Dear Valery
I know of at least one modern professional lutenist, living near
me, who has changed to all gut (including expensive loaded basses on
two of his Baroque lutes), this in spite of the price, just to achieve
an improved sound, particularly because he felt wound basses just do
not sound right.
I frequently hear him play, and I can assure you that his sound
signature is made up of his touch, his string choice and his choice of
lute (and of course these are not independant). His sound is very
different from that of other players I know, using synthetics, and
different (to my ears) from his own sound when he used synthetics.
Now, I am not condemning those that go the synthetic way. There are
compromises in all choices, including when we choose all gut. I do
hope, however, that future advances in synthetic stringing remove the
need for wirewounds. I know many learn to live with them (seeking out
old tarnished copper ones that are a little less bright, or Aquilas
that have a very thick nylgut core), but I do think this is a far more
audible problem here than with the present synthetic top strings
(particularly now that the new Nylgut will be even closer to gut)
Roman may be correct in saying that, in certain accoustic conditions,
it would be very hard to hear the difference between nylgut tops and
gut, but I think we can all hear the slightly silver-blue shimmering
sound of metal wirewounds.
Now, many gut users do stick with them in spite of this, so I am not
saying it is a simple problem to resolve; but personally (and I agree
that is my personal perception) I feel loaded strings, or gimped (as
used by Ed) are a far better compromise.
%
Indeed, I do think it is good for musicians to remain open to trying
different stringing even if, as some say, stringing might be only 5% of
a musician's touch. I don't actually agree with that evaluation; but
let us admit it. Wouldn't you agree that music is all in the "nuance",
and that this 5% could be the determining element that really makes a
performance.
%
Yes, I have heard superb performances from POD using wirewounds, but I
constantly play his old LP AS76 and prefer his all gut stringing there.
I can't say whether his recent recordings are problematic, because of
his string choices or because of his choice of sound engineer, but I
suspect it might be both. I admit that this is my ear and my taste, and
I would not of course consider myself a more competent musical judge
than POD, who made these choices, knowing what is best for his present
style of play, and I would defend his right to make to do so. I am not
against a wide variation in playing styles and musical goals. It may be
a good thing that some players are more concerned with historical
issues (as well as musicality), while others are just concerned with
musicality (with a wide range in between these extremes).
I remember in the late 70s superb discussions on this topic in the
Early Music review of the time, where you could find very similar
discussions to those we are having today.
I think this is musically healthy, and not a waste of time, as you seem
to suggest.We have both made our choices, no doubt, but there are young
students reading this list, who will perhaps feel as excited as I did,
when I first read those pioneering debates in the EMR. Let us try to
keep up that pioneering open spirit.
%
Best regards
Anthony
Can we imagine at the renaissance-baroque time if they had choice to
play
with nice sounding strings, but so expensive, fragile and difficult to
stay
in tune, or less expensive strings, staying in tune and lasting longer,
(and
even sounding louder and not so bad) what would have been their choice
?
I don't know for them, I know for me (and I know some have different
opinion...)
Don't forget the quality of sound is also very much the way we pluck
the
strings (perhaps more than the material and quality of strings...)
So much talk about this subject. Lets just spend this time playing,
than
cutting hairs (or strings) in four (in the longer side) ;-)
Valery
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la
part
de Martyn Hodgson
Envoye : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 15:06
A : Edward Martin; Anthony Hind; JosephMayes
Cc : [email protected]
Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be incorrect to
say we don't have any idea whatsover.
Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon' were
not,
which is the point at issue.
MH
From: Mayes, Joseph <[email protected]>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
To: "Edward Martin" <[email protected]>, "Martyn Hodgson"
<[email protected]>, "Anthony Hind" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 13:04
Just to be contrary, I should point out that we have no idea how
lutes
sounded. Admittedly, carbon fiber was not all that prevalent in the
renaissance.
Joseph Mayes
On 10/6/10 7:37 AM, "Edward Martin" <[[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the note, Marytn. I agree with you, totally. For the
most part, I have played gut exclusively for the past 18 years or so,
as the sound is so beautiful, not to mention that it _is_ the way
lutes sounded.
ed
At 02:01 AM 10/6/2010, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Dear Anthony,
This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to
hear
something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they
had.
Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason
to
suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in
short a
material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence
thicker (and
plummier sounding), strings.
Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which
you
refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite
like
the modern guitar type tone......
regards
M.
--- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind <[2][email protected]>
wrote:
From: Anthony Hind <[3][email protected]>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
To: "Edward Martin" <[[email protected]>
Cc: [5][email protected]
Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
Dear Ed and All
For the reason you state below :
%
The density of carbon is so much
more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
0.38
or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
certainly more sharp sounding.
ed
%
two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic
strings
for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost),
and who
are
ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for,
have
adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for
their top
strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore,
sweeter
warmer
sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high
density
KF
carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
slightly
higher density nylon.
%
They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close
to
gut),
but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which
presumably
has
been resolved with the latest version)..
%
In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which
is
achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not
exist
in
diameters suitable for the lute.
It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable
diameter
(0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon
Powerline
Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which
might be
suitable.
(for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf
casting)
%
FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of
densities
(which I have not checked out):
%
titanium nylon :1.04
nylon: 1.12
perlon: 1.22
nylgut: 1.3
gut: 1.36
KF pvf: 1.81
%
FranAS:ois actually sent me a trial string for my Renaissance
lute,
but
I never got round to trying it out, myself. I had just begun
experimenting a Kathedral gut top string at the time, so I
passed it
on
to a friend who was using a nylon top string, and I believe he
found
the Titanium Nylon quite good, but a little "too sweet".
Nevertheless,
he kept it on for a time, so it may not have been at all bad
to his
taste.
%
As you say, string density determines the diameter, and
presumably,
all
things being equal, 'thinner than nylon' could lead to a
sharper
tone,
while thicker could lead to a sweeter one. However, FranAS:ois
Pizette
claimed he heard the carbon top string as "colder", and the
titanium
nylon as "warmer".
Nevertheless, relative top string thickness also plays a role
in
terms
of feel and playability. It is not easy to "dig into" a thin
string,
although an over thick string could possibly become too
damped.
%
A comparison between Alliance Savrez carbon and Addario
Titanium-nylon
can be heard here on a Ukelele in this You/Tube video (if you
have
the
patience, as there are two other strings tested):
[1][1][6][1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
%
One player's comments on this test seem interesting. He says
it is
more
the feel of the Titanium Nylon he prefers than the sound
difference
with the Savarez:
"You were the one that goti>>? me into Savarez strings, though
I
still
prefer my D'Addrios only because they are thicker and give me
a
little
more "feel" under my fingers." (a Ukele player)
%
Is this not why some Baroque lutenist gut users prefer a lower
diapason
(say 392 over 415, with the same tension). This also gives a
thicker
top string, with more material to "dig into"?
%
I think this question may be just as interesting for gut as
for
synthetics users.
While personally, I have been experimenting with the sound and
feel
of
gut in relation to hypotheses about historic strings, I am
happy to
report on these synthetic string user's experiments,
attempting to
achieve a better sound and playability with their choice of
strings.
Best regards
Anthony
---- Message d'origine ----
De : "Edward Martin" <[2][[email protected]>
A : "Edward Mast" <[3][8][email protected]>;
"Roman Turovsky" <[4][9][email protected]>
Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
Date : 04/10/2010 15:10:06 CEST
Copie A : "Paul Kieffer" <[5][10][email protected]>;
"EUGENE BRAIG IV" <[6][11][email protected]>;
[7][12][email protected]
No, it would have too much tension. The density of carbon is so
much
more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
0.38
or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
certainly more sharp sounding.
ed
At 07:50 AM 10/4/2010, Edward Mast wrote:
The .40-.41 mm diameter line sounds like it would be suitable for
the top course, yes?
Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
e-mail: [8][[email protected]
voice: (218) 728-1202
[2][9][14][2]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
[3][10][15][3]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
To get on or off this list see list information at
[4][11][16][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. [12][17][5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
2.
[13][18][6]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
3. [14][19][7]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
4.
[15][20][8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. [21][9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
2.
[22][10]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
m
3.
[23][11]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
4.
[24][12]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=r.turov...@verizon
.net
5.
[25][13]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=paul.nicholas.kief
fer@
gmail.com
6.
[26][14]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
7.
[27][15]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected].
edu
8.
[28][16]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
m
9. [29][17]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
10. [30][18]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
11. [31][19]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
12. [32][20]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
13. [33][21]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
14. [34][22]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
15. [35][23]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
[37][24]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
[38][25]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
--
References
1.
[26]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
2.
[27]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
3.
[28]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
4.
[29]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
5.
[30]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
6. [31]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
7.
[32]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
8. [33]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
9.
[34]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
10.
[35]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=paul.nicholas.kieffer@
gmail.com
11. [36]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
12.
[37]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
13.
[38]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
14. [39]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
15. [40]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
16. [41]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
17. [42]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
18. [43]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
19. [44]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
20. [45]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
21. [46]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
22.
[47]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
23. [48]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
24.
[49]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
25.
[50]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=paul.nicholas.kieffer@
gmail.com
26. [51]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
27.
[52]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
28.
[53]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
29. [54]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
30. [55]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
31. [56]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
32. [57]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
33. [58]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
34. [59]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
35. [60]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
36.
[61]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
37. [62]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
38. [63]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
--
References
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
2. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
3. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
6. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
7. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
10. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
11. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
12. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
13. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=paul.nicholas.kieffer
14. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
15. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
16. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
17. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
18. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
19. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
20. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
21. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
22. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
23. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
24. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
25. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
26. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
27. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
28. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
29. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
30. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
31. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
32. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
33. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
34. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
35.
http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
36. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
37. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
38. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
39. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
40. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
41. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
42. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
43. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
44. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
45. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
46. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
47. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
48. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
49. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
50.
http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
51. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
52. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
53. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
54. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
55. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
56. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
57. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
58. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
59. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
60. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
61. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
62. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
63. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
