Well, maybe not epoxy... In any event, all arguments of what *they* might have done if they'd had *whatever* on hand are moot if they didn't. Corbetta had no fluorocarbon; Bach didn't own a Steinway grand; etc. I have no idea what musical tools may be available five decades into the future, but assuming I would be making music with them if I had them now is as speculative (and potentially wrong) as it is irrelevant. Being only one person, I don't use most of those available to me right now. Modern players should feel free to make musical hardware decisions based on any practicalities of personal use. If that involves gut diapasons, excellent! If it involves wire-wound nylon multifilament basses, it should be obvious that that wasn't as Piccinini conducted his business, but that's great too.
I have a smattering of gut, gimped gut, silver-wound silk, brass wire, Nylgut (both old and new incarnations), fluorocarbon, nylon monofilament, wound nylon, and D'Addario's proprietary wound "Composite" strings scattered across my miscellaneous few instruments. I wouldn't dare to prescribe such decisions to anybody who isn't me. Nor would I belittle anybody else for such choices if they convinced me of merit via beautiful sound. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On > Behalf Of Garry Warber > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:04 AM > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > Subject: [LUTE] Re: long strings? > > Or, As I enjoy assuming, the "old ones" used the best they had, and if > they'd had epoxy glue and nylon strings that's what they'd have used... > :-) > Things can get endlessly circular in these beliefs. I just like how well > the early music is written! The stuff plays itself without a lot of > "interpretive gimmicks." I'm all for re-creating their sound as close as > we > can, for others. For myself, a totally modern lute is just ducky... :-) > Garry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roman Turovsky > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:27 AM > To: Martyn Hodgson ; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu ; andy butler > Subject: [LUTE] Re: long strings? > > There is a great likelihood that "our" gut is rather acoustically > different > from "their". > Lets not forget to use the honest modifier "approximation of". > RT > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martyn Hodgson" <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> > To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>; "andy butler" <akbut...@tiscali.co.uk> > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:01 AM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: long strings? > > > > > > The superiority of gut is chiefly that it was the material used by the > > Old Ones. If we have any pretensions to attempting to reproduce the > > sounds these early lutenist composers expected and their auditors > > heard, it is necessary to employ the same string materials. > > > > MH > > --- On Tue, 30/8/11, andy butler <akbut...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > From: andy butler <akbut...@tiscali.co.uk> > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: long strings? > > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > > Date: Tuesday, 30 August, 2011, 9:27 > > > > David van Ooijen wrote: > > > The basses are shortish, so a higher tuning would be better, > > actually. > > > If the instrument is tuned to g', gut diapassons are possible (if > > cost > > > is an issue use fret gut, it really is so much better than any of > the > > > modern materials), otherwise carbon or metal-wounds seem to be the > > > best option. > > Beginner's questions. > > Is the superiority of gut down to the shorter sustain time > > that someone mentioned earlier? > > Is string damping really unpopular? (unnecessary?) > > andy > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > -- > > > > References > > > > 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > >
