Thanks Jaroslaw I have also been enjoying our discussion, and I did not want to imply you were not interested in the bass string mystery, just perhaps a little more practical minded than myself, as you are a professional musician looking for real life solutions (as I think you have said, and rightly, you prefer musicality over HIPness, but if we can have both...), while I am an amateur and so less obliged to be practical; although, I have put theoretical reflection into practice, with some success, when trying to string my own lutes. PARA I would nevevertheless, not want to give the idea that my way of stringing a lute is some sort of automatic guarantee of a better performance more in keeping with our historical knowledge (I wish it were!). Clearly, a performer of the calibre of Claire Antonini is not somehow a lesser Baroque player because she uses synthetic strings and wirewounds. This is quite a different issue from what Mimmo has called the historical bass string mystery, which we are trying to discuss here. Even if I might personally prefer to hear more lutenists using gut strings, and if I feel that there are some tonal and harmonicity issues with wirewounds: I was listening yesterday to POD's Tabulatures de Leut (1983), on an AstrA(c)e LP AS76. (Those were the days when there were notes about the strings used). He was using two lutes one strung in gut and wirewounds (possibly with gut core?) the other strung with what he calls "catlines". I do prefer the clarity and warmth of sound that POD has here, from his later performances; [1]http://tinyurl.com/ya22s6s even though this sort of Catline rope is probably no longer felt to be historic by gut specialists (of course this could be my preference for vinyl over CD, but I have a similar liking of Lindberg's early Dowland on CD, with Mimmo's first loaded strings). > > Yes, I received your message. Sorry for not replying straight away. > Sometimes I'm not at home for a longer period of time. Thanks also for finding time to read and answer my mails, as I realize a hard working musician does not have all that much spare time. It is well appreciated. > It was an earlier message, I was told that for some people on the list it was empty, but of course I also sent you the message direct. I do have a problem, as from one mail symbols are added corresponding to sentence breaks, and from the other, no paragraphs are inserted. PARA By the way, I do agree with you from an etymological point of view that the word "homogeneous" literally means "all of the same or similar kind or nature" (from Gk homo- [same] + Greek genos arace, kind'). I used the term "homogenous" hoping I could make it closer to the French word, homogene (adj). This in French, is used very frequently in a non technical manner (e.g. "une cuisson homogene de vos aliments", "evenly cooked food") and so with less reference to the Greek and Latin origin, closer in meaning to English "uniform", but without the sometimes negative meaning of "uniform". I can find no strict English equivalent to the French "homogene" (any suggestions?). You are right, however, that different kinds of strings, can not in that sense be literally homogenous (i.e. of the same kind); but the same type of string, according to thickness, can produce a divergent sound quality due to degree of inharmonicity); improving harmonicity by a change in string type can give a more even sound across the voices (un son plus homogene)? Here, for example are spectogrammes made by Charles Besnainou of three string types, 3) a pure plain gut and 4) a pistoy both 60cm long by 1.8mm, and 5) a spring string of the same length, but of 2.2mm diameter. It is easy to see that there is an absence of higher harmonics in the first two (poor harmonicity), but excellent harmonicity in the spring string in spite of its being thicker. This will ensure that it is much closer in harmonicity with the thinner trebles, that there will be less of a tonal break, and that they will be more equal in sustain (more of this when I have time to speak of Charles' strings). [2]http://tinyurl.com/ydxjkrt PARA However, if we were considering strings at unison (and not at different frequencies) then you would presumably be correct, according to Galilei; since, "In a particular discourse concerning the unison", he noted "that to produce a true unison two strings had to be made of the same material, of the same thickness, length and quality, and stretched to the same tension. If any of these factors were absent, the unison would be only approximate." (Studies in the history of Italian music and music theory, by Claude V. Palisca) So "homogene", here, would need to be taken literally according to etymology. Anyway, you are right not to let sloppy language slip by. PARA > I agree that instruments give us some indications on what the tendency > of lute evolution was, however we shouldn't forget old writings which > give us some clues too. PARA Quite so, there are not that many clues, so we have to look at everything (lute structures, iconography, manuals & tutors, old "scientific" treatises, etc.), and then bear in mind that this still could give us a very small idea of the tastes of the time. HIP theories have to be based on evidence, but when the evidence is small we can easilly slip into making a caricature (a little like if I tried to adopt an American accent after only hearing five or six sentences, I would end up over generalizing, the sort of Beatle's caricature that mistakenly gives "Par and Mar", for Pa and Ma). I suppose this means that we should form strong verifiable hypotheses (that can be invalidated), but not completely abide by them. PARA In relation, to this, I have noticed that all those working on the Mystery of the bass strings tend to adopt the strongest version of their own hypothesis as to what the mystery string could be, generally denying that other bass types are historical. This may actually be a good thing, as it forces each theoretician to hunt for arguments and clues, and to reinterpret those put forward by the others. However, the most likely possibility is that there were at least a few competing bass string types (and even lute construction solutions: eg 12c extensions), that some may have found a niche market (spring ropes, and possibly Lang Lays, on very thick basses, because of their excellent high frequency content), while others may have been more broadly adopted (eg loaded, at least for a time, because of their better bass performance on shorter instruments, Charles Mouton etc.), before being replaced by demifilA(c), and those by full-wirewounds. PARA If there was not this competetive edge to string theory I feel our knowledeg would be even smaller than it is today. PARA I will return to this issue, when I attempt to present Charles Besnainou's Spring strings (which should be compared to George Stoppani's Lang Lay), when CB's article is ready in English. Best wishes Anthony ---- Message d'origine ---- >De : "JarosAAaw Lipski" <[email protected]> >A : "[email protected] >> / [email protected]/ " <[email protected]> >Objet : [LUTE] Re: Switching between gut and synthetics [Wirewound/Loaded] London? >Date : 24/02/2010 00:57:12 CET > >Anthony, > > > Jaroslaw > > Just one question, first, did you receive my message from the > lute > > list, or was it quite empty. > > I have been told that some people received a blank message (probably > > with some relief). > > > > > Yes, I received your message. Sorry for not replying straight away. > Sometimes I'm not at home for a longer period of time. > > > Yes but we can see what they were trying to do by looking at > instrument > > structure, not so easilly by looking at strings, as there are not > many > > available, except the Mest string. > > > > > > > > We can see from the sympathetic stringing that they were indeed > trying > > to obtain more sustain, but they could have just put them on the > bass > > end, if it was only bass sustain they were interested in. > > > > I didn't say they were interested only in bass sustain. I was talking > about bass strings because this is how our conversation began, but you > are right that they were trying to enhance sonority of lutes in general. > > > > > > But I am not only interested in the question at a practical level. I > do > > happen to be interested in the whole Bass string mystery question. In > > relation to that, we can also discuss the Lang Lay rope solution of > > George, the Spring rope solution of Charles, as well as HT and low > > tension, or Mimmo's loaded solution. All these hopefully, along with > > wire wounds can give more varied performances, but actually, I am > also > > interested in the theoretical debate. > > PARA > > I know that first and foremost, you are a practical musician, so this > > may not interest you quite so much, but personally I wouldlisten to > the > > general argumentation, even if the strings were not makeable at > > present. I am glad there are attempts at realizing them that do work, > > but I read archeological discussions, that have no obvious practical > > repercussions, and enjoy the reasoning, per se. > > > I am not sure why you have this impression that I am not interested in > solving the mystery of historical strings, on the contrary this is one > of my favourite topics as you can see, because type of stringing has > very big influence on lute's sound. I'm just not so convinced about what > we already have. > Anyway, thank you for interesting conversation. > > Best wishes > > Jaroslaw > > > > Thanks again for making le think. > > All the best > > Anthony > > > All the best > > > > > > Jaroslaw > > > > > I certainly d > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > [1][3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > -- > > > > References > > > > 1. [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > > >
-- References 1. http://tinyurl.com/ya22s6s 2. http://tinyurl.com/ydxjkrt 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
