On Oct 7, 2012, at 3:52 PM, JarosÅaw Lipski <[email protected]> wrote:
> No offence I hope? I really wouldn't like to take part in an exchange of > arguments that go far from the subjects most of the lute-listers are > interested in. The listers should be interested in the problems of interpreting historical sources. They aren't all created equal. It's another question whether either of us are saying anything worth saying on the point. > However I am forced to answer some of your arguments. Well, I hope the person holding a gun to your head leaves soon... > Firstly, most of the expressions I used were exact quotations of your post. Obviously not, as my list showed. > I only added some that were logical consequences of what you wrote, You're entitled to think so if you like, but don't try to convince me. I'm pretty precise with words, when I'm not spreading typos all over the page. > Secondly, Mace had built the dyphone. Please read carefully on page 203: I read it just before I sent the message in which I said I didn't think he'd built it, which is why I used the expression "notwithstanding what he wrote." I don't believe everything I read. > Thirdly, having an assumption that so many people lack credibility and > therefore one can not seriously take into consideration books from the past > written by a man who showed some signs of eccentricity is rather not > practical IMO I didn't say his book couldn't be taken seriously. I just don't think everything in it should be taken seriously. > And finally, yes the whole discussion began from Benjamin and his > observations on behavior of gut strings versus synthetics, but I think he > explained recently that he was misunderstood, because he meant that > synthetics are in fact more stable, however gut reaches certain, lets call it > a state of equilibrium faster. I can confirm this opinion. I play both gut > and synthetics. It takes more time for synthetics before they start to behave > normally, but then, they do not react to changes of humidity, only > temperature. His first message did not say that; indeed, there would have been no point, since most of us already know this from experience. This is what he said: > I am playing on a modern-strung theorbo belonging to a student of mine for > rehearsals of a "Fairy Queen" while I impatiently await the arrival of my new > "double luth" in some weeks (more on this giraffe anon). I am simply aghast > at how badly carbon strings go out of tune, even though they are "not > supposed to". (Nylon/nylgut fares better.) Indeed, the (ugh) overwound > Savarez "guitar" bass strings are the worst offenders of all, going madly out > of tune sometimes: not surprising they are so sensitive given how metal is > such a superb conducting material. The tuning got so sticky I actually took > the instrument to a lutemaker since I thought it had to be peg slippage, but > no. And of course, with all these different modern materials, the different > string types are going out if tune differently. Superb. > > I just can't believe I forgot about how difficult tuning synthetics can be. > But more importantly, it leads me to question what the point of playing on > synthetics is: after all, the reason why players use them is since they are > supposed to bally well stay in tune... and I am really not so sure given my > current experience that they do this better than gut. Someone who reads this message to say that synthetics go out of tune more than gut would be understanding exactly what Benjamin wrote. If he meant to say exactly that, it just shows that you have to read written sources critically. If he didn't mean to say exactly that, it just shows that you have to read written sources critically. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
