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
