Chris > about gut strings in the past: our gut is _not_ "their > gut." (i.e. the exact same type of string that was > made back in the day.) Therefore, whatever you decide
I'd say that the gut strings of all the different gut string makers of today, with their variety of products with quite different characteristics and sound, all come closer to a sound a lute player of old had with his variety of gut strings available to him, closer than a modern string of uniform material. Gut is a complex material resulting in a complex sound. No two strings are the same, such a baroque concept! Baroque art is like custard with lumps, not processed yoghurt with artificial vanilla flavour. All nylgut is nylgut, all carbon is carbon, all nylon is nylon. How can you enter a world of complex 'organic' sounds with a uniform 'synthetic' sound? A good wine is not the same as a cheap softdrink, but if you drink the latter often enough, you might start to like it. I agree that gut (basses especially) might be an aquired taste, but aren't those the most enjoyable? I like gut strings for all the reasons stated above, not because they are exactly the same as the strings Francesco or Dowland had. But at the same time I am convinced that playing on non-gut strings will certainly get me further away from a sound of Francesco or Dowland. Why is it that lute players must be told their instruments were made for gut strings? Isn't it obvious? David **************************** David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl **************************** To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
