Amen. RT
----- Original Message ----- From: "ariel abramovich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lutenet" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 4:40 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: (was) Strings for chittarone > Hi all, > > we've been in the subject before, many times. > As most of you, I've heard people playing lutes strung in all sort of > materials, both in concerts and recordings, with good and bad instruments. > I've also used both and had the chance to experiment a bit. > > There's no point in arguing about taste but there're a couple of objective > things: > > Most professional players don't use gut while playing concerts, because of > intonation and other practical reasons. > Audience do suffer our tuning problems more than we do (and more than what > we think). They might not exactly know what's going on, but certainly > perceive that something sounds simply bad, and that can be distracting and > frustrating. > On the other hand, in a modern (big) concert hall would be very difficult > to > tell whether you're using gut or synthetic, ever for someone who's > trained. > You're lucky if they can hear you. > > It is, at the end, a matter of values. > > More important to me, the string material is only a small fraction of the > whole tone production process. > Making a flexible sound (I wouldn't, again, say good or bad) takes years > of > work and daily practice, and many people wouldn't want to "waist" time > doing > that (for instances, some students just don't get the point). > Why bothering then in spending absurd amounts of money in strings if the > sounds is mainly in your fingers? > > I remember when I met Paul O' Dette back in 1995, and took for my lesson a > very simple lute built in Buenos Aires that I played back then. > No surprises here, he played and sounded just like PO'D, there was no > sings > of a poor instrument anymore. > The very same experience when I've studied with Hoppy, or with Eugène > Ferré: > sound quality wasn't determined by the tool's quality (nor by the > strings). > > > Synthetic or gut doesn't really get us closer or further away from > Francesco, Dowland or Narváez and Newsidler. > Understanding of the language, our skills with the instruments and > inspiration does it, in my opinion. > > Apart from that, not all modern lutes are made for gut. Many modern makers > test and conceive their instruments with/for synthetic and certainly don't > have a gut sound in mind, for what strings material becomes something > relative here. > > > Again in a personal terrain, the best lute concerts and recordings I've > heard were performed with synthetic, and by any chance I felt I was > missing > something. > > Gut strings have very nice qualities, but I wouldn't exaggerate their > importance. > > Saludos, > Ariel. > > > > > >> Chris >> >>> about gut strings in the past: our gut is _not_ "their >>> gut." (i.e. the exact same type of string that was >>> made back in the day.) Therefore, whatever you decide >> >> I'd say that the gut strings of all the different gut string makers of >> today, with their variety of products with quite different >> characteristics >> and sound, all come closer to a sound a lute player of old had with his >> variety of gut strings available to him, closer than a modern string of >> uniform material. Gut is a complex material resulting in a complex sound. >> No >> two strings are the same, such a baroque concept! Baroque art is like >> custard with lumps, not processed yoghurt with artificial vanilla >> flavour. >> All nylgut is nylgut, all carbon is carbon, all nylon is nylon. How can >> you >> enter a world of complex 'organic' sounds with a uniform 'synthetic' >> sound? >> A good wine is not the same as a cheap softdrink, but if you drink the >> latter often enough, you might start to like it. I agree that gut (basses >> especially) might be an aquired taste, but aren't those the most >> enjoyable? >> I like gut strings for all the reasons stated above, not because they are >> exactly the same as the strings Francesco or Dowland had. But at the same >> time I am convinced that playing on non-gut strings will certainly get me >> further away from a sound of Francesco or Dowland. >> >> Why is it that lute players must be told their instruments were made for >> gut >> strings? Isn't it obvious? >> >> David >> >> >> **************************** >> David van Ooijen >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> www.davidvanooijen.nl >> **************************** >> >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> > > >
