PAKIS AND CIE

 Between a Pakistani harp and a harp made by a European or American luthier, there is, I think, the same difference that highlights the english potter Bernard Leach when he compares pottery of ancient Greece and Rome to that of Japan.

  In Greece and Rome, this work was done mechanically, chain-work and slaves: a tedious job, repetitive, unimaginative, to satisfy “nouveau riche” customers.

 In Japan, the potters enjoyed a fairly high status and were considered artists or craftsmen: that changes everything! As the Japanese pottery does show great creativity, constant research in material, color, different shaping and baking processes.

 Companies that relocate their manufacturing in Asia are the new slave traders.

 They are no more going to get the "ebony wood " in Africa by boat, this system had many disadvantages, now they make people work at home, with the complicity of interested small local mafia leaders, under conditions more than precarious, and wages for survival.

 Globalization, more or less unfair trade, it still sounds better than slavery, right?

 But the result is the same: a standardized manufacturing, according to "specifications" often minimalist, with the famous "quality control" and their controllers ... very sad objects, from all points of view.

 An artist or a craftsman is unable to avoid getting fond of what he produces, evolving, improving , embellishing ! Passion for a better work catches him!

 I myself experienced this approach: not in the harps, but in another area. I build optical systems for twenty years.

 Since the very first prototypes, I never stopped thinking, trying all sorts of modifications and improvements, sometimes with success. My current production bears little resemblance to the beginning's, and better so!

 What could I do with guard dogs, “specifications” and controllers on the back?

 To create something new, one need complete freedom of mind, a little free time, a little money, and a minimum of social recognition.

 What I mean is that the artist and the craftsman give a soul to what they create.

 In contrast, the work of the slave can only express the sadness and misery of his condition ...

RAVI

Since I am in India right now ... Our great Ravi Shankar passed away last year, an era which disappears.
  I attended one of his concerts in the 70s, I remember fondly his courage in trying to explain what is Classical Indian Music to a public of junkies ...

  In his wonderful book "My Music My Life", partly autobiographical, and especially devoted to Sitar, his instrument, there is, without comment, an image of an ancient harp or harp-zither from India, apparently from the nineteenth century or the early twentieth :

  The reproduction is not great, but you can still see how it looks, a bit like the Burmese harp, which is probably of Indian origin. It is a harp without pillar (what might suggest a pillar is the shadow of the neck...), like many Oriental and African harps.
  On the neck, there is a series of bridge pins, and the strings are wound around wooden pegs, very ornate, and arranged on top.
  On the body, a bridge, and probably a tailpiece below.
  What is curious, but anything is possible in India, is that this instrument seems to have disappeared...?
Dimensions? Tessitura? Gut strings or metal? One element could be useful, the spacing between strings, but deduct all other dimensions from there...
  I did some research with the Hindi name given by Ravi Shankar, "mandal Viladi nada" but nothing ... the term "mandal" (circle) indicates all kinds of circular objects, but no harp...
  Does anyone has already seen (and heard!) this device somewhere, or knows a bit more about this?

CALCULATING THE TENSION OF A STRING: THE TAYLOR EQUATION

A simple enough way to implement the famous "equation of Brook Taylor" (English mathematician and musician of the seventeenth century) :

- Measure one, or better several strings of the considered diameter ;
- Weigh them with the most accurate balance as possible: the greater the length of string, and the most precise will be the weighing, of course.
- Determine the MASS PER LENGTH UNIT (m) by dividing the value weighed in kilograms by the length in meters.

The equation reads:

 Where:
f is the frequency in Hertz of the pitch,
k denotes the harmonic wanted (here equal to 1),
L is the length of the string,
F is the tension of the string we are looking for,
m is the mass per length unit that we have calculated.

We raise it to the square to eliminate the root, we make some permutations to rewrite the equation in a more convenient form :

                              

Consider an example: Let a nylon Tynex string tuned A4, 440 Hz, 0.4 m (40cm) long.
We take a string 1mm in diameter, which measures initially 1.33 m long and weighs 1g or 0,001 kg (be careful not to tangle with the zeros!).
The mass per length unit is m = 0.001 / 1.33 = 0.00081 Kilo /meter.

We can now replace the terms of our equation by numeral values:

F = 0.00081 X 440 X440 X 4 X 0.4 X 0.4 = 100.36 N

N  for "Newton" which is the unit of measurement of the tension. To obtain this value in kg we must divide by the coefficient 9.81. This gives us: F = 100.36 / 9.81 = 10.23 kg (At the sea level..).

If a string of the same length but 0.9 mm in diameter is placed, a tension of 8.71 kg is obtained, it may be a little dull... For a string of 1.25 mm in diameter, on the other hand, we get 17.17 kg of tension, almost double! Rude for the fingers and the soundboard ...

One note: as the tension is proportional to the square of the length, one can see why, especially in the trebble range, a difference of one or two centimeters can be problematic: the strings break in rehearsal ... and as this same tension is also proportional to the square of the frequency, the solution is, of course, often, to tune the pitch lower ...

These explanations are all my master's of science and friend Yann Baol Le Noalleg, poet, mathematician, physicist and distinguished Breton speaker...