Anthony, thank you for the morning reading. Much refreshing, vs the normal "'let's kill 70 million people because they are jews... mm muslims... mm... smell funny... don't use our money" morning type of shock.
I probably should have stated right away that i do not enjoy the sound of plastic, it gives me a cringe, no matter, strings or frets under the best gut or silk strings, and i allow myself a guilty pleasure to just turn away in case i hear it. And my degree of tolerance is much much lower then many people i know. My apologies if i appeared somehow supporting them. Of course i do not jump on people with demands to change those darn things (we are speaking of the instruments - music - technique in harmony designed for the natural materials, i do not even look at the stradivari-amati-storioni owners. I pity the instruments, as they were castrated... mm.. rather viagraed, but do not pity the players), because, where do you really begin? My grump, i should admit, is based precisely on one of the elements of your response: the missed opportunities. It is the damn competitive consumer capitalism cage we are all locked in, i tell you, it poisons the people and a possibility to resolve rather simple matters, unless they bring the profit (or often just a degree of survival). And the very people, who, being a fantastic people they are, are capable of working out a variety of fantastic solutions, are forced to make their survival living, and even compete with each other where cooperation is needed, while the small tidbits of solution found, rot away from no use. And where this whole thread started - the cheap (not in the moneys spent) publicity stunt without any relation to any serious work already done in the string research. NO matter. The important point is - you are preaching to the choir, Anthony, and my apology if i gave you an impression that you have to. alexander r. On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:57:12 +0000 (GMT) Anthony Hind <[email protected]> wrote: > Alexander, last evening at our lute salon, I met Charles Besnainou who I > haven't seen for some time, but who briefly taught me how to make one of his > spring strings.These were intended as improvements on Ephraim Segerman's > early gut rope strings. > > Briefly, these are a special lang lay rope; and as you probably know, in lang > lay, both the rope itself and the strands which make up the rope have the > same lay (or twist) direction. This gives a highly flexible rope, which > should be good for basses and Meanes, but it is prone to unravelling (it is > often used for harnessing a ship in a gale, where normal lay may break.) In > normal lay, which Segerman used (as also in Pistoy tress), the twist in the > rope is in the opposite direction of the twist in the strands. > As it tends to unravel, I believe, it is frequently necessary to bind a lang > lay rope together, using tar etc. Georges Stopani, at his string conference > (a couple of years ago), told us he did use a lang lay technique for some of > his thicker gut ropes, obtaining a very flexible but non-elastic string. > Charles Besnainou went eveven further, however, and found that it was > possible to make both a flexible and a stretchy lang lay rope, by imposing a > kink structure during the lang lay, by using a bobin pressed against the > strands as the rope was being formed. The result is something like the rubber > band on a toy plane when it is ready for flight. This bass string does have > excellent harmonicity (and yes he can use nylon, carbon, cotton, jute, and > also gut, but it must be wet gut). > > However, Charles has met with similar lack of enthusiasm as has Segeraman. He > makes strings for a handful of enthusiasts. It is true that his ultra low > impedance (lower even than Venice loaded) calls for a completely new playing > technique, as does the low tension method used by T. Satoh, and not many > musicians are willing to make that sort of engagement (although one or two > have actually learnt to make them themselves, as perhaps some on this list > have managed to use your recipe for "boiling-up" silk strings. > % > > However, to my knowledge both Segerman's original rope, and Charles spring > rope, can only be used for bass strings. On Charles' lute stringing there is > no type difference between the top strings and the Meanes. > > Although, yesterday he did tell me that some "carbon" strings are already > more supple than others (Charles was the person who brought KF to the notice > of Savarez) but I think he uses the supple ones in all positions. > Nevertheless, if you accept Carbon for Bass strings (as you seem to be doing > in the case of Segerman), and this material is of course extruded. What > reason would there be for not using extruding methods based on spider's > "technology" to increase the flexibility of such polymers specifically for > Meanes.Once you accept the use of synthetic materials there is no reason to > limit the way they are produced, unless of course you can show there is a > danger for health, or for the health of the planet (there has been talk of > nano technology bringing dangers, but I am not informed on that topic). > I can understand if > you have a wish for only naturally ocurring filaments to be used, for > historic musical string (but in your Segerman example this does not seem to > be the case). I can also understand if, as a > vegetarian, or person worried about animal welfare, you may want no animal > products used in string making (which I seemed to understand in one part of > your message). This is a perfectly understandable and defensible > position; and in this case, if you also refuse synthetic extruding, I agree > only natural vegetable fibre would then be available for string making > (although, I think Aquila do extrude a sort of bionylon from plant extracts). > > However, while meat production continues, there is no moral > reason for not using gut by-products for strings. > % > > As I said in my previous message, many musicians do just stay with the > readilly available standardized synthetics and wirewounds (strings made by a > few gurus do not seem to appeal), but some may be willing to move over to > fairly standard strings that are closer to what we believe > historic strings may have sounded. > The argument for wanting this is that the microdynamics of "historic" strings > (or strings that get close to this) better help us interpret the music as it > was composed. T. Satoh through DvO tell us that his music composed on > synthetics sound better on the same strings with which they were composed, > and that this is true also of his gut composed music. > Some music, is more tonally structured than pitch structured: I am thinking > of the French Baroque lutenists who searched out the best lutes and went for > new tunings and no doubt the best strings in order to develop a new sound. > Here, the timbral structure is surely almost as important as the melodic > structure, and at least for this music getting close to this tonal structure > seems an important part of the interpretation. > > It follows that Roman T. who composes on wirewounds (I believe), should not > go over to loaded synthetics, unless he desires to compose new music (DvO in > a recent lute news, gives excellent reasons relating to their microdynamics, > which perhaps even NNG does not achieve, for sticking with gut stringing for > historic performance). > % > > That these musicians might all have adopted modern wirewounds and carbons, if > they had been around, is actually no argument. That may be true (although, I > doubt it, as they apparently took a long time to adopt demifile), but as such > technology wasn't around, their music was composed on what ever strings > existed then; it would thus, surely, be better for players not using gut, to > have synthetics as close as possible to the state of affairs at that time. > This could perhaps be the point of most contesion (I do agree), just how much > do we know about historic strings? and won't synthesizing strings, as we > believe they existed, kill research on historic strings (fossilizing our > knowledge as it is at present)? Well personally, I hope historic research > will continue. > > It is true that the only research I know of right now, is that of Dan Larson, > who together with Ed Martin is attempting to develop pure gut rope basses > that will go down at least to the 10-D course on a 67cm Frei lute. They have > a marvellous research set-up in that Ed is playing on Dan's lutes and with > his strings, and they can tweak the stringing and indeed the lute making to > get those strings to sing. > In his previous excellent CD of Conradi and Kellner, I believe he was using > gimped at least up to 10-D. > > Well, Damian also told us that he was working on a twist that would make pure > gut HT also work down to 11c on a 67cm lute; I know his strings are said to > be superb, but I haven't heard news from him on this list. > > At the UK string meeting (as said above) we did hear from Georges Stoppani > about his lang lay basses, but how good these are and whether they are > readilly available, I don't know. It may be that there is much more research > going on than we know about. At that conference we also saw a superbly > flexible string from MP, but his direct research on gut stringing does seem > to be at a standstill for the moment, in favour of his synthetic research. > > I am certainly in favour of continued historic research,and believe that > different approaches to the same problems must be a good thing; confronting > hypotheses (and "controversy") may lead to different practical stringing > leading to greater diversity: e.g. supple Ht basses (Damian), lang lay twine > basses (Georges), ultra supple tress and gimped basses (Dan and Ed), low > impedance loaded twine basses (Mimmo), low tension Pitoys Satoh, along side > less historical wirewound synthetics (see a couple of examples below): > > Ed Martin, gimped and pistoy basses: > > http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/martin-allemande/ > T. Satoh concert of music "style brisé", on LSA pages (extended lute, low > tension pistoy basses): > http://tinyurl.com/2vxntm > Dufaut courante > http://tinyurl.com/2rsk5p > > % > > We don't want all lutenists playing with the same voice. Clearly this can't > have been the case during the renaissance and baroque periods; there are > traces of disagreements on lute types, 11c as opposed to 12c (criticised in > Burwell, more or lass praised in Mace) and these most probably imply > differences in stringing. On the 12c lute the step up on the extension can > allow for a single thickness of pure gut across the basses, as used by Paul > Beier in his recent Reussner CD (where perhaps the 11c may have had a the > same stable core, but with a similar step-up in loading, this is my feeling). > 12c Rauwolf lute with pure gut extended basses: > > http://www.musico.it/lute/media/reusner1.mp3 > 11c Warwick Frei lute with loaded gut basses: > > http://luthiste.com/downloads/Mouton.mp3 > % > > Nevertheless, I actually hope that Aquila's NNG research may give feed back > for historic strings. This is not entirely impossible, Charles Besnainou's > spring string, he first made with carbon and only later was able to make it > with gut, and found evidence of its use both on scorpions catapaults and on > the basses of bass violins. > % > > Whether in earlier times lutensists may have just used what was lying around, > as you suggest, is of course a possibility, but not what comes out of > Dowland, Mace etc... But as these were almost "manuals", it is possible that > they don't show what was actually happening in the "field". There are indeed > indications that some strings may have been silk (Dowlands Gansars, perhaps, > and possibly others). > > Research by Charles B. does indicate that spring ropes used for catapaults, > may have "migrated" to musical instruments, in the same way as Yew did from > stocks for bows, and there are clear indications that when sinews or gut was > not available for catapaults, Scorpion masters even resorted to using women's > hair, so in times of penury who knows what might have been used on lutes. > > % > Thanks for the discussion, controversy can be quite refreshing. > > Regards > Anthony > > > > ________________________________ > De : alexander <[email protected]> > À : Anthony Hind <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Envoyé le : Vendredi 9 mars 2012 19h19 > Objet : Re: Why strings out of spider's thread ( blind objective?) > > Well, Anthony. > Normally i avoid controversy, and especially causing one, but i would bravely > go ahead and claim that all the string users in the > medieval-renaissance-baroque times were, in fact, the "syntheticicists" (vs. > the "guttists"). May be there were a few (the same relative percentage as > now?.. gut-vs synthetics) who used some exotic strings (silk for example), > but the majority were using just what was around, as reliable and practical > as it was. Of course, some mental acrobatics can be done to prove that if in > fact nylon and wirewounds were available at the time, they would have proudly > dismissed it and stuck with gut, even if it was 7 times more expensive. > And i am sure this point was made by someone already. > As well as one asking - anyone wondered what the cow (or sheep) thinks on the > subject (encourage more lutanists to stay with gut) (that being besides Doug > Adams in the restaurant at the end of the universe). > One thing is certain, the process will go as it goes and come to inevitable > conclusion, disregarding us, the old farts. > As an old fart myself, my complaint is not that people prefer this kind of > string to another, this kind of sound to another, this kind of phrasing (or > mostly lack of any), or degree of immersion into the atmosphere of the period > whose music is being played. My complaint is that... heck, it looks i do not > have any... > Never mind. > > Regarding the "could possibly be achieved by simulating the spider's > extrusion technique (with the extrudor) rather than just varying the > ingedients", it is even simpler then this. Let me tell you (or remind you in > case you already know) a story. > Ephraim Segermann in his shop used to make twisted nylon strings, using thin > filaments, twisting them as gut or silk would normally be twisted and then > heat treating them to make them smooth and uniform. He told me they sounded > extremely well, and in blind test no lute player could tell them apart from > gut strings (dangerous thing, those blind tests). He also told me, he found > no interest whatsoever from lute players and discontinued making them. > I do believe his claim of the sound, for a simple fact i have one of those > (made the same way by myself) on my silk strung lute on top, so i can go to > a440 if need be. And my son, who makes living (and what a fat living it is!) > playing his lute, uses one of these for his top, after rejecting mono-nylon > and nylgut. He says it sounds live and round, and bodied, with clarity and > transparency. And all at a440. For about 8 months to the string. > The point is - the simple twisting and braiding techniques with a following > heat gun - clothes iron rolling will give some great results using already > available materials. No need for "simulating the spider's extrusion > technique" whatsoever. > I am sure, if there are comments to this, some of them will force me to > finally voice my complaint... > > Regards, > a.r. > > On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:56:27 +0000 (GMT) > Anthony Hind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Alexander > > As a gut string user, and ready to try silk if it was easilly > > available, I am not actually advocating for lutenists and other > > musicians to go over to synthetic strings (or natural spider strings). > > Indeed, I would hope improvements in research on historic "natural" > > strings might encourage more lutenists to stay with gut or silk. I must > > make that clear, and I suppose I should do so whenever discussing a > > synthetic string. > > % > > On the other hand, knowing that many lutenists will never use "natural" > > strings, and that a number only use "natural" strings for recording, I > > wonder whether it is not better that these synthetics strings, be as > > close as possible in behaviour to what we believe were the qualities of > > historic strings (but also seeing some dangers in such research). > > Gut strings can be twisted and treated with chemicals to become more > > flexible, and suitable for Meanes, but synthetic gut can't be (or at > > least I don't think it can), flexiblity must be part of the polymer > > structure (due to the ingredients or to the extruding). I was simply > > thinking that this could possibly be achieved by simulating the > > spider's extrusion technique (with the extrudor) rather than just > > varying the ingedients. This might actually result in a synthetic > > string closer to the flexible gut Meanes. > > However, for me this is still science fiction, I just wondered whether > > according to you it was a possibility, not at all advocating anything, > > and certainly not advocating genetic modification. > > Sorry not to have been more clear, I was not thinking about using > > natural spider silk, which has never to my knowledge been a historic > > ingredient for strings, just improving the structure of synthetic > > Meanes. > > % > > I realize improvements in synthetics may make it too easy for those who > > haven't already left natural strings. I have mixed feelings about that. > > Regards > > Anthony To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
