Strings is a big question.But to know what
strings they used, we need to do some basic
research. We have to measure every hole in every
lute bridge, allowing for all the changes that
might have been made. That gives us one data
set--and will of course tell us a HUGE piece of
information on reentrant stringing. Second, we
need to do a chemical analysis of any pieces of
original strings, with some layer X-rays.
Until we do that, we are just guessing. Guessing
is good, but it would be nice to get some basic
data like we have on paper watermarks, paint composition and so on.
Also, if we do the basic research twenty years
from now, it is pretty much guaranteed that it
will invalidate most of what we are doing now.
dt
At 11:32 AM 2/27/2009, you wrote:
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 stupefying 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!
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:32:05 +0100
Anthony Hind <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Alexander and All
> I adress my musings to you as you obviously have had
> hands on experimenting with loading and its tonal effect.
> (I wrote this before my reply to Damian aboout the more general
> question of loading versus low tension HT, from within the loaded gut
> hypothesis, and leaving aside, for the moment the alternative silk
> loading possibility that you have raised, and to which I may return
> in a seperate message, so as not to confuse issues.)
>
>
> Le 24 févr. 09 à 19:56, alexander a écrit :
> >
> > The evidence of loaded strings is based squarely on Mimmo Peruffo's
> > research. His conclusions were made on the basis of paintings
> > (showing smooth surface = non wound strings with a variant of red
> > color ) and instrument string-hole measurements.
>
> Without going in to the silk loading question for the moment (which
> could be very interesting), but accepting the Mimmo's arguments as
> set out above (at least for the moment), I wonder about the relevance
> of the questions raised about the "HIPness" of Mimmo's copper, rather
> than mercury or lead loaded strings. As you seem to have experience
> in string loading, just what effect has the difference in loading
> material on the sound?
>
> My impression was that the purpose of research into early
> string types, was to rediscover the tones and textures that early gut
> string types contributed to the music, and to make these qualities
> (not the actual strings) available to lutenists today, if they wish
> to use them.
>
> If the tonal difference due to choice of loading metal type is
> negligeable, because all that loading contributes to the gut bass is
> simply greater density, (resulting in thinner bass diapasons which in
> turn give better "intonation" with the octaves and trebles), then the
> essential goal has surely been achieved with these copper loaded
> basses, so long as they are also adequately true. That is surely all
> we should expect from the process.
> "Trueness" was the real problem with Mimmo's first generation
> strings, but miraculously no longer, it seems to me, with the new
> Venice version.
>
> There is an obvious tonal difference between these first and second
> generation loaded strings, but isn't this mostly due to the different
> core used, not the loading: Type 2 Venice-loaded show better
> inharmonicity due to the greater flexibility of the core material used?
>
> It is clearly possible to see this difference on this photo of the
> two string types, side by side on my lute table,
> Type 1 (right) and Type 2 (left) :
> http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/74539...@n00/2551494920/
>
> The iconographic evidence shows just how flexible (soft and curly)
> Meanes and Basses could have been:
> http://www.aquilacorde.com/i8.htm
> Mimmo's Venice loaded strings can be tied in a bunch exactly like in
> the painting, which was not true of the stiff Type 1:
> http://www.aquilacorde.com/loaded%20gut.JPG
>
> There may be questions as to whether historically this flexibility
> was obtained by twining and chemical treatment or just by some some
> unknown (at present) way of chemically treating HT strings, but
> again the important factor is surely the tonal quality (improved high
> frequency behaviour) that a high degree of flexibility imparts to the
> gut string, and not the exact process by which it is obtained?
>
> I would guess that there would be more difference between a loaded
> Venice and a loaded HT, than between a Venice loaded with copper and
> one loaded with Lead oxide, but I admit that I have never heard the
> second, so this is only my guess, which perhaps you are in position,
> Alexander, to verify for us.
>
> In short, it seems to me that what is essential is that the gut
> Meanes should be very flexible, and that the gut Basses should be
> both dense and flexible, if this is acheived with chemicals and
> technology that was around at the time, that is surely the essential
> goal achieved.
>
> At the same time, fall-out from this understanding of tone types and
> the physical properties of the gut involved in obtaining them, should
> help to eventually improve synthetic strings. One could imagine
> synthetic basses heavilly dosed with metals having a warmer sound and
> better inharmonicity than present wirewounds.
> Regards
> Anthony
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
