I can't see any evidence for wound strings on the violin for the early baroque, but if there is, I would be interested to see it. I don't see any point in using equal tension strings if some are wound, as there will be a big difference in the string crossing. The players were obviously very concerned about the change in sound during string crossing, which is why they used gut. A slight, graded difference in tension I'm sure would have been fine and is supported both by iconography and string hole diameters, I can't see maintaining the string tension, for example, for a six course instrument, and even many of the violins (only four strings) do not show excessively large diameters on the the fourth course. Therefore, one would have to assume a different stringing system for members of the viol and lute family, which seems problematic based on the sources.
From the evidence that I see, it is more likely that there was slight drop off in tension approaching the bass, and that no wound strings were used untill much later. With loaded strings, the tension could have been closer. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the post, but "all gut" being described as "limited application" would seem to be exactly the opposite of the historical record, unless there is some missing evidence. The way I would phrase it is: "for the baroque violin, all gut, nearly universal application." Obviously, at some point wound strings started to appear, which were wound differently than today. However that does not mean that players stopped using all gut strings Notable examples of "all gut" Mersenne 1635 Talbot, 1690s Stradivarius Tartini, 1734 Leopold Mozart, 1756 Gunzelheimer, 1855 Hey, good enough for Stradivarius, Tartini and Mozart--no slouches there. There are however, some woundies mentioned from 1730-1750 in Germany. However, mentions by Majer (c1732) really have to take a back seat I think to references made by professional players. Everyone should read Majer for continuo, however. "wound" strings in the late baroque and early classical period would have been mainly of the "open" type, with spaced windings--these sound very different than the strings used today with closed windings. I would say as a broad generalization, for most of the baroque, all gut was the rule, and there were a few exceptions in Germany at the end of the period. Brossard (1712) mentions it in his writing as an option, but there is no real concordance for that, so we can assume, I think, the strings existed but were not widespread. Also, for a pitch of 392, it is of course a somewhat different story, in France and Rome, and we know that they used also a pitch as low as 370, so then you are talking about a different note, in France. There must also have been a few people experimenting with any new string that came out, just as we do today. On my "to do" list--early photographs of famous violin players from the 19th century! Respectfully, dt At 08:40 AM 4/1/2010, you wrote: > From Oliver Webber, who is not on this list: > >Begin forwarded message: > > > here's David Tayler's response below, with my comments pasted in > in bold. Thanks very much for your help! > > > > Oliver > > > > From David Tayler, March 26th (IIRC) > > > > Yes, I know of just a few in Europe who are doing this. I'm not sure > > I would say "quite a few", it is still rare, especially here in the US. > >It's probably worth distinguishing between "all gut", which has a >much more limited application, and "equal tension", which can >include wound strings, but which also generally implies the use of >much thicker gut strings, and can be applied up to 1760 or so. In >the UK, playing with equal tension (or near-equal - there are some >live debates about the distinction between equal feel and equal >tension) is quite common; in continental Europe there are only a few >ensembles who do this (De Swaen in Amsterdam, and recently one of >the big French orchestras (I forget which) strung up in this way for >a project), but it is gaining popularity. > > > There are some nice pictures on the website of relative string sizes. > > I prefer Mimmo's gallery of the originals, but it is good to > compare what we are using with what they had back then. > >Definitely! > > > I would slightly differ, or amplify, on the statement about some > musicians using all gut in the 18th century--it is instrument > > specific. > >Mea culpa - I should have written "violinists"... > > > On the violin, all gut, unwound strings were the standard > > into the late 19th century, and even the early 20th century. > >..but I wouldn't go that far. There is said to be a rogue piece of >evidence for all-gut violin stringing from c.1850, but if it exists >(I haven't seen it) it is most definitely an exception. Every other >source I have seen from the 1780s onwards gives a wound G string as >the only possibility. Gut D strings, on the other hand, were in >common use until after the 2nd world war, even though some >violinists had abandoned them in the 20s and 30s. But the wound G >has been the uncontested standard at least since the 1780s and >probably a little earlier. > > > >-- > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
