I have followed this thread with great interest. Now that Playford gets into the discussion, I recently had a great experience. Dan Larson, lute builder and string maker, recently acquired a treasure - an original edition of Playford's 1664 book, in which the strings are mentioned. I recently held this beautiful book in mint condition, and read through some of it.
Interestingly enough, Playford does not mention the strings at all; this statement is in the very last folio, where it is an advertisement from a merchant who happens to sell strings. In any event, there is not general agreement that the description in this advertisement confirms that wound strings were used. The statement describes wire twisted or gimped upon gut or silk, which does not necessarily describe our modern concept of a wound string. At 06:23 AM 2/4/2010, alexander wrote: >O, my apologies, thinking Playford, writing Mace. His complaining >voice just is so loud in my head... ar > >On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:52:19 +0000 >Martin Shepherd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ???? Mace doesn't mention wound strings at all. You may be thinking of > > the Burwell lute book, which explains that the French removed the low > > octave from the 11th course because the sound of it was too "big" (not > > necessarily sustained) and smothered the other strings. I know of no > > lute source which mentions wound strings. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Martin > > > > alexander wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [email protected] voice: (218) 728-1202 http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name http://www.myspace.com/edslute
