Anthony,
perhaps i should clarify my expertise (or the lack of such) concerning the
string making, as to ascertain and such... Just to make the connection:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg25030.html
Now i will try to answer some of your questions. Very obviously, i do not have
any serious experience with gut, and i did not make any serious experiments
with it. I did have some shorter and longer discussions with Mimmo while he was
in the process of developing his loaded gut strings, and have tried loading
myself, i could appreciate the difficulties he encountered. The stranded
structure of his recent loaded strings is not the only reason for their
improved qualities. He also found some better chemical treatments (lets not
forget, Mimmo Peruffo IS a professional chemist!). From what i can see, there
is a better bond between the gut and the metal. Otherwise no amount of
flexibility would be of any use: the copper slurry would just crumble and
dislodge from the gut. This particular point might be almost of essence in
regard of what metals work the best with animal proteins. Personally i am not
aware of any animal protein - metal salts bind described historically. I know
that Mimmo has searched high and low to find evidence or any documented
description of technique. I am not privy to the results. However, textile use
of metal salts of practically every single metal on earth (as well as use to
impregnate wood, btw) are extremely well documented.
There is one fundamental difference in problems facing a string maker if he
attempts to bind gut with metal salt and make string of it, or if he does it
with the silk. Gut string is glued together by its' own matter, so to speak.
Collagen is both the fibers and the glue that holds string together. Thus
introduction of any foreign material disrupts the bond. In leather works
therefore the tanning is a very important and ingenious process (as a matter of
fact, leather tanning was exactly the area Mimmo was researching closely).
Tanning produces such a change in collagen, that it becomes able to take dyes,
stay flexible indefinitely, be glued with a variety of glues (all the qualities
missing in raw collagen, but so important in case you want to bind it with
metal salts).
Silk fiber, on the other hand is glued together by a separate glue (sericin),
produced by the worm, and if that glue is removed (easily by hot water), silk
fiber binds very easily with any salt. It does not like the dyes, UNLESS first
treated with some metallic salt. So, while binding gut with metal proceeds by a
very difficult path, silk binds naturally, and allows after that any imaginable
treatment to create any kind of flexibility etc., including creating a finish
impenetrable by poisonous metals, if so be desired.
I can not attest to how different the sound of mercury-lead salts vs copper
pigment in gut would be, but i can say that in silk, the lower molecular weight
of the loading is, the duller, less sustained is the sound. Which makes sense,
as there is less structural disturbance to the fibers themselves. The best
sound by far was to me of a gold plated silk. It was quite easy to do, by the
way, using very low voltage in salt brine with suspended gold pigment. There.
It is both amazing and stupefiing that the old string makers managed to create
a very reliable and certain technology on par only with the contemporary to us
world of guitar string-market. The lute was everywhere, and every single one of
them had so perfectly working basses, that nobody ever questioned - how they
work, nobody cared for the longest time for any silly wire-wounds. In fact they
worked so well and so obviously, that no one did bother to describe them to us,
silly ancestors.
What a pity!
Dear Damian, Alexandern, Andreas and All
I forgot to add, that I do think that the use of lute extensions,
such as the longer "Dutch" lute types, could have been an alternative
to using loaded strings.
Indeed, these lutes could be the lutemakers response to the
contradictory need both for long basses and short stopped string
lengths.
As I understand it, the strings remain more or less the same
thickness accross the basses, with a step in length to compensate for
what would otherwise call for an increase in thickness. While the
stopped strings can remain manageably short. According to Stephen
Gottllieb this actually works well, and the basses are quite loud.
However, loading would be the string maker's response to the same
problem, allowing them to keep the same core size across the basses
but to apply a step-up in density to compensate for the stable
thickness. Thus also keeping a relatively short stopped string length.
The two approaches would have stemmed from a similar thought process.
In both cases, we keep a relatively manageable short stopped string
length: the step-up in length, or in density, are sort of two sides
of the same sort of reflection, but within the technical scope of the
two different trades. I find this quite convincing, thinking that the
theory must have already been there in the observations in Galileo's
father's work on pitch and tension of lute strings, as well as his
own on the pendulum.
Although at a much later date and about demifilé, this is more or
less the way Claude Perrault sees the behaviour of loaded strings,
"Ouvres de Pysique" , Amsterdam 1680
http://www.aquilacorde.com/perrault.jpg
As Mersenne quoted by David Taylor "gives 20 seconds as the ring
length (of bass strings) which is longer than the Pyramid strings
ring on my lutes."
and Andreas Schlegel some time back remarked that Francesco Lana
Terzi 1686, mentiond the use of silk basses; while Alexander says he
has successfully made such loaded bass strings, I suppose these are
also a plausible alternative, or could have coexisted with loaded gut.
I believe silk strings do have much greater sustain, although I don't
know how damping through loading may effect this.
Perhaps, Alexander can inform us on that.
Regards
Anthony
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
