| Brought to you this hour by |  | Advertising and Web Hosting on Woodwind.Org! |
Doublereed Archive - Posting 000077.txt from 2003/06
From: William R Brohinsky <onlyocelot@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [DR-L] slightly off-topic
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:00:37 -0400
Rhondda May wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> This is slightly off-topic...
>
> I am curious as to why the division of labor on string instruments is
> the way it is. That is, it seems to me a bit reversed that so much
> skill is required of the left hand, given that the majority of people
> are right-handed, and presumably have been over the last few thousand
> years.
>
It is possible that this goes back, indeed, a thousand years. Most music
theory tretises that have survived picture the monochord with the
divisions from the left, ie, 'fingering' the monochord would be done
with the left hand while the right hand plucked. The monochord was the
'standard' device for teaching intonation, intervals, and rational
theory (ie, the ratios of one note to another, by lengths laid out on
the monochord's face). This bias towards the left hand for establishing
the length of the string and the right hand for actuating the notes may
be as mystical as the reasons for wearing wedding rings on the left
hand, or as practical as actuating the string with the hand with the
greater strength!
> Now, I know that traditional fiddlers shift less (thus requiring less
> skill), and that vibrato is relatively new in classical playing
> (ditto). I'm wondering if at the dawn of viol playing more skill was
> required of the right hand than is now, and that has anything to do with
> why string instruments are played the way they are today.
>
Prior to the dawn of viol playing, the bowed strings tended to a
far-simpler left-hand technique, yes. The instrument that Galilleo's
father Vincent was famed for playing at court was essentially a fiedel
or vielle, a medieval fiddle. The strings were apparently used as both
melody strings and drone strings as the whim of the player desired.
Viol technique was significantly more complicated even in its simplest
aspects, but still doesn't shed much light on the question. The left
hand is responsible only for seven frets (five in the earliest viols)
but still is required to place fingertips the proper distance behind the
fret, changing position within the inter-fret space as needed, along
with 'pulling' or 'pushing' the string to maintain proper intonation.
The right hand technique was considerably more complicated than it is
today, but again, this varied with the era. In the high french baroque,
both hands were called upon to perform great labors, complicated and
requiring tremendous finesse...and the poor player is constantly
abmonished that they must not make any move at all which is not 'proper'
or 'pleasing'!
This is an interesting question, and really not so off-topic, if it is
carried to a reasonable extent: why is the left hand superior in holding
fingered instruments like the oboe and bassoon? In fact, this matter was
considered still 'up in the air' for most instruments until well into
the 1700's, which is why three keyed oboes aren't really more
functionally complicated than two key oboes! The third key was just a
repeat of the e-flat key, while the 'touch' of the C key was made in a
form called 'butterfly' so that you could pick the instrument up
left-hand-high or right-hand-high and still use the same fingerings!
> If any geniuses out there have any answers, interesting information, or
> can zap this question to a string-player or string discussion group, I'd
> be most grateful.
Genius I'm not, but historical organology is an interest of mine.
raybro
