Dear Anthony, Andreas, et al, These topics have been discussed many times on this list, but I think the subject is very relevant to us all. Although I am a gut user and proponent, I still miss using synthetics some times. I hope I am open minded about it.
Toyohiko gave demonstrations this past summer at the LSA seminar in Cleveland. He had a 13 course lute strung entirely in gut (for performance, he removed the 12th & 13th courses for French music). Toyohiko questions if gut was actually ever loaded. There are arguments on each side, pro & con. But, of the real evidence, the existing lutes have smaller diameter holes in pegs and bridges, so our conclusion, or conjecture, that they "must have" loaded the gut to add weight is not proven. We know that the masters for the most part used gut, that they played with the right hand close to the bridge, and that the holes were not large. Dan Larson is of the opinion that a lute with less tension will sound better, because the wood moves more freely, as opposed to a high tension instrument. Toyohiko uses plain gut; I mean, plain, without any metal. And those strings, even the basses, are a smaller relative diameter, making for much less tension - perhaps 60 - 70 % of what we use today. Playing by the bridge under light tension gives him astonishing results, some of the most beautiful sound & playing imaginable. This follows what we see in paintings & what we see with extant bridge & peg holes. Just as "thumb under" right hand technique was revolutionary 30 + years ago in our times, low tension gut, with technique playing by the bridge, is also potentially revolutionary, as well. I have not yet experimented with the light tension, plain gut, new technique, etc. We have a great deal more to learn. ed At 11:45 PM 2/8/2007 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: > > Gut strings over 114 cm? Is that really a question??? > > > Dear Anthony and all other string users > > > > Gut strings over 114 cm? Is that really a question??? Did they used > > Pyramid strings in the early 17th century??? > >That had been a belief expressed on the French site by one person, >who I quoted. Presumably, this person imagined that longer strings >could only have been developed with a different material, or with >metal twist. This is probably based on the idea that given a >particular thickness of gut and a specific tension, the longer the >string, the more fragile it becomes: ie there would be a maximum >length beyond which the string would simply break. > >Although this person was mistaken here and admitted it, it underlines >what a number of people believe. That is, that as a given gut >string's length increases, so it tends to break more frequently. >Although I have gut strings on my Renaissance lute, I was told by a >number of competent lutists and lute makers that gut stringing would >be very impractical on a Baroque lute, and they all referred to the >increased string length as the problem. > >It seems as though this is either a tendency that has been >exaggerated, or not a tendency at all, since Ed Martin and others are >using gut strings on their Baroque lutes; but I would have liked to >clarify this. Perhaps only specific tension and thickness is relevant >to the breaking strain and length plays no part what so ever in this. >My small knowledge in physics does not help me here, and I have no >practical experience of using gut strings beyond 60 cm length. > > > My question is: > > Has the change of the hand position something to do with a lower > > tension? > >I think this is plausible. If the hand moves back towards the bridge >the strings seem to be under greater tension; as one moves towards >the rose they appear more slack, for obvious reasons. Many paintings >of Baroque players seem to show them with their hand near the bridge. >If they were using low tension strings this could be a way of >compensating for this. > >However, it may also be true that, as the string numbers increase >during the transitional development of the lute, so there are more >strings present to resonate in sympthy giving more harmonics. Playing >nearer the bridge might then have been a way of obtaining a clearer >fundamental with less harmonics. If this were so, then the J-barring >to fan-barring in high Baroque might be considered as continuing this >compensation, as courses were further increased: it has been >suggested that fan-barring tends to underline the fundamental, while >J-barrings bring out more of the harmonic structure. > >These are just passig thoughts, and I am sure this is far too >simplistic, a number of different explanations, may not exclude each >other. >regards >Anthony > >Le 8 fevr. 07 =E0 20:48, Andreas Schlegel a ecrit : > > > Dear Anthony and all other string users > > > > Gut strings over 114 cm? Is that really a question??? Did they used > > Pyramid strings in the early 17th century??? > > We don't know exactly which strings they had - but certainly not > > overspun strings until the last third of the 17th century (the > > spreading of the 1659 for the first time described overspun strings > > was very slow). So as material two types are in question: gut and > > silk. (The argument with the splitted roped strings to avoid larger > > bridge wholes who is readable on the page of the SFL is very > > strange. I think that's a polemic again the hypothesis of higher > > density and we have no advices for this operation, who is very > > dangerous for the roped string - without Loctite, invented 1423 > > b.c. ;-) > > The textile fabrication begun to use a kind of "laded > > silk" (Seidenbeschwerung in German) in the second half of the 16th > > c. So the technique was developped. But we don't know: > > - Used they also silk in this time for strings? (We know one later > > source. See Lute News 78 (Juni 2006), S.19, Patrizo Barbieri, in: > > Galpin Society Journal. Francesco Lana Terzi, Magisterium naturae-- > > (Brescia 1686, Vol. 2, S.433: ovinae maxime in usu sunt -- fides > > serica crassiores in testudinibus aliqui maxime approbant") > > - If yes: Loaded silk for the basses? > > - If the technique of "loaded silk" was developped, was it possible > > to make a technique transfer from silk to gut? > > > > We only know three things: > > 1. In this time (end of the 16th century and first half of the 17th > > c.) new instrument types with a bigger ambitus in the bass were > > developped. So the problem of bass strings was certainly solved for > > these instruments - and not with Pyramid ;-) > > 2. There were different techniques in use: Very long diapasons > > (ratio between petit jeu and grand jeu nearly 1:2) for a bigger > > ambitus and smaller diapasons for smaller ambitus (f.ex. double > > headed 12-course lute or 10-course lute - perhaps they used the > > same string type for course 7 to 12?). > > 3. The technique of the right hand has radically changed from thumb > > inside to thumb outside - see all the pictures around 1600! (NB: At > > the end of the century the hand position is no longer in such an > > extreme position. Perhaps the bass strings had more tension?) > > > > My question is: > > Has the change of the hand position something to do with a lower > > tension? > > > > When the oversoun strings were more common (end of the 17th c. and > > begin of the 18th c.) new types of lutes were built: 13-course > > lutes with bass rider (ca. 1718, only some centimeters longer, > > perhaps they used the string from the 10th and 11th for the new > > 12th and 13th course?) and swan-neck lutes (ca. 1732 with a ratio > > of ca. 3:4). (But be careful: The earliest known swan-neck is a > > Angelique of Tielke from 1680 with a ratio of ca. 2:3 - the same > > ratio as for Liuti attiorbati.) > > > > For me it's astonishing to see that the question of strings and > > string material - who is certainly the main reason for the > > different developments of lute constructions and perhaps a very > > important reason for the htechnique change - was such a long time > > neglected. > > > > And now a question for all: Who knows a person who has to do with > > the history of textile technique in the 15th until the early 19th > > century - especially silk? > > > > Andreas > > > > >-- > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
