Roger E. Blumberg wrote: > > >yes, I did miss it. Thanks for pointing it out. So did Rob's instrument >originally have a Rose? Doesn't he feel cheated without it, doesn't he miss >something essential in his sound? > > >
You'd have to ask him that. I think he has always rather liked the plain, grungy sort of beaten up look of his instrument. He reckons it has an amazing sound, while many better preserved examples are not are rich and full-toned as his. Removing the rose would tend, by increasing the effective soundhole size, to boost treble a bit; the loss of the extra vibrating bit of stamped brass is impossible to quantify. I have never tried playing mine with the rose removed as I think it's important to the structure and strength of the instrument. So I will never know what it sounds like without one. Rob's instrument is much deeper and has a rounder body, and more parallel front and back. With a metal rose I imagine it would have been more 'boxy' than mine, a touch more banjo-like in tonal quality. It's already more that way. But again, his strings are different, mine have been a mixture of mandola and harpsichord wires, he's had some custom made NRI strings from Segerman with real twisted basses. I do know that Rob has been happier with his own sound, for his Scottish music, than the rather cheerier bright sound which my instrument has, and Doc Rossi's as well. Rob also tuned very flat and slack for his Flowers of the Forest CD recordings, giving a distinctive intonation under finger pressure. But, he may have further ideas now, much time has passed, and although he's not currently doing much guittar, only he can tell you how it has changed for him - whether he has tried other instruments etc. David To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
