Dear Anthony,
I think we had this conversation some time ago, but nothing can be said with
certainty in the face of deficient evidence.
However, I wonder whether mild loading could not also have been used
on other strings than basses, just to help conservation.
Mace tells us about rotten strings:
"I have sometimes seen strings of a yellowish colour, very good; yet,
but seldom; for that colour is a general sign of rottenness, or of
the decay of the string."
This must have been common problem. Perhaps a mild loading could help
conserve strings (admittedly, Mace does also say that red strings are
often rotten).
I don't think this is what he really meant. In the chapter you quote Mace
explains how to choose the good strings. He advices two types: Minikins and
Venice-Catlines as the best ones:
(Mace p.65-66) "Both (Minikins and Venice-Catlines) which are (generally) at
the same price, and the signs of goodness, both the same; which are, first
the clearness of the string to the eye, the smoothness, and the stiffness to
the finger...."
Then he mentions Lyon strings which are not as good in his opinion: "But
they are much more inferior strings than the other."
The sentence that follows (which you cited) maybe interpreted twofold.
Either he continues on commenting Lyons, or he gives the general remark
concerning yellowish coloration which may or may not be a sign of rotteness.
This is like saying beware of yellowish strings because they might be
rotten, but nothing more. We can't jump into the conclusion that the most
strings would be rotten if not loaded.
Again Mace mentions "There is another sort of strings, which they
call Pistoy basses, which I conceive are none other than thick Venice-
Catlins, which are commonly dyed, with a deep dark red colour."
So perhaps, if loaded basses existed they would have been from
Pistoia, Bologne, etc, and not Rome.
Well, he doesn't say "which are commonly loaded" but rather "commonly dyed".
As I say, we had this discussion on differences between the loading and
dyeing process, so I won't repeat my arguments (can be checked in the
archives), but we really shouldn't use these terms interchangeably, because
by dyeing Mace could mean only the process of applying a color to the string
(which is the most common meaning of this word).
Perhaps, also if loaded strings were often red, and at the same time
of high repute, other makers of lesser strings, might have also dyed
theirs red.
to cash in on their prestige (i agree, I am just adding to the
speculation).
The red color wasn't really a sign of string goodness. The remark you cited,
Mace applies to the thick red Venice-Catlines only. But they apparently
weren't very popular since he says: "but they are hard to come by". Quite
contrary to what you wrote, when Mace describes the goodness of colored
strings, he says that: "the red commonly rotten".
Morover he mentions several string colors in common use: "There are several
sorts of coloured strings, very good; but the best (to my observation) was
always the clear blue; the red, commomly rotten; sometimes green, very
good."
If we claim that the red loading prevented decay process, than why he says
the red strings were commonly rotten?
It seems to me that the dyeing (coloration) had nothing to do with decay
preventing.
There are however, some more convincing examples that do look like
loading.
On the same Art site, I saw another Caravaggio painting including a
lute with just one red string, and it was the 7th. Now this might
well be a loaded 7c-D.
http://www.caravaggio.rai.it/eng/opere.swf?currentImage=3
The answer could be very easy - just because he had only one red bass string
at home. But seriously, this prooves nothing yet.
Looking at my photo, it is difficult to tell whether the string is
loaded or just coloured, unless you take account of the relative
thinness.
http://tinyurl.com/cyvnyo
Yes, absolutely I agree, the gauge of the bass strings and the bridge holes
may signify the existence of loading. Italian traditional receipts for
loading other popular items may be the other evidence. But we can't say
anything more by now.
I think historical research should be used to open up new-old
possibilities of approaching the music, not to shut down any other
personal investigation. It should just help us to refine our choices.
Absolutely! However we have to take the evidence as it is.
Nevertheless, I agree entirely with you. It would be such a pity if
every lutensist adopted exactly the same solutions to all these
problems.
How much more interesting from the point of view of tone and texture,
if players personal research come up with varied solutions.
That Ed Martin with Dan Larson refine the Gimped solution to basses,
while Satoh and others develop their low tension hypothesis, will, I
hope, result in less standardization, not more.
Even if Gimped strings were not around at that time (French Baroque),
and low tension strings do not actually allow such a small diameter
as shown by historic lute holes.
I still do hope to hear more lutenists adopting the loaded
solution, and perhaps demifile for later Baroque.
This has to be a personal choice for each lutenist, and some
clearly feel that strings contribute such a small part to their
overall performance, that synthetics will do, or are even better. Not
that they are without their own problems: at least for French
Baroque: lack of homogeneity, tonal problems, lack of warmth, and
loss of clarity; for which the lutensist may well be able to
compensate with the right technique and touch.
I have to stress here, that I am not against loaded strings even if it may
sound paradoxicaly. I admire Mimmo's great contribution in finding the best
strings for a modern lute player. I use his strings very often and will
advice them to other musicians as well. The only difference between our
attitude is the reason for doing so. Assuming that if one day it definitely
occurs that from historical point of view there is no such a thing as loaded
strings ,will you take them off your lute and throw away? I won't, because
if I choose something it means that I like it best! What I am trying to say
is that in strugling to be HIP one can forget the most important thing,
namely the Music. This is our obligation as early musicians to search the
truth about the past. As somebody posted recently "the theorbo is made of
dreams" I would add "so is the Music". And will use any means to attain this
including strings. I love pure gut on my renaissance lute, it's feeling and
tone, but am open much more to experiment with the baroque lute stringing
(as Miguel Serdoura, Nigel North and many others do).
It is the sort of contradictory status of a performer of early music.
We are no longer steeped in a tradition that both constrains and
frees us within its limits (or even to push at its limits and
innovate). How much each modern lutenist wants to stay within those
limits (if he can be sure what they are) is a matter of his own
personal choice as an artist and a result of his own research and
taste, but is he in a position to truly innovate, to create new
rules, within that tradition? Perhaps, that might differentiate the
modern interpreter from the performer-composer of the time.
Well, our possition is very strange, because the Old Ones never played early
music (they always played something new), so in imitaiting them we should do
the same but aren't able to. In my opinion the only solution is to express
one's personality in individual way within the given limits, however
breaking them will mean departing from the early music world. How long there
will be a need for this type of performance? Who knows? But it seems that
there are always people who want to listen to Bach, Mozart or Bethoven and
they hopefuly won't disapear for ever.
Best wishes
Jaroslaw
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
