Dear Chris
If I understand you correctly, you consider that extreme
Gut-HIPism might lead to a narrowing down of string and instrument
choices, where the string type dictates the size and shape of the
instrument. I quote, "he means that the size does not fit into the
"standard" size range (another modern invention) to allow for the pitch
and timbre he desires using string material X."); while presumably, the
use of modern strings, you would claim, could allow just about any
shape or size.
But isn't there at least as much danger of standardisation coming from
the modern non-HIP classical guitar tradition (as Martin Shepherd
recently pointed out) than from any extreme application of a HIP-gut
theory.
PARA
Now, if we take the French Baroque lute as an example, it does seem
true that sloppy HIPism seized on the few easily accessible historic
lutes, a few words in Burwell (about Bologna lutes), and the portrait
of Charles Mouton, to make the Vienna and the Warwick Freis, more or
less the standard French Baroque lutes (even tending to ignore Malers).
Yet, this standardisation, at least for the Vienna Frei (until the
appearence of loaded strings), more or less relied on the use of
non-historic wirewounds.
Indeed, it was the use of "string material X" (pure gut basses), which
probably did dictate a very different lute type, the full bodied
extended bass Dutch (French) lute for some of Toyohiko Satoh's French
Baroque music brise (both the extension and the full body help the low
tension gut bases). This did shock a few specialists; yet there had
undoubtedly been a continuation of this older French tradition in
England, as whitnessed by Jacques Gautier and Mace (who rather mocked
the fad for Bologna lutes), and even in France, fuller bodied lutes, as
represented in Denis Gautier's Rhetorique des Dieux manuscript.
PARA
I would suggest that there is more variation in gut string types, than
in synthetics (Charles Besnainou's carbon spring strings excepted), but
also in gut HIP string theories: use of pure, gimped, loaded, or
garachoir gut basses at high or low tension do tend to dictate
different string length and instrument shape choices (as you suggest),
but that all in all, I would say, this increases variation rather than
narrows it down.
I suggest it all depends from what standpoint we choose to observe (be
it gut or synthetics).
Best wishes
Anthony
__________________________________________________________________
De : "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
A : Daniel Winheld <[email protected]>; Anthony Hind
<[email protected]>
Cc : [email protected]
Envoye le : Dim 31 Janvier 2010, 17 h 23 min 38 s
Objet : Re: [LUTE] Re: Tr :Re: Objet : Re: Switching between gut
strings and synthetics?
Anthony,
--- On Sat, 1/30/10, Anthony Hind <[1][email protected]> wrote:
> I have not read such "blanket
> performance proclamations" in this
> thread.
Sure you have. Many of them are almost at the subliminal level. I
wish to bring them to the surface.
One example: In the very email in which Dan Winheld wanted to show that
he was not dogmatic in his stringing choice, he mentions his "strange
archlute, which is too short for workable gut diapasons." What he
really means to say is that that he believes his archlute is too short
to produce a tone with enough sustain and pitch definition that he
(and, presumably others) will find acceptable in a musical context
using modern gut strings at the pitch he desires. There are a number of
subjective factors in that last sentence that have a direct bearing on
performance. The real wildcards are not the lute nor the pitch, but
rather the properties of the stringing material, of which, I must point
out again, there are many things our best researchers do not know.
Then there is Dan's additional use of the word "strange." I assume the
instrument is not hot pink, in the shape of a Flying V, or emblazoned
with a portrait of Che Guevara in rhinestones, so I'm guessing he means
that the size does not fit into the "standard" size range (another
modern invention) to allow for the pitch and timbre he desires using
string material X. It may be an uncommon size, but research shows that
many sizes existed. We don't know the pitch for which such a small
instrument was intended, but we also don't know enough about the string
material in use in olden times to determine this. The use of the
loaded (no pun intended) word, "strange," with its negative
connotations, says a lot about how we lutenists view ourselves. Why
should a player feel the need to apologize for an instrument that
doesn't instantly fit into an area in which research is incomplete?
One could go on with the statements in this thread about how ornaments
behave this way on gut, one needs to have such and such a touch on gut,
string tensions should be this or that with gut, pitch will be between
X and Y on this size lute... These are the blanket performance
proclamations I'm talking about. Unfortunately, making any claims
about what gut strings do on a lute really tells us nothing about
historical performance practice - it only tells us about modern
historical performance practice predicated on the behavior of modern
strings.
I'm not looking to take away anyone's choices. If you love gut and
feel it enhances your interpretation of the music, go for it.
Chris
--
References
1. mailto:[email protected]
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
