadences, c) treat strings of notes of equal written value with alternating emphasis in loudness and/or time (dotted rhythms), d) replace some gracing by division in happier pieces to give the music movement without quickening the tempo.

E. When various voices are performing together, simultaneous gracing or division is avoided unless well prepared. Simultaneous written notes can be decorated by different voices in tandem. Mixing slow and fast division or shaking could also work. Emphasis on important words is given by loudness in voices not decorating, When there is more than one voice to a part, only one decorates (leading to heterophony).

(II) A Provisional Primer for Instrumental Style Imitating Declamatory Singing

A. Identify the sequence of points in the music. Each point (in modern terminology it is called the 'motive') contains from a few up to perhaps a dozen notes of the basic melody. The point corresponds with the verbal phrase. Imagine the music being sung in the declamatory style outlined in (I) above. Mark adjacent notes that could be syllables of the same word and thus would be tied, and the important syllables or words in each point that would be emphasized by increased loudness, gracing or division.

B. Starting notes! Notes are usually begun percussively, imitating a starting consonant. Plucked and percussion instruments naturally provide the required note beginning. Wind instruments emphasize the tongueing syllables. Bowed instruments hit the string from the bow in an off-string position or, with the bow on the string, start notes with a flick of the wrist and/or with an increased bow pressure affected by the fingers either on the stick or on the hair. Emphasis is enhanced for important notes with a short grace at the beginning.

C. Ending notes! The notes, for all intents and purposes usually end before the next note starts, leaving the required space between words, phrases (points) and lines or sentences (strains). On bowed instruments the bow can be stopped on the string (damping further sound) or (more usually) lifted off the string with a residual dying away of the sound. On less sustaining plucked instruments like the lute, the note just dies away (and one should not lift the fingering finger prematurely). On more sustaining plucked instruments like the harpsichord, the key is released, damping the string before the next key is depressed. There is a tendency to tie chordally-related succeeding notes in keyboard and fingerboard instruments and let them overlap to add to the harmonic resonance. On wind instruments the note can be made to die away as on a lute or stop fairly abruptly as on a harpsichord! breathe frequently.

D. The main body of an unimportant note is either plain and cut short or dies away. That of an important note is sustained, either louder with an interesting shape or shaked for emphasis.

E. Musical conventions (besides the gracing mentioned above) are observed. These are mentioned in (I)D. and (I)E. above. 45

FoMRHI Comm. 917 Remy GUG

THE BIRMINGHAM WIRE GAUGE and ITS MUSICAL SISTERS ...

The first half of the 19th century was a period of great efforts of standardization in many fields of the techniques of that time. Rationalization of production could no longer use the old ways of thinking: among others, the great variety of systems of measurement existing in early times was not compatible with the "new" manner of working. Everywhere it was felt necessary to find a universal system expressed in units understandable by those involved in the processes of production. An example of this phenomenon, with very interesting repercussions for us today, is found in a technical work published during the years 1846 - 1850 by Charles Holzapffel. The three volumes, entitled "Turning and mechanical manipulations" deal with metal-working technology. In his chapter devoted to "Rectilinear Saws" and to "Circular Saws", Charles Holzapffel, after having raised the problem of the systems of measurement deals with the interesting question of gauges. He writes: "In setting out the tables of the Dimensions of Saws, the author could only express their several thicknesses, in the measure always employed for that purpose, namely in the sizes or numbers of the "Birmingham wire gage (sic)", and to render these measures intelligible to the general reader, the author determined to introduce in this Appendix, the exact values of the principal gages in use for sheet metals and wires, a subject he believes to have been hitherto overlooked; and secondly, a proposal he has long desired to see carried out, namely, an easy and exact system of gages for sheet metals, wires, and general purposes, founded on the decimal division of an inch; and in which system, the nomenclature should be so completely associated with the actual measures, as to convey to the mind, even in the absence of the gages themselves, a very close idea of the several spaces of the gage, or of the thicknesses or sizes of the works measured thereby."<1, p. 1 0 1 I > This text was written during the period ranging from 1840 to 1860, when it became more and more obvious to wire-makers that measuring with gauge-plates is no real measurement. As I pointed out elsewhere <2, p.l3>, gauges are a very easy means of classification. Gauge numbers define classes of thickness, not diameter values. These latter are only "precisely defined" when expressed in a measuring unit, in Holzapffel's case, in the "decimal division of an inch". Charles Holzapffel was sure that the system he proposed in 1846 would have a universal character for all parts of his country, since Parliament did institute in 1824 the (modern) English Yard (and its subdivisions) as the only valuable measuring system.<3, p.97>

Before looking at the general table published in the work in question let us hear the two subsidiary remarks made by Holzapffel: 46

a. "It should be further observed that the Birmingham and other gages seem to have been originated in great measure accidentally, or almost by the eye alone, and without any attempt at system, either as regards the values of the intervals between the successive measures or numbers, or their correspondence with subdivisions of the inch."<1, p.!012>. Maybe this situation was correct for Birmingham. Nevertheless, we know that in Nuremberg things did not happen as "accidentally" as Holzapffel supposed. In the Franconian town, gauge numbers were directly connected to the "length-weight" system and the art of making gauge-plates or gauge-rings had reached there a high degree of precision <2, p.12>. Since the diameter was a "consequence" of the length-weight procedure, it is clear that no correspondance between gauge number and "subdivisions of (in this case a Nuremberg) inch" could take place: a given diameter expressed in a mathematical value was not the aim of the early wire maker. On the other hand, "as regards the values of the intervals between the successive measures or numbers", Holzapffel deplores the lack of "any attempt at system", i.e. a clear mathematical relationship. Generally, in early times, the "intervals" were determined either by the quality of the raw material or by the working-power and tools available or by both. The scale observed on a gauge-plate is in this case the result of a series of technical factors which could not be expressed in a clear mathematical progression for example. Hence the gauge sytem has not to be defined as the aim but simply as the last link in the chain. Holzapffel's statement bears no universal value and it would be careless to say that the early gauges did systematically "originate accidentally" or "by the eye alone"...!

b. "And as moreover gages, nominally the same, have been made by various manufacturers with insufficient aim at unity of measures, some irregularity thence exists amongst the gages in common use, notwithstanding that they may be nominally alike."<1, p. 1012>. This lack of precision, deplored by Holzapffel, when replicating a given gauge-plate, is obviously the reason for the differences observed when comparing for example the two English gauges published by H. Henkel <4, p.34>. On the contrary, the imprecision in question is probably not the best explanation for the insignificant differences existing between the two "English Steel Music Wire Gauges" described by Holzapffel and Thomee, which we shall compare at the end of this communication.

How was the following table I publish in reprint form, elaborated? Holzapffel specifies that "in ascertaining the precise measures of the principal gages, the author has had the valuable co-operation of the Messrs. Stubs of Warrington, who manufacture a large number of these gages, and who tested the drifts they employ, by means of a sliding gage constructed by Holzapffel <5c Co, for reading off quantities to the thousandth part of an inch, by means of a vernier; the results of these admeasurements are stated in the three sections of the (following) table" [see the next page]< I, p.l012>.

After having emphasized that no relation does exist between the three series of data published respectively in the three 4-

VALUES OF GAGES

KOR WIRE AND SHEET METALS IN GENERAL USE,

EXPRESSED IX DECIMAL I'AIITS OF THE 1XCII.

i SECTION ONE. SEC TION TWO. SECTION THREE. i i Lancashire Gage for round Steel Wire, and also Hiriulnghani Itirminghnm for l'iuion W ire. liaxufor IrouWire, Giige for Sheet uuil for Sheet Iron Metals, llniss, The smaller sizes distinguished by Numbers. and Steel. Odd,Silver, fcc. The larger by Letters, and called the Letter Gage.

MAHK. SIZE. ! MARK. SIZK. MARK. SIZE. MARK. SIZE. MARK. SIZB.

01100 — -454 1 — 004 80 — 013 1 40—096 A — -234 000 — -425 2 — -005 79—-014 i 39 — -090 ; B — -238 00 — -3110 3 — -000 78—-015 i 38 —100 C -242 II —340 4 —-010 77—016 | 37—102 D — •246 1 —-300 5—012 7G — -018 1 36—-105 1 E — -250 2 — 284 6—-013 75—-019 ; 35—107 F — -257 3 — -259 7 —015 74 — -022 j 34 _-109 G — •261 4 — 238 8 —010 73 — 023 33—111 11 — •266 5 — -220 fl —-01!) 72 — -024 32—115 I — -272 6 _ .on;i 10 _024 71 — -02G 31 —-UK , J — 277 7 — -1130 11 — 02!» 70 —-027 30—125 ; K — •201 8—-165 12 __ -034 69 — 029 29— -134 L — -290 9—140 13—031; 68 _ -030 28—-138 M — -295 10—134 14 —041 67 — 031 27—-141 N — -302 11 —120 13—047 GG — -032 26—-143 O — •316 12 —-109 1G— 051 6.-, — -033 23—146 P — -323 13 — -0.0S 17 _-057 64 _ 034 21 —148 Q — -332 14 — -0113 18 —-061 63 — -035 23 —-150 R — •339 15 —-072 ly _0G4 62 — -036 22—152 S — -340 16 — -065 20 — -0G7 'j Gl — 030 21 —-157 T — •358 17 —-OoO 21 —072 60—-039 20—160 U — -360 ' 18—-049 22 — 074 ; 59 __ 040 l!l_-104 V — •377 19 —-042 23 —-077 58—041 18—167 W — •386 20 — -035 24 — 082 57 —-042 17 —169 X — -397 21 — 032 25 — 0f>5 5G —-044 16—174 Y — •404 22 — 028 2G —-103 55 — 050 15—175 Z — •413 23 — 025 27 —113 54 _-055 14—177 Al — 420 24 — -022 28 —-12(1 53 __ -o:,8 13—180 Dl — •431 25 — 020 2!) —-124 52 — -000 12 —-105 C 1 — •443 2G —010 . 30—126 51 —-064 11 —-189 Dl — -452 | ; 31—133 ' 50 — -0G7 10—190 El — -462 27_-on; 1 28—014 32—143 4)1 —070 !) —-191 1 Fl — •4/5 j 2«)— 013 33—145 48 — -073 li — -192 G I — •404 30—012 34 —148 47 —-07G 7 —-193 HI — -494 31 _010 35—.-15H 46—070 (i — 1!)8

32 _ '00!) 3G — 167 45 _-000 5 — 201 1 33 __ -008 44 —.084 4 — -204 i 31 — 007 43 — -086 3 -209 i 35 — -005 42 — -091 2 -- 219 i 30 __ -004 4 1 — »95 1 - -227 i l 1 [.. 48

sections of his table, Holzapffel allows us a glimpse at what has been a great characteristic of early craftsmanship, i.e. daily experience built up on long habits of artisans who knew perfectly what they absolutely needed but disregarded what was of no use to them: "The approximate measures of any one of these three series may, perhaps, be moderately familiar to those artizans who use that particular gage, but these same artizans will probably be as little informed of the two other gages, as the generality of individuals, to whom the whole of these, and other arbitrary ill-defined measures are vague and confused" <1, p. 1012>. To suppress this confusion, there is only one solution: to bring the quantities measured "to ordinary linear measure; or in other words, the standard foot and inch".

In his comments on that table, Holzapffel had the good idea to mention what is precious for us today: a comparison between the "Birmingham wire gage" (first column of the table), "the most common of the three principal kinds, not only employed for iron wire, but also for brass and other wires, for black steel wire..." and the "Music wire gauge".:

In the wire- u*od for the strings of piano-fortes, the size9 now commonly used, are known ns Nos. li to 20, and these agree very nearly with the sizes and half-sizes u\ some of the notches of the Liiriuingliam wire gages, as follows :— Music wires, Nos. 6. 7. 0. .'I. 10. 11. 12. 14. 1G. II). CM. And Birmingham wire gage, Xos. 26. _5J. 2.1. 2H. 24. 23j. 23. 22. 21. 20. Ifl. Arc respectively alike. The number <>, or the thinnest music wire now commonly used,measures about tl>.: fifty-fifth part of an inch in diameter, and the No. 20, or the thickest, measure about the twenty-fifth of an inch. Piano-fortes were formerly always strung with brass wire, but steel is now alone employed, and they are *• ilfiiitu much /trttriYr," or thicker wires are employed, from which cause the numbers 1 to ."» have probably fallen into disuse.

A closer look at the reprint of Holzapffel's text shows that the author in question did not specify clearly if the piano-forte wire gauge he mentions is a typical "Birmingham music wire gauge". We know that music wire had been made in this town since 1823 at least [see my comm.853 in FoMRHI-Q.50, January 1988]. Though this lack of precision is unfortunate, the data given on page 1013 of Holzapffel's work become interesting when converted into modern metrical units. The measures involved range from N°6 to n°20 of section one of the table:

"Music wires": N°6: 0.457mm. N°7: 0.481mm. N°8: 0.507mm. N°9: 0.531mm. N°10: 0.558mm. N°l 1: 0.594mm. N°12: 0.634mm. N°14: 0.71 1mm. N°16: 0.812mm. N°18: 0.888mm. N°20: 1.066mm. 4-3

Do we have here the typical "Birmingham steel music wire gauge"? This music wire gauge was undisputedly in use during the 40's of the 19th century. There remains the important question: when did it appear for the first time? Was it already in use in this form during the 20's of the century? When and how did the smaller gauge-numbers (1 to 5) "fall into disuse"? [I shall give some elements for thought in this respect in the addenda to this communication.]

Another source...

The different communications published in the last decade dealing with the question of early gauges (harpsichords and/or forte-pianos), all mention the great work due to the patience of Thomee and published twenty years after Holzapffel's book appeared. The German investigator mentions an "English steel wire gauge for piano-forte strings" and specifies that this wire gauge, numbered XVI in his great table, differs from another English "steel music wire gauge" numbered XIV in the same table.<5, p.653>

Firstly, it is easy to see that Holzapffel (1846) and Thomee XVI (1866) are obviously dealing with the same English music wire gauge:

Holzapffel(s. above): Thomee XVI N°6: 0.457mm. 0.46m m. N°7: 0.481 mm. 0.485mm. N°8: 0.507mm. 0.5 1 m m. N°9: 0.53 1 mm. 0.535mm. N°10: 0.558mm. 0.56m m. N°l Is 0.594mm. 0.595mm. N°12 0.634mm. 0.63m m. N°13 - 0.67m m. N°14 0.7 11mm. 0.7 1 m m. N°15 - 0.76m m. N°16 : 0.812mm. 0.8 1 m m. N°17 ; 0.85m m. N°18 : 0.888mm. 0.89mm. N°19 : 0.98mm. N°20 : 1.066mm. 1.07mm.

Did they actually measure the same plate? If not, then the discrepancies deplored above by Holzapffel are not as great as he imagined. Secondly, let us compare Thomee XIV <5, p.653> with the two identical gauges in the preceding paragraph:

Holza pf./Thorn.XVI: Thomee XIV N°5: _ 0.38mm. N°6: 0.457mm. 0.43mm. N°7: 0.481mm. 0.534mm. N°8: 0.507mm. 0.55m m. N°9: 0.531mm. 0.607mm. N°10: 0.558mm. 0.66mm. N°1 1: 0.594mm. 0.710mm. N°12: 0.634mm. 0.76mm. 50

N°13: 0.67mm. 0.833mm N°14: 0.71 1 mm. 0.88mm. N°15: 0.76mm. 0.965mm N°16- 0.812mm. 1.0I7mm N°17: 0.85mm. 1.039mm N°18 0.888mm. 1.094mm N°19; 0.98mm. 1.142mm N°20 : 1.066mm. 1.21 5mm N°21 - 1.269mm N°22 : 1.323mm N°23 : 1.395mm N°24 • 1.470mm

In this case, Thomee XIV is really different from Holzapffel/Thom.XVI. It would be interesting to compare the theoretical data of these two distinct English wire gauge systems for forte-pianos with the diameter values actually measured on strings found on English forte-pianos of that period or on forte-pianos strung with English wire.

Addenda

The following comparisons can throw some light on the history of the music wire gauge system mentioned by Holzapffel. Nevertheless, I emphasize that it represents a kind of theoretical attempt, having only the pretention of bringing up a series of hypotheses, which could raise other questions in that field. If we take into account the diameter values measured by Hugh Gough on wire found on a Shudi/Broadwood harpsichord of 1782 <6, p. 132> and, if we compare these data,

I. with the Birmingham wire gauge and with the Nuremberg diameter scala,

II. with the music wire gauge as indicated by Holzapffel,

then a series of hypotheses come to light.

I. (all diameter values in mm.)(half number of Birmingham indicated: ?:-) Gauge n °: H. Gough:/ B.W.G.: Diff.G/B: Diff.G/N: Nuremberg 3 0.228 0.228 0.000 0.000 0.228 4 0.255 0.253 0.002 0.000 0.255 5 0.292 0.304 0.012 0.001 0.293 6 0.342 i. 0.342 0.000 0.003 0.345 7 0.368 0.355 0.011 0.004 0.364 8 0.405 0.406 0.001 0.001 0.406 9 0.456 0.457 0.001 0.003 0.453 10 0.508 0.507 0.001 0.002 0.506 1 1 0.560 0.558 0.002 0.004 0.564 12 0.623 0.634 0.011 0.006 0.629 1. 0.013 0.002 13 0.685 2 " 0.672 0.683 14 0.80 0.812 0.012 0.003 0.803 SI

G are measured values on strings found on an instrument; B are measured values on a gauge plate; N are calculated values from the Nuremberg length/weight procedure.

Hypotheses:

Starting from the fact that the G diameter values were found on an English harpsichord "stamped with gauge numbers running from 14 to 3" <6, p.135>, we may ask ourselves, regarding the better correspondance between G and N, compared with the correspondance between G and B, if Nuremberg wire had actually been put onto the Shudi and had thus been "rebaptized", i.e. the continental numbering changed into an English one?

II. The diameter values found by Hugh Gough can also be compared with the Holzapffel gauge (H) of 1846:

G: N°: Diam.m m.: H: N°: Diam.mm 3 0.228 - - 4 0.255 (1 0.253)* 5 0.292 (2 0.304)* 6 0.342 (3 0.342-*)* 7 0.368 (4 0.355)* 8 0.405 (5 0.406)* 9 0.456 6 0.457 10 0.508 8 0.507 1 1 0.560 10 0.558 12 0.623 12 0.634 13 0.685 14 0.71 1 14 0.80 16 0.812 18 0.888 20 1.066

* The exact correspondance between these music wire gauge numbers and the B.W.G. are not given by Holzapffel, in whose time they had fallen into disuse [see above].

If we accept that the wire on the Shudi dates really from the end of the 18th century, then we could conclude:

I. that the difference between the harpsichord gauge system G. (1782) and the forte-piano gauge system H. (1846) lies in the manner of numbering the diameters common to both systems [we had encountered the same case in Nuremberg at the end of the 18th century, <2, p.69>]. For example, the forte-piano N°6 is corresponding to the harpsichord N°9. In that hypothesis, the evolution from the early harpsichord gauge system to the later forte-piano gauge system would simply have consisted in shifting the position of the gauge numbers on the standard diameter scale. When did this change occur? 2. Now, which was this standard scale? For G. it seems to have been Nuremberg. For H. it is said by Holzapffel to be "alike with Birmingham". The "overlapping" part of G. and H. brings us to the question: Does it mean that the creators of the Birmingham system did "copy" the wellknown Nuremberg gauge simply numbering it in the English manner? 52.

Since Nuremberg wire drawers often emigrated to foreign countries, would there be a filiation between Nuremberg and Birmingham? As it is not possible to piece together the historical facts from only a series of numbers, measurements and hypotheses, all of which, moreover, are not absolutely unquestionable, we shall have to wait until a thorough history of wire making in Birmingham, especially that of the beginnings of this manufacture in that English town, could help us to clear this interesting question.

Bibliography:

1. Holzapffel, Charles, "Turning and Mechanical Manipulations", London, 1846-1850, 3 vols.

2. Gug, R., "En remontant la filiere de Thoiry a Nuremberg", Musique Ancienne, 18, Septembre 1984, p.4-76.

3. Alberti, Hans 3. v., Mass und Gewicht, Berlin, 1957.

4. Henkel, Hubert, "Beitrage zum historischen Cembalobau", Leipzig, 1979.

5. Thomee, "Untersuchungen iiber Draht- und Blechlehren", Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure, X, 1866.

6. Thomas, W. R. ic Rhodes, J. 3. K., "Harpsichords and the Art of Wire-Drawing", The Organ Year Book, X, 1979.