Oups, I had better correct the end of my message:
(This of course does not mean that I am NOT really very much in
favour of such research).
Or to put it more simply: I am very much in favour of such research.
AH
Le 1 mars 09 à 11:56, Anthony Hind a écrit :
Dear Ed
Your latest baroque lute recording is an example to us of
what can be acheived using gut.
It is not an easy thing stringing a Baroque lute in gut (compared
to a renaissance one), and your work with Dan Larson is a model of
cooperation between lutenist, lute and string maker (the last two
being of course the same person) whiich has made your stringing sing.
It is clear that such a piece of team work goes well beyond simple
questions of historicity.
Research can be a slow painstaking process, lutenists can not put
their performances on hold, until a theory is proved and a string
is finally shown to work. Meanwhile, if a person has adapted their
playing (and possibly even their lute) to a particular string type,
they must really reflect seriously before thinking of changing track.
Even if it is somehow proved that such and such a string was
definitely not historical, it does not mean that you should stop
using it.
It would surely only be worth doing, if the tonal result of the
string you are using at present somehow already feels slightly
wrong, in spite of how you have adapted to it (and that is clearly
not your case), or if it gives serious intonation problems, causes
a bad problem of homogeneity with Meanes and Trebles, or simply
because you like the other type much more.
The results of historic research should be used to help you attain
a more convincing performance of Early music; while simplistic
"historic correctness" just tends to close down research, and
dangerously stereotype a player's style.
(This of course does not mean that I am really very much in favour
of such research).
Keep up the good work!
Regards
Anthony
Le 28 févr. 09 à 22:34, Edward Martin a écrit :
I follow this discussion with great interest. IO am certainly no gut
researcher, but my friend Dan Larson is. I have loaded gut, dense
gut,
pistoy gut, gimped gut, etc. I use it because it is the best
sound. I
have used gut in performance for the past 14-15 years, and for me,
I have
difficulty switching to synthetics for all the reasons that have been
stated on this list for years.
I use it because for me, it sounds best, especially for baroque
lutes, both
11-course and 13-course lutes.
The answer is that we are really not certain if strings were
loaded, and
there is evidence showing they were, as well as evidence to the
contrary.
Until we have definitive answers, we do not know what was used.
ed
At 12:34 PM 2/28/2009 -0800, Daniel Winheld wrote:
Dear colleagues and especially our esteemed stringmaker/
researchers; as
regards the present big question- "Was they WAS, or was they
WASN'T,
loaded? In our search for evidence, and evaluation of same,
let's also
keep in mind the famous dictum of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as
channeled
through that old coke addict/violinist Sherlock Holmes:
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the
truth?
Not simple, of course. with multiple possibilities available
to be
further explored.
How many lutes were mesured for bridge hole's
diameter? 10, 20 or 30?
I dnot see that we need a complete or even a substantial survey.
Any instance where the bridge was conceived as we see it and the
diapason
holes are significantly smaller than the holes for stoped basses is
evidence tht smaller diameter strings were conciously used, if that
then
obliges the use of strings denser than natural, loading of some
sort is
indicated, if not overspin, then chemical.
--
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date:
02/27/09
13:27:00
Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
e-mail: e...@gamutstrings.com
voice: (218) 728-1202
