I kind of hate speaking without a reference, but i can not locate all the string reference material, of which there was much assembled. However, i remember rather well, that at Playford's time, and all around Mace at the time, a common practice was to take an existing gut string and cover it with a wire as needed. The practice was so commonly accepted, that i recall a few "just grab a wire and do it yourself" references, as well as the string makers themselves not doing the procedure, because it was considered so easy to do by the end user... I recall it being argued by someone, that from the language it was apparent that the practice was in use for as long as anyone could remember, matter-of-factly. It certainly was the part of bow-string making, garment string making and such, which would be strange to imagine being an isolated technique. alexander r.
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:10:48 -0600 Edward Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
