There is no indication (naver mind proof) that our gut string-making
technology were in any way authentic.
RT
On 10/6/2012 4:44 PM, Anthony Hind wrote:
You would have had a hard time back with the ancients ...
On the other hand, some have said how they have tried sanding
synthetics (carbons actually) to reduce their tendancy to what they
have called a "bell" note. I don't doubt, however, that we all have
personal preferences, and there is a place for choice. I was not the
author of the title of this question : ie "what is the point of
synthetics", I was merely discussing the question of relative in
tuneness with different string types on the same lute or across
instruments.
You may also have noticed that I have often reported on research on
synthetic strings about which I happend to have heard. I would very
much like to see a synthetic string type which works for trebles,
meanes and basses, making wirewounds unnecessary and which have the
homogenous sound quality that equivalent gut stringing has.
Who knows I might even be tempted to use it myself, but in any case I
would have the pleasure of hearing many more lutes without wirewounds
(although I am hijacking Benjamin's thread, and side tracking the
question, for which I apologize).
Regards
Anthony
__________________________________________________________________
De : Roman Turovsky [1]<[email protected]>
A : Anthony Hind [2]<[email protected]>
Cc : [3]"[email protected]" [4]<[email protected]>
Envoye le : Samedi 6 octobre 2012 22h27
Objet : Re: [LUTE] Re: What is the point of synthetics?
I find gut's overtone poverty sensuously insufferable as well.
RT
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 6, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Anthony Hind <[5][email protected]>
wrote:
> I think there may be a sensual texture versus perfect intonation
> perference that may draw some, while others shy away. However, that
was
> not the issue raised by Benjamin, but relative rather than absolute
> pitch (I think).
> Regards
> Anthony
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> De : Roman Turovsky <[6][email protected]>
> AEUR : JarosAA'aw Lipski <[7][email protected]>
> Cc : "[8][email protected]" <[9][email protected]>
> EnvoyA(c) le : Samedi 6 octobre 2012 21h14
> Objet : [LUTE] Re: What is the point of synthetics?
> The beauty of gut sound is greatly compromised by gut's insufferable
> intonation, especially on the octaved courses.
> RT
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 6, 2012, at 2:39 PM, JarosAA'aw Lipski
<[1][10][email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Yes, varnishing helps, but doesn't totally stop a string absorbing
> humidity. It rather protects from wear and tear.I tried them. They
> sound duller, inferior to normal gut and are not historical strings.
> This is what MP writes about them on his website:
>> "Gut strings are varnished in order to protect the strings from wear
> and tear. The varnishing of strings is not a historical process; the
> earliest samples of varnished strings we have found only date back
to
> the 1920-30s. A varnished string has a somewhat duller sound and the
> attack under the bow is slightly more difficult and liable to
whistle".
>> When I use gut I do it for it's beautifull sound, so the idea of
> something that has neither advantages of synthetics nor gut doesn't
> really suit me.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Jaroslaw
>>
>>
>> WiadomoAA>Ae/= napisana przez Sam Chapman w dniu 6 paAA-o 2012, o
> godz. 17:34:
>>
>>> Well, there's gut and there's varnished gut. The latter may not
> have
>>> been used historically, but it absorbs much less humidity from the
> air
>>> and sweat from the fingers, therefore staying in tune well,
> maintaining
>>> it's tone quality and lasting longer. That said, I've not had much
>>> experience using varnished gut in concerts, but am now considering
> it
>>> as possibly a good compromise. It's certainly closer to plain gut
> in
>>> terms of feel and sound than any kind of synthetic string.
> Benjamin,
>>> what kind of gut do you use?
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> Sam
>>> On 6 October 2012 12:26, Jaros^3aw Lipski
> <[1][2][11][email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it isn't a new problem. This is what Mattheson writes (1727)
>>> answering Baron in his book Ephorus, naming disadvantages of the
>>> lute:
>>> "Because of the many strings, and special strings (gut-strings)
>>> which depend more on stable temperature and humidity than other
>>> instruments (to stay in tune)."
>>> We don't know how gut strings of the past differed from modern
> ones,
>>> but just one thing shouldn't be disregarded - gut absorbs
> humidity
>>> from the air, synthetics do not. Why synthetics go out of tune?
>>> Because of the temperature differences and bigger elasticity.
>>> From my experience I can only say that after changing a Nylgut
>>> string it takes quite a lot of time before it can be used for a
>>> concert, however then it stays in tune better than gut. But
>>> obviously it is possible to play a concert on gut strings
> providing
>>> that it is not in a very humid place (or one with changing air
>>> conditions).
>>> I wouldn't mix gut with synthetics though, as each material goes
>>> different way. So my advice is use either synthetics or gut
>>> depending on your wallet's size :)
>>> Best regards
>>> Jaroslaw
>>> WiadomoP:ae napisana przez Mark Probert w dniu 6 pa 1/4 2012, o
>>> godz. 04:17:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then, isn't there the old adage of lute players spending half
their
>>>> time tuning and the other half playing out of tune? This is not a
>>> new
>>>> problem, though I do believe that synthetics help.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> mark.
>>>
>>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>>
>>>> [2][3][12]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sam Chapman
>>> Oetlingerstrasse 65
>>> 4057 Basel
>>> (0041) 79 530 39 91
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>> 1. mailto:[4][13][email protected]
>>> 2. [5][14]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
> --
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[15][email protected]
> 2. mailto:[16][email protected]
> 3. [17]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 4. mailto:[18][email protected]
> 5. [19]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
--
References
1. mailto:[email protected]
2. mailto:[email protected]
3. mailto:[email protected]
4. mailto:[email protected]
5. mailto:[email protected]
6. mailto:[email protected]
7. mailto:[email protected]
8. mailto:[email protected]
9. mailto:[email protected]
10. mailto:[email protected]
11. mailto:[email protected]
12. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
13. mailto:[email protected]
14. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
15. mailto:[email protected]
16. mailto:[email protected]
17. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
18. mailto:[email protected]
19. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
