Dear Anthony,
Thank you for your kind words. You mentioned the cooperation between
lutenist, lute, and string maker. I am most fortunate to have as a best
friend _and_neighbor, Dan Larson. Dan and I are close, and my daughter
even works for him in the shop, where she makes strings, and manages the
office. I am in his shop at least 3 times per week, so I see what is gong
on with strings and instruments,
I started playing all gut around 1995, when Dan was becoming full-swing
with gut production. Through the years, he has done a tremendous amount of
research and development. Some things have worked well, some have been
less successful. So, as in any kind of process, he develops what seems to
work the best, and constantly is making improvements. Yes, I do get many
samples to try out, because I am right by him, and it is convenient for him
to have me test strings. I do not mean to gloat; I am fortunate to be so
close to Dan, for I merely step into his shop if I have a string or
instrument issue. I have also used Mimmo's gut; his strings are also
fantastic, and his strings also keep getting better and better! His new
loaded strings are a vast improvement over his old ones; some of his new
trebles are much more longer lasting and durable than his older ones.
Sometimes, there is great luck in finding a good combination of string and
lute, sometimes it is with persistently working on improvements. I cannot
speak for Dan, but I can for me...... I support the use gut in search of
historical correctness or authenticity, but I use it more-so because it
sounds great! Yes, it can be fussier that synthetics, but it is worth it,
in my view. Toyohiko Satoh is also a good friend, and he encourages me to
do his low-tension approach, and I recently tried it on my 13-course, but
for me, I was unhappy with the results. So, I am at a moderate tension
again, because I am happiest with the results. If I were to work on it
for a year or so, I am certain I could adapt, but I chose not to do that,
at this point.
Isn't it great, that people such as Mimmo,. Dan, and Damian have done so
much to provide us with these beautiful strings? If it were not for people
like them, we would not have decent gut strings.
Cordially,
ed
At 11:56 AM 3/1/2009 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote:
Dear Ed
Your latest baroque lute recording is an example to us of
what can be acheived using gut.
It is not an easy thing stringing a Baroque lute in gut (compared to
a renaissance one), and your work with Dan Larson is a model of
cooperation between lutenist, lute and string maker (the last two
being of course the same person) whiich has made your stringing sing.
It is clear that such a piece of team work goes well beyond simple
questions of historicity.
Research can be a slow painstaking process, lutenists can not put
their performances on hold, until a theory is proved and a string is
finally shown to work. Meanwhile, if a person has adapted their
playing (and possibly even their lute) to a particular string type,
they must really reflect seriously before thinking of changing track.
Even if it is somehow proved that such and such a string was
definitely not historical, it does not mean that you should stop
using it.
It would surely only be worth doing, if the tonal result of the
string you are using at present somehow already feels slightly wrong,
in spite of how you have adapted to it (and that is clearly not your
case), or if it gives serious intonation problems, causes a bad
problem of homogeneity with Meanes and Trebles, or simply because
you like the other type much more.
The results of historic research should be used to help you attain a
more convincing performance of Early music; while simplistic
"historic correctness" just tends to close down research, and
dangerously stereotype a player's style.
(This of course does not mean that I am really very much in favour of
such research).
Keep up the good work!
Regards
Anthony
Le 28 févr. 09 à 22:34, Edward Martin a écrit :
I follow this discussion with great interest. IO am certainly no gut
researcher, but my friend Dan Larson is. I have loaded gut, dense
gut,
pistoy gut, gimped gut, etc. I use it because it is the best
sound. I
have used gut in performance for the past 14-15 years, and for me,
I have
difficulty switching to synthetics for all the reasons that have been
stated on this list for years.
I use it because for me, it sounds best, especially for baroque
lutes, both
11-course and 13-course lutes.
The answer is that we are really not certain if strings were
loaded, and
there is evidence showing they were, as well as evidence to the
contrary.
Until we have definitive answers, we do not know what was used.
ed
At 12:34 PM 2/28/2009 -0800, Daniel Winheld wrote:
Dear colleagues and especially our esteemed stringmaker/ researchers; as
regards the present big question- "Was they WAS, or was they
WASN'T,
loaded? In our search for evidence, and evaluation of same,
let's also
keep in mind the famous dictum of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as
channeled
through that old coke addict/violinist Sherlock Holmes:
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the
truth?
Not simple, of course. with multiple possibilities available to be
further explored.
How many lutes were mesured for bridge hole's
diameter? 10, 20 or 30?
I dnot see that we need a complete or even a substantial survey.
Any instance where the bridge was conceived as we see it and the
diapason
holes are significantly smaller than the holes for stoped basses is
evidence tht smaller diameter strings were conciously used, if that
then
obliges the use of strings denser than natural, loading of some
sort is
indicated, if not overspin, then chemical.
--
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date:
02/27/09
13:27:00
Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
e-mail: [email protected]
voice: (218) 728-1202
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1977 - Release Date: 02/28/09
17:21:00
Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
e-mail: [email protected]
voice: (218) 728-1202
