If i may, just on two erroneous assumptions regarding the imagined sound
quality from "when Historical Correctness was the History Itself". One has to
do with the idea of the lute basses having rather short sustain. Mersenne, who
otherwise is an accepted authoritative source on the strings (+ more), claimed
that bass strings on the lutes had sustain of "several seconds". Currently
possible only with the wound strings. Mace in his comment regarding the "new
wire wound basses", dismissed their usefulness on the same basis, as, according
to him, the "currently available basses", on long lutes had too long a sustain
already. This is one of the points which, as i understand, keeps Mimmo Peruffo
on searching for ever better answers then the current loaded gut offers.
The second has to do with the universally accepted assumption that playing near
the bridge with the "thumb out" produces a "sharp tone" (" Did
they like mellow or sharp tone? The RH position of most baroque lute players
on old paintings suggests the later."). This is just an assumption, as
strange as it may be. Toyohiko Satoh demonstrates this on
baroque lute. Then there is the case of this famous picture here:
http://library.csun.edu/igra/bios/graphics/aguado-d.gif
The picture is of Dionisio Aguado, who according to his contemporaries
hearing him play duets with Fernando Sor, at times had as deep and
dignified sound, as Sor did, while playing WITH FINGERNAILS with his
little finger firmly lodged behind the bridge. The critics, who
otherwise were not noticed to be ignorant or unprofessional, on
occasion compared his midrange sound to a cello! Of course then alternating with
a "bright and clear trebles". While we can "only guess" how the long lutes
sounded when played by all those pictured with their hand on the
bridge, the critique of Aguado's performances is available from
European news papers and magazines, available in microfilm. If the
experiment is carried to the logical conclusion, one will notice that
with the proper strings (and synthetics will not work at all in this
case, and i am not claiming this theoretically), and allowing the right
hand to play somewhat in reverse of the logic ( fingers moving slightly
away from the bridge in plucking, and actually, not quite plucking,
too, this position can be seen on Aguado's pictures), may be with the right
side of the large fingertip, while acquiring a very relaxed
stance, one will notice that the sound will not remind a harpsichord lute stop
at all. Of course, one quality that is required from
trebles in this case, is flexibility and ability to turn under the
finger (which comes with flexibility). Modern gut strings only so
slowly develop in this direction. I have a string made by Mimmo Peruffo
(about 0.6 mm), twisted of two parts, like a rope, and then polished.
This string can be kept in a "knot", not unlike the "historical"
distribution methods suggested. Of course, for a string maker to go
into production of these, a long time will pass, with changing demand and
tastes. Meanwhile, demanding
musicians are looking for solution in the lower tension ( Toyohiko Satoh )
instead. Et
cetera... Everything flows somewhere.
The "Some early records mention
strings vibrating for up to 10 seconds after being struck: gut strings
vibrate a second or two at most, but silk vibrations can continue for 10
seconds." quote appears to be corrupted in some way, as i was the source. The
discussion was of a particular design silk strings, with the roped silk core
wound by twisted silk. There is no evidence of such strings in Europe. A second
or two - for plain gut basses.
alexander r.
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:36:12 +0000
Jarosław Lipski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> Thank you for a very interesting link. It looks like guqin players are a
> little bit more aware of their past then oud players or at least this
> awarness is making its way.
> There is nothing wrong about being little crazy or nostalgic. We must be
> crazy to spend money on such impractical things. However I don't think that
> puting a set of gut strings on a lute will transfer a player (or listner) to
> the past. It's rather a journey (as you wrote) to the new exotic sounds.
> Changing strings makes music different but it doesn't need to have
> pejorative connotations. I don't think that there is anything wrong with
> enthusiasm, say, for loaded basses, or any other new type of string
> providing we realize what is the reason to use them. Do we want to be
> archeologists or musicians? If archeologists, one has to buy what people say
> is HIP. If musicians, one buys what suits his musical taste best. Obviously
> we can be both, but then we will be torn and tormented when new data
> arrives. I wouldn't fancy throwing away loaded basses if someone announced
> one day that he has a data that contradicts existence of those strings in
> past. I would only buy them if I liked their tone. At least this is my
> attitude. I am the musician in the first place.
> So What is the reason for using gut?
>
> 1/Economical
> Definitely not economical. However in past it could've been so. It's
> difficult to compare prices from 18th century to the prices of modern gut,
> but definitely it must have been cheaper a lot. Normaly it was bought in
> bundles (as Mace and others write). If the production was really massive it
> could be the cheapest way to go then.
> 2/Historical
> This is a good argument for those of us that love history. The only problem
> is that probably the guts we can produce at the moment aren't the same that
> were produced then.
> Thiner strings were very supple - characteristique quite different from
> modern HT guts.This is the citation from Martin Sheperd's site (I hope you
> don't mind Martin? http://www.luteshop.co.uk/stringshistory.htm ):
>
> "Packaging: strings were made in lengths ("knots") at least twice as long as
> was needed on the instrument. "Double knots" are presumably twice as long.
> They are then "made up" into "bundles", more knots to a bundle for thin
> strings than for thicker ones. The whole issue of packaging has been largely
> ignored by modern writers but it can give vital clues as to the nature of
> the strings: all the descriptions of "knots", "bundles" and how to extract a
> string from them suggest characteristics very different from those of modern
> gut strings, which must be carefully coiled because bending round sharp
> corners ruins them. The picture of testing for trueness in Gerle's book of
> 1546 is one of several depictions which shows what a "knot" was like"
> Do have a look at the picture of such a bundle on Martin's site .
>
> The fact very well known but notoriously overlooked or ignored
> (intentionaly?) by HIP players. Then the argument that original guts were
> better because they were stiff and this is why it was easy to play ornaments
> is not valid any more from historical point of view.
> Then comes the issue of basses. We already discussed it many times so I
> won't be repeating my standpoint, however I'd like to draw your attention to
> another aspect of the bass issue. One of the main arguments of gut bass
> advocates is that the string doesn't ring long therefore the balance of the
> instrument is much better. Now we enter another teritory so I'll make
> another point here.
> 3/Tonal
> Tonal characteristic is something that each one of us would describe
> differently. Our descriptions of how instrument in general or the string
> itself sounds is in a way a projection of our likings. For example a person
> that likes low frequences would describe an instrument set with wirewounds
> as sonorous. The tone of the very same instrument would be described as
> boomy by another person who prefers higher frequencies. This is just to say
> it isn't objective.
> We can hear it very clearly in some HIP interpretations. Some players are so
> afraid of boomy and unclear bass line that they develope quite complicated
> technique of dumping bass strings. Whether it is historical or not to play
> small phrases this way, can be polemicized, however playing the whole bass
> line non legato seems to be dictated rather by personal taste. Although Mace
> suggests that it actually was in use (Music's Monument p.109) however he
> describes it as a grace called "tut". Grace, not the whole technique of
> playing bass line.
> Then we have to ask what were the likings of people in 17 or 18 century. Did
> they like mellow or sharp tone? The RH position of most baroque lute players
> on old paintings suggests the later. What were the tonal qualities of other
> plucked instruments they invented? Harpsichords, lute-harpsichords etc....I
> wouldn't say they have gentle, very subtle and sweet sound. I would describe
> them rather as sonorous with comparatively strong bass register.
> I am not advocating here use of grand piano strings for lute, but I am
> trying to say that describing tone quality can be very subjective.
> We know that probably silk strings were used on lutes. Acording to the
> author of the article on guqin silk strings: "Some early records mention
> strings vibrating for up to 10 seconds after being struck: gut strings
> vibrate a second or two at most, but silk vibrations can continue for 10
> seconds." So the argument that gut was highly valued for its short time of
> vibration seems to be fallacious. Morover, metal strings were used in Italy
> on theorbos with even longer vibrating time.
> It can't be excluded that gut was most commonly used because it was
> cheapest, less problematic than silk and easiest to obtain but not
> necessarily for its tonal unsurpassable values.
> 4/Subtle sound qualities
> This probably should be discussed together with tonal qualities,however some
> people refer to it as a special, unique characteristic of gut. Again it's
> very subjective, however I have an impression that succesful performance
> depends more on imagination and sensitivity of a musician not the string
> material used. There is nothing subtle in gut. We make it subtle by playing
> it in imaginative and subtle way.
> 5/ sensory sensations
> Yes, this is probably the most valuable virtue of gut. Gut feels good, gut
> plays good under our fingers. It's not as slippery as nylon.
> 6/ecological
> Good way to go for those who like everything natural. It is a nice feeling
> that the whole instrument is 100% natural.
> To sum up I believe there are some important considerations in favor of gut
> use, however I wouldn't say that this is the only material suitable for lute
> strings. Unless we find with certaintenty how gut was made in past we can't
> pretend that the main reason for using it is to recreate an old, traditional
> way of playing. But even then, there is a place for new string materials
> which have some qualities that gut doesn't. Plastic sounds more plastic,
> that's obvious, but there are other adventages of using plastic.
> I like history, nature and subtle things, but on the other hand we can't
> deny we are modern. So instead of concentrating on beeing 100% HIP I prefer
> to concentrate on music. I use gut but for different reasons.
> Anyway,thank you for interesting thoughts. It was nice to talk to you again
> Anthony.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jaroslaw
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
