Thanks for the link, Dan. A fascinating insight - particularly the
early stages (that I'd never want to be involved in).
I would guess that the double-twist process has a lot to do with
Gamut's basses being flexible.
One thing that troubles me about the manufacture of gut nowadays is
that 19th and 20th century technologies are being used to avoid false
strings and to polish them into perfect uniformity. These technologies
were not available to the gut makers of the 16th, 17th and 18th
centuries. Shouldn't some string maker be making strings that are as
close to the originals as possible, warts and all? After all, what we
are seeking is true authenticity (aren't we?) rather than a sanitised
version.
I do understand, of course, that this would be not be commercially
viable for a small organisation making their living from the
manufacture and sale of strings - even today most lute players would
buy overwound basses rather than the more authentic gut ones - even if
price was no barrier.
I wonder if there are any amateur string makers out there endeavouring
to work through the process from abbatoire to finished product avoiding
technologies that post-date the 18th century? As with lute making, it
is often the amateur who will be the first to stick their neck out and
build non-mainstream (but authentic) instruments that eventually find
their way into the mainstream.
Kind regards,
Bill
From: Dan Winheld <dwinh...@lmi.net>
To: William Samson <willsam...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: Lute List <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Saturday, 1 December 2012, 5:15
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Gut strings - The elephant in the room
'I'm not too familiar with Gamut's terminology. I know that Mace
describes pistoys as "none other than thick Venice-Catlins, which
are
commonly dyed, with a deep dark red colour." Is that the case?'
Possibly- except that Dan uses no dyes. Plain gutty looking gut, except
for the twists, looks like the others in color, here's his gut page:
[1]http://gamutmusic.squarespace.com/making-gut-stings/
Dan
On 11/30/2012 12:47 PM, William Samson wrote:
> Thanks Dan,
> That's encouraging. I don't think we should be content with
> flexibility in just the basses, though. It may or may not be so
> important for the trebles and means, but the old trebles and means
were
> indeed flexible and I think lute string makers should be trying to
> emulate this throughout the range. When any strings I order come
in
> the form of 'bundles of knots', I'll feel we're approaching
something
> like what the old ones were doing.
>
> I'm not too familiar with Gamut's terminology. I know that Mace
> describes pistoys as "none other than thick Venice-Catlins, which
are
> commonly dyed, with a deep dark red colour." Is that the case?
>
> It looks like things are indeed progressing.
>
> Bill
> From: Dan Winheld <[2]dwinh...@lmi.net>
> To: William Samson <[3]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Cc: Lute List <[4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> Sent: Friday, 30 November 2012, 19:10
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Gut strings - The elephant in the room
> Bill-
> In fact, some of the string makers are well aware of the stiffness
> factor; and have been trying to cope with it, and are coming up
with
> increasingly flexible bass (where of course it matters most)
strings. I
> have recently been able to go to an all gut "Pistoy" of Dan Larson
for
> the 8th course fundamental of my Renaissance lute. About 63 cm,
nominal
> G tenor, AA5, about 1.74 mm diameter string. Very flexible, no
problems
> at all tying it around on the bridge, unlike so many previous
attempts
> with gut or gut substitute strings of this thickness. And it
sounds
> fabulous. With a 9 or 10 course lute of the right size and of this
> quality in string and instrument I would have no hesitation going
down
> to the low C fundamental. I believe Mimmo Peruffo has also been
trying
> to tame the elephant.
> Dan
> On 11/30/2012 10:30 AM, William Samson wrote:
> > Looking at all the discussion we've been having about gut
strings
> - to
> > load, or not to load, to wind or not to wind, to twist or not
to
> twist
> > . . . - one thing that hasn't come up for a while is how
different
> > modern gut seems to be from the old stuff.
> >
> > When you look at old pictures showing gut being used to
string a
> lute,
> > or the loose ends of gut hanging from a pegbox, it's clear
that it
> was
> > much softer stuff than the wire-like gut we have today. For
a
> start it
> > came in hanks. Try tying modern gut in a hank and it would
look
> like
> > crap when you unravel it - kinked, cracked, opaque . . . I
have
> no
> > knowledge of the differences between the manufacturing
process for
> > modern gut and that used long ago, but it must have been
quite
> > different.
> >
> > What difference would stiffness make? One possible
difference is
> > inharmonicity - the tendency of harmonics to be sharper in
stiffer
> > strings. This is something that piano tuners have to allow
for
> > routinely - because of the stiff wire strings. That's just a
> guess,
> > though, and we won't know for sure until somebody makes
old-style
> soft
> > gut and performs a comparison. I'd have thought this would
be a
> fairly
> > straightforward thing for gut makers to do. Maybe somebody
has
> already
> > done it?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > [1][5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
>
> --
>
> References
>
> 1. [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
--
References
1. http://gamutmusic.squarespace.com/making-gut-stings/
2. mailto:dwinh...@lmi.net
3. mailto:willsam...@yahoo.co.uk
4. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
