At 04:05 PM 5/13/04 +0100, Lambert, SC (Simon) wrote: >Ed Martin wrote: > > > I have hear that Aquila is stopping the > > manufacture of the loaded gut strings.
Simon et al, I believe this to be true, as Mimmo notified Dan Larson that he is or has discontinued loaded gut. I believe the reason is, as stated, due to quality control, in which the gut string's mass & weight increases, & the added weight to the string makes it more prone to vibrate unevenly, and thus it often does, as the metal cannot be absorbed evenly in the soaking process. Yes, Mimmo did us a great service by introducing this technology, but it will be no loner. Dan Larson also did it, but stopped years ago, due to quality control issues. >If this is true, it's very sad, partly because it simply reduces the choice >available, but also (and I think more worryingly) because it seems to mark a >retreat from any attempt to get to the bottom of how gut strings were made >historically. It may or not be so, Simon. Perhaps this retreat has more to do with what does not work, than to what does work. >I remember when Aquila loaded gut strings first became available: it was >about ten years ago, and there was a real excitement that maybe at last we >had found the solution to the problem of gut basses, and in particular the >question of their thickness - or rather thinness. Players like Jakob >Lindberg adopted them with alacrity, and I remember one extremely well known >lute maker saying that at last someone had taken seriously what he had been >saying for years, based on his observations of the depiction in paintings of >bass strings in dark colours. > >Then over the years, loaded gut eventually became just one option among >several (and not an option for much longer, apparently). Partly this might >have been due to the problems of falseness that Ed mentions, which indeed >were perhaps not acceptable for a commercial product, though I have used >loaded gut very happily for a long time. But there was also the second of >the historical problems, now that thickness seemed to have been solved: >stiffness. There is a feeling that historical gut strings must have been >much more flexible than modern ones, both in the treble and bass. Another >very well known lute maker was recently heard to say that loaded gut >"couldn't possibly be right" for this reason. A rather sad decline in >esteem from 1994 .... Once again, I do not see this as being a sad thing. We learn more as time goes on, and as more research is done. But, yes, I agree that this is right on target... the flexibility issue. The flexible gut string will vibrate completely from nut or fingered fret to the bridge, making intonation much more accurate than thick, stiff strings. With a flexible gut bass, the intonation up higher in the frets makes it possible for the fundamental string to agree with the octave. >So now, if there's no more loaded gut, where does that leave us? "Gimped" >strings, as Ed says - but as far as I know these have very little historical >precedent, at least for Renaissance lutes. There was the brief flurry of >excitement recently about silk strings - but even if these solve the >stiffness problem, we're still back to big thick strings in the bass. I'm a >complete enthusiast for gut strings myself, but it does now seem as if the >curiosity as to how they might have been made has diminished. Mimmo >Peruffo's original work was backed up by extensive historical study written >up in respectable journals. I have the impression that we've simply given >up on this particular question, which is rather a pity. > > Simon Lambert > Oxford, England Simon, please do not despair. Yes, there is strong evidence of the gimped string. This is mentioned by Playford. He describes it as being wire twisted or gimped upon silk. The gimped string is smaller in diameter as compared to plain gut, as the metal makes it a heavier string, but only the metal is controlled, and the end product is true. There is new research as we speak in new types of gimped strings with more flexible wire, making them even better. The treatises tell us that gut was used, and we should take that on face value. The discoloration of bass strings in paintings does not prove metallic soaking. Often, in the processing of gut, different pureness of water can cause green, brown, reddish discoloration. I use plain gut for my renaissance lutes. The flexible basses, with string octaves work just fine, giving a beautiful resulting sound. My "guess" is that the new direction we will take in the future has to do with tensions of gut strings. I think that when looking for instance at a 13 course lute, it has 24 strings. That is a LOT of tension for a glued bridge. If one examines paintings of the posture of lutenists playing baroque lutes, the great majority play by the bridge. Hardly any of us in modern times play this way. Toyohiko Satoh tells me he is re-thinking the entire baroque lute technique as we know it, and is now playing very close to the bridge, with very light tension strings, (I think around only 2.2 Kg. tension or less per string). Playing with the right hand close to the rose (modern technique) will result in a very "wimpy" sound, but close to the bridge reveals a very different result. He has recorded a CD of Weichenberger like this on low tension strings, and plans to do a CD soon of Weiss. He says it sounds very different than our modern concept of strings lead us to believe. I have not yet gone in this direction with my lutes, but probably will. Also, the light tension is much healthier for the life of the lute, as compared to heavier tension. In regards to modern style of playing baroque lute, I have found that using modern Pistoys or Gimped strings reveals a sound as good as loaded, perhaps better, in my taste. The trueness is appreciated. Another factor is the octave, which (in my opinion) needs to be as strong in tension as the fundamental. This results in a very nice, round, clear sound. And remember, the loaded guts are smaller in diameter than plain gut....... as are gimped strings. Thanks for your great response! Cordially, ed
