Dear ones, I agree, in that waking up, I have the opportunity to read the interest in continuing to discuss lute strings. Thank you to all who have contributed in the discussion. My time this morning is most limited, so I want to quickly make some comments.
Anthony, yes, it is correct that my choice in using gut is for the sound, not to be historically correct. When the "early music" movement started in the 1960's or early 70's, many of the recordings boasted about playing on historically authentic instruments, but many scoffed, stating "They might be authentic, but they certainly do not sound very good". As time progressed, and new artists emerged, they could demonstrate that they were absolutely as gifted performers as the "non-authentic" counterparts. The same attitude can be applied to the use of strings. In my opinion, the quality of strings today is very, very good, where it may not have been so 30-40 years ago. My choice ti use gut is because of the sound , and how It seems to make the music sing in such a way that one cannot get using plastic and metal. In terms of my recent experimentation, I have a new 11-course Frei, obtained a year ago, and I am using all gut. I was wondering if one could stop the use of metal, i.e. loaded gut or gimped gut, for the basses. So, around 2-3 months ago, I strung the basses in the 6th course, down to the 10th course, using a plain pistoy string, and the results are marvelous! No new fancy procedures in the making of the strings, it is merely using pistoy gut. Initially, I wondered as to how well this would work, but I am now very pleased. It is a softer, but purer sound as compared to metal on that bass, and I prefer these strings. There is a factor that we do not seem to discuss, which is the role of the octave in those basses. The technique also has some subtle changes, which are difficult to describe. Perhaps, as we do not know how historic strings were actually constructed, we have a limited view or opinion on how they sound. Through the marvelous efforts of our string makers Mimmo and Dan, they presented loaded and gimped strings, to brighten the sound of the basses, but on the other hand, i think that this "brightening" may not be necessary, as I discovered when eliminating metal. Our taste in sound has something to do with this, and our attitudes play a role as well. Incidentally, I still have the 11th course in a loaded gut string, that had been a gift of Mimmo. It is an excellent string, but I favor the sound of the Pistoys. I just have not gotten around to trying the 11th course in gut yet. In comparison, I favor non-metal gut basses. Incidentally, there is a new CD, entitled "Relic", by Anders Ericson. He has an absolutely gorgeous tone, and he and I have become cyber friends.Listen to a few clips on: http://www.daphne.se/relic He also uses all-gut, no metal. Listen to the sound, it is quite convincing. Anthony had previously suggested to me that this (use of plain Pistoys) would work well if I have a bass rider, as on the 12 course lutes, but I discovered, on my new 11-course lute, that metal is not necessary to get a great sound. I must go; this is a great discussion. ed At 08:08 AM 3/10/2012, Anthony Hind wrote: > Dear Martin and all > I think your refreshing position is not far from that of many > writing to this list. However, this (perhaps fortunately) does not > always lead to the same string choices. > Many messages I have received have told me that lutenists are first and > foremost interested in sound quality, and only secondly in the historic > question. Their varying tolerance of "in or out" of tuneness versus > texture seems to be the reason for their different string choices. > In your case, it seems this brought you to prefer Sofracob (and I think > I remember Keurschner trebles) over other possibly more textured less > rectified treble gut; while presumably being able to tolerate some > out-of-tuneness in gut basses, rather than support the shimmering > silver of wirewounds. While I seem to remember that for some others, it > was exactly this intonation problem with gut basses which made them > stick with wirewounds: for example Rob M., at one time (I think), > abandonned the gut basses on your Maler lute for just such "intonation" > issues (although I think he may be back with gut basses now). Jaroslaw > L. also gave me almost the same "out-of-tuneness" explanation for > staying with wirewounds, while using gut elsewhere. If I remember > rightly, J.L. was hoping to find gut demifile that would give him good > "intonation" while being reasonably historic. I don't know whether he > managed this. > Even Ed Martin told me, if I remember correctly, that he chose gut > simply because he preferred their sound over synthetics, and that > historicity was only a secondary issue for him > (sorry Ed if this is not in fact the case, I have not looked back over > those mails, which I feel fairly sure I received, so if my memory is > failing, which unfortunately it does seem to do more these days, I > appologize in advance, I also appologize for only choosing the examples > that come swiftly to mind). > % > I would think this is a fairly frequent position, although, perhaps > just as many are only interested in musicality, and convenience, which > brings many to choose all synthetics (that is their personal aesthetic > choice, as some also apparently find synthetics and particularly > wirewounds on lutes, difficult to listen to). > % > I rather hope that better synthetics, closer to what we now have for > gut (even if this is not entirely historic) will allow those who use > gut only for recording to find more stable synthetic equivalents to > what they use in their recording, and for those with perfect pitch, who > would have liked to choose gut, but just can't tolerate any > out-of-tuneness, to be able to choose perfectly "in-tune" synthetic > alternatives (Although synthetics are not an absolute guarantee of > perfect "intonation", and some do manage to keep their gut strings in > tune). > % > Meanwhile, I do have reports from close friends using all gut, who > manage well in concert as well as in recording, so all gut is in fact a > perfectly viable choice. > % > Like yourself, I do have difficulties listening to (and playing on) > lutes with wirewounds (their light construction are not made for this). > I do hope better synthetic basses will allow us to hear POD and others > go "wireless" once more, as he did in some of those early Astree LPs. > Regards > Anthony > __________________________________________________________________ > > De : Martin Shepherd <[email protected]> > A : [email protected] > Envoye le : Samedi 10 mars 2012 10h27 > Objet : [LUTE] Re: Why strings out of spider's thread ( blind > objective?) > Dear All, > As a long-time enthusiast for gut strings I'm beginning to realise that > my attitude may be rather different from most other luteplayers, > whether they use gut or synthetics. > I started with gut (c.1980) because I couldn't stand the sound of > wirewound strings (I still can't). It has been a considerable > disappointment over the years that many makers of gut strings have > given the impression that their strings are like historical ones just > because they're made from the same material: I think it's pretty clear > that the raw material is probably much the same (collagen, after all - > so all the questions about the age of lambs, whether they're castrated > or not etc is probably irrelevant), but equally clear that we know > precious little about how strings were made, and the details of the > manufacture are incredibly important. > So I love my Sofracob strings (alas, hardly any left), machined to > absolute cylindrical perfection, absolutely true, and probably nothing > like a historical gut string! I'm really interested in what historical > strings were like, but also very interested in any substitutes which > might have similar positive properties (complexity of sound, for > instance) without some of the negatives (top of the list being > falseness). When I play on gut strings, I'm not making any claim that > my strings are like historical ones, but I feel the sound is at least > closer to what might have been heard in the past than the "wirewound" > sound. > Martin > To get on or off this list see list information at > [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > >References > > 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/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 http://magnatune.com/artists/edward_martin
