Obviously you don't get the point. Too bad.
> With your kind permission, I would like to summarize this interesting > discussion. > > It seems, the pro-plastic party generally features the following lines of > thought: > > 1. Plastic or gut: doesn't make a difference. The more subtle variety > would > read: it makes a difference, but, like maple and ash, both are suitable > for > making/stringing a lute. > > 2. It makes a difference, but it is not woth the extra money. > > 3. Gut strings are impractical. Examples range from modern concert life to > more bizarr incidents, like playing while being wet. > > 4. Gut stings are inauthentic, because we don't know how they were made. > > 5. Everything is inauthentic because we are not at least 300 years old. > > > As a lute-tory and gut-bucket kind-a guy, please let me remark: > > ad 1) The difference can be demonstrated. Even if you don't hear it, > plastic > strings are still anachronistic; cf. 3. & 4. > > ad 2) Depends on the acuteness of your hearing. Could be extended to: a > uke > makes a good lute if you are deaf and/or dumb. > > ad3) Lutes were not made for modern concert life. Even Jacob Herringman's > playing turns appalling on a stage in front of 400 people. So let's get > rid > of concert halls and lighting and play at home or priod music rooms. Use a > towel. > > ad 4) We try to get as close as we can and made big advances in the last > decades. Plastic is much further from the original. > > ad 5) actually quite a good point. I would have my strings made by Count > Dracula, but he soaks them in blood and I insist on kosher strings. > > > Best wishes, > danyel > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
