Well, Wayne, they might not be historic, but the ones I use are as historically informed as it gets. Talk to Nick Baldock. Years ago I used to engage him, Kuerschner, Larson, Seegerman and others in lengthy discussions about the subject and I am in awe of their commitment to solve as many problems as possible. People have done a lot of research and many preoccupations (like those you have summarized) have been corrected. As you said, there were good and bad strings in the past, but the good strings were defined as true. We can aim at that goal. Good old Chinese silk strings made without modern tools are amazingly true, it just takes more time and skill and is still more expensive. Like with ceramics, they probably discharged 70% of the production as unsatisfactory. Historic gut strings were also ground and polished with stone and other abrasives. They still had, as you described, to throw out unsatisfactory strings. We know what they were after and can head in the same direction. People like Larson have recreated historic manufacturing processes to a degree that borders on experimental archaeology. With stunning results. If less modern lutanist were converted guitarists used to the sound of plastic strings and wire and/or too thrifty to spend money on their equipment, or insisting to play lute with wet finger tips or in the shower, string makers could sell more gut strings and the prices would drop. People spent even more money on gut strings "in the old days" than we do today; still, I agree, we are still far from having unveiled all the secrets of ancient string making, especially as far as basses are concerned. Peruffo's loaded ones work fine (listen to Lindberg's Dowland), but you have to throw out many and they take very long to settle (at least the ones I ordered some years ago; meanwhile they have settled and make rather acceptable basses on my 8c). That renders them a very awkward solution. With gimped strings I am not quite happy either. Silk didn't work for me (on the renaissance lutes, I use silk strings on my Timurid lute and the tanbur). Loaded silk would be a very promising concept, but nobody dares to invest in such a project, with a dwindling market, as so many "early musicians" are quite happy with their nylons and just seeking excuses for not going into more authentic equipment. Seegerman's *no-tension* theory is a bit extreme, but regular gut strings are certainly too thick at "realistic" tension on an 8c with less then 70cm string stop (they work perfectly on my Maler 6c-basslute (octave-strung) and proved very convincing on at least one of Barber/Harris' Tieffenbrucker 6c tenors) Yet I don't see in what way all this could serve as an excuse to use even less authentic strings? The best gut strings available today might not be quite as good as the ones Queen Elizabeth I used, but they will have to do until the real thing comes along... I am not a fanatic like the presidents of Iran or the US, I just want good strings for my lutes, to spend peaceful nights listening to subtle sounds removed from the vulgar clamour of modern life!
Best wishes, danyel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Cripps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 2:06 PM Subject: [LUTE] Passions and Guts > > I would like to point out that when people use gut strings > today they are using modern gut strings, not historically > informed gut strings! > > One common feature of old lute instruction books is the > test to see if your strings are true. I don't think > this is to see if they are subtly outs - as modern gut may > be after playing for a while - this is to see if the string > is complete junk! You see, in the old days, a string > was made be assembling fibers of gut (from very young sheep) > and these fibers have a natural taper, and being a natural > substance, have irregularities. With a thick string meant > for the low courses there would be many strands of gut > fiber, and they would tend to average out, but a treble might > be made of three strands of gut, and any irregularities > in the strands would make themselves evident. > > The *Modern Gut* is ground to make it regular, round > and smooth and the same diameter all along its length. > You can buy a modern gut string and *expect* it to be > true, and *expect* it to be the diameter that you want. > In the old days you bought a lot of trebles and threw out > a lot. The cost of strings was a significant factor > back then. > > Since the grinding process cuts into the fibers that > make a strand of gut, modern gut is probably weaker than > then the old stuff. But in general the new stuff > is truer. And it is unquestionably different! And > not historical. > > Wayne To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
