> sorry, the "therefore" is mistaken. > I agree that gut strings were different, and surely they were because all > the > machines for creating super equal strings were not available ofcourse. The > sound however will still be more or less the same. Even when strings > perhaps > less equal in the past, the ear in those days was certainly not; people > surely replaced more often a brand new string because it was not true. > There > is however a huge difference between the sound of a ugly synthetic string > and > a gut string historic or modern. The problem is that there has been no professional all-gut player to date that could back up this alleged beauty with appropriately beautiful playing. RT
== http://polyhymnion.org Feci quod potui. Faciant meliora potentes. The difference between the sound of gut > strings in the past will certainly not be very much different from the > ones > these days. Yes, loaded gut strings sound different, so baroque lutes and > 10 > course lutes have sounded different than many gut strung lutes nowadays, > but > the difference is not of the same magnitude as a nylon strung lute vs. gut > strung. > I fully agree with David on the use of gut strings and it has become a > horror > to listen to professional lutenists playing on lutes with synthetic > strings. > For many the choice for playing with gut strings is often a financial > matter > which makes them to choose for synthetic strings, especially if you've > more > than one instrument. Still to string at least one of your lutes with > (cheap) > gut should not be a major problem for most people, I presume. > Taco, > member of the gutstring church > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > ___________________________________________________________ $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com
