Anthony- that's amazing- HIP concerns mattering as lately as the 1920's. I had a customer at the music store yesterday looking for HIP Beethoven; we didn't have anything on hand but at least the Busch Quartet had a sound that seemed closer, but I don't know the details of their equipment.
I remember discussing this gut/synthetics issue during a lesson with Terence Stone years ago- we finally agreed that the serious lute player just has to have two of every lute- one in synthetics for gigs and one in gut to keep himself honest. And the octaves- it doesn't seem to matter what the rest of the stringing is, for me the octaves always have to be gut. For the main courses, It's that difference in feel- the "slimy" texture of carbons in particular, that so influence (for the worse) the performance of ornaments and the nuances of articulation. I still have one lute with Nylgut- referred to as "crocodile gut" by one of our learned correspondents- (the gut of de Nile?) that seems to be in a sub-class of it's own- android gut. Maybe the most subversive substance of all. Dan > Dear Dan > I recently heard Stravinsk's Pulcinella and Pergolesi's Stabat > Mater directed by Mark Minkowski with the Musiciens du Louvre-Grenoble, > and for both pieces of music the bowed instruments were strung in gut, > the argument being that still around the 1920s these could have been > strung in gut. The brass or the Stravinsky were period instruments > (around 1915) and the sound texture was audibly different from modern > instruments. The sound was slightly more earthy, but warmer, and the > balance between strings and brass was excellent. There was a luminous > clarity to the articulation of the piece. > I would think some people are more interested in this sound texture and > articulation question, and they are willing to sacrifice slight > problems of "intonation" in their effort to achieve the sound quality > they want; while others are so obsessed by in tuneness that they find > gut difficult, and they are willing to compromise texture . > I notice, however, that the majority of gamba players adopt gut, and > most probably feel that only gut can give the interesting shades and > sound textures that make up the music of a Tobias Hume, for example. > Of course, Gamba strings are much thicker, and there are less of them, > so the practicality issue is also less. I would think that practicality > is the major factor that stops many lutenists from choosing gut, and > that this is a much more important element in their choice, than any > claim to the better sound of synthetics. Indeed a good compromise, as > you have suggested, is the use of some synthetics in the crucial > positions, where a breakage might ruin a concert, and even a choice of > mainly synthetics, in some 'on tour' situations, or when playing on a > boat, as I seem to remember David once did, is surely a sensible > solution; but the reference, as you have also suggested (at least for > early music), must surely remain gut. > Regards > Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
