Dear Tim, Thanks for a very interesting question.
I take the view that a good lute is a good lute - I can't imagine saying "Well this lute would be fine if only you used gut (or nylon) strings". But just for the sake of argument, if you wanted to limit the sustain of overspun bass strings, the steps you might take would be exactly those which would kill the treble sustain, whatever strings were used (and gut sustains better than any other material by the way). So the short answer is no, I just make the best lutes I can and hope that people string them with some regard for historical truth, not necessarily in gut. Best wishes, Martin timothy motz wrote: >>Martin, >> >> >I'm curious -- do you build a lute differently if you know the client >wants gut or nylon? Is the difference in tone something you can >compensate for or accentuate? > >Tim > > >>---- Original Message ---- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu >>Subject: Re: gut treble strings >>Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:23:34 +0000 >> >> >> >>>Dear All, >>> >>>Just a few comments arising: >>> >>>Thanks to all who responded to my question - I have replied to >>> >>> >>everyone >> >> >>>individually (at least that was the intention) but I thought you >>> >>> >>might >> >> >>>be interested to know where I'm coming from with all this. >>> >>>It was soon after I started playing the lute around 1979/80 that I >>>started experimenting with gut strings. One day, hating the sound >>> >>> >>of a >> >> >>>wound (Pyramid) fourth course, I thought "this fret gut is about the >>> >>> >>>right size, I wonder how it would sound?" and that was the >>> >>> >>beginning of >> >> >>>a long journey which included making my own roped basses, >>> >>> >>experimenting >> >> >>>with different manufacturers and using gut strings in concerts. >>> >>> >>That >> >> >>>journey lasted until about 1988 when I did a concert at the Lute >>> >>> >>Society >> >> >>>in which my 4th course constantly went out of tune - as you know, >>> >>> >>the >> >> >>>thicker a gut string, the more it tends to go flat. I thought, why >>> >>> >>am I >> >> >>>doing this? Hardly anyone else was using gut strings, and while >>> >>> >>being a >> >> >>>trailblazer was fun up to a point, I was spending lots of time >>> >>> >>tuning >> >> >>>and less time playing. >>> >>>Unfortunately nylgut had not been invented in those days and nylon >>> >>> >>was >> >> >>>the only alternative. Then David van Oijen introduced me to PVF and >>> >>> >>it >> >> >>>gave me something like the brighter sound I had been used to from >>> >>> >>gut >> >> >>>trebles. Again, I found I was in a minority - most people said it >>> >>> >>was >> >> >>>fine for 3rd and 4th courses (yipee! a non-wound 4th!) but said it >>> >>> >>was >> >> >>>"too thin" for trebles. Of course they were all used to nylon, so >>> >>> >>it >> >> >>>felt too thin under the finger and was "too bright" in sound. Well, >>> >>> >>>based on my experience with gut, I thought the sound was more >>> >>> >>gut-like >> >> >>>than nylon. Eventually I came to something closer to the majority >>> >>> >>view, >> >> >>>largely because of trueness problems. >>> >>>In the meantime, for bass strings, I discovered the copperwound >>> >>> >>strings >>>from Savarez and they were much better than Pyramid. The only >>problems >> >> >>>were trueness for the thinnest strings (especially if used in >>> >>> >>unisons >> >> >>>at, say, 5th course) and excessively stiff (due to the large >>> >>> >>diameter of >> >> >>>the copper wire used for winding) for the thickest strings. Apart >>> >>> >>from > > >>>these two extremes, the Savarez strings were useful, durable, and >>>sounded good, especially when old! I experimented with Kuerschner >>>copperwound strings and found that while they were less durable than >>> >>> >>the >> >> >>>Savarez strings (I think the windings were put on at a lower tension >>> >>> >>in >> >> >>>those days) they were mostly true and particularly useful at the >>>extremes - thin strings were true and thick strings were not too >>> >>> >>stiff. >> >> >>>When nylgut arrived I had (and still have) mixed feelings. I think >>>sound-wise it's the closest you can get to the sound of gut while >>> >>> >>using >> >> >>>a synthetic string. I don't like the fact that it's white, very >>>stretchy (in small diameters), slightly rougher and slightly less >>> >>> >>dense >> >> >>>than gut. I do like the gutlike sound and stability of tuning. I >>> >>> >>wish >> >> >>>we had a synthetic string of about 1mm diameter which did not need >>> >>> >>metal >> >> >>>windings. The trouble is a solid plastic string like nylgut is very >>> >>> >>>stretchy in small diameters and very non-stretchy in large diameters >>> >>> >>>(physicists can supply the formulae). What we need is strings which >>> >>> >>are >> >> >>>still quite elastic even in large diameters (which of course is >>> >>> >>where >> >> >>>the idea for roped strings came from in the first place, I mean >>> >>> >>1970s >> >> >>>rather than 1570s). >>> >>>In experimenting once again with gut strings, I am under no >>> >>> >>illusions >> >> >>>about the "historicity" (sorry!) of modern gut strings - there are >>> >>> >>good >> >> >>>reasons to doubt the similarity of our gut strings to those which >>> >>> >>were >> >> >>>used hundreds of years ago - but I do want the best possible sound, >>>preferably a sound which is not too different from that which the >>>original lute players heard. One thing we can be sure of - they >>> >>> >>never >> >> >>>heard the "twang" of a metal-covered string. >>> >>>Best wishes, >>> >>>Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>To get on or off this list see list information at >>>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >
