[LUTE] Re: Switching between gut and synthetics [Wirewound/Loaded] London?
Anthony, Jaroslaw Just one question, first, did you receive my message from the lute list, or was it quite empty. I have been told that some people received a blank message (probably with some relief). Yes, I received your message. Sorry for not replying straight away. Sometimes I'm not at home for a longer period of time. Yes but we can see what they were trying to do by looking at instrument structure, not so easilly by looking at strings, as there are not many available, except the Mest string. I agree that instruments give us some indications on what the tendency of lute evolution was, however we shouldn't forget old writings which give us some clues too. We can see from the sympathetic stringing that they were indeed trying to obtain more sustain, but they could have just put them on the bass end, if it was only bass sustain they were interested in. I didn't say they were interested only in bass sustain. I was talking about bass strings because this is how our conversation began, but you are right that they were trying to enhance sonority of lutes in general. But I am not only interested in the question at a practical level. I do happen to be interested in the whole Bass string mystery question. In relation to that, we can also discuss the Lang Lay rope solution of George, the Spring rope solution of Charles, as well as HT and low tension, or Mimmo's loaded solution. All these hopefully, along with wire wounds can give more varied performances, but actually, I am also interested in the theoretical debate. PARA I know that first and foremost, you are a practical musician, so this may not interest you quite so much, but personally I wouldlisten to the general argumentation, even if the strings were not makeable at present. I am glad there are attempts at realizing them that do work, but I read archeological discussions, that have no obvious practical repercussions, and enjoy the reasoning, per se. I am not sure why you have this impression that I am not interested in solving the mystery of historical strings, on the contrary this is one of my favourite topics as you can see, because type of stringing has very big influence on lute's sound. I'm just not so convinced about what we already have. Anyway, thank you for interesting conversation. Best wishes Jaroslaw Thanks again for making le think. All the best Anthony All the best Jaroslaw I certainly d 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/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Switching between gut and synthetics [Wirewound/Loaded] London?
Anthony, As far as sustain is concerned I was rather talking about the bass strings. Obviously sustain is related to the instrument construction, but this is another topic. PARA I would not argue against that, but I would suggest that it was not always bass sustain they were looking for. There seems to have been a great deal of research attempted on the way strings resonate, although the full explanations of sympathethetic resonance come a little later, and we see all sorts of instruments with sympathetic strings created (including Dm in which the open strings that are unused do act that way), but this is not just to increase bass sustain. PARA PARA I also agree with Mimmo, but this does not mean that the differences in lute string structure according to register means a less homogeneous sound, on the contrary. Different material has to mean difference in tonal quality. Homogeneous means: 1/of the same nature or kind 2/uniform in structure or composition throughout. The other term is harmonious meaning: having component elements pleasingly or appropriately combined. So real homogeneity is not achievable on baroque lute because of technical problems you mentioned. Moreover I don't think that ideal of homogeneity was valued in Baroque era any longer to the same extent as in past. The only thing we can discuss is smoothness of transition between registers. I agree that it has some importance for French music, however German music works very well on instruments with very distinct registers. Here, I think we understood things differently. I may be wrong, but I thought this superb string, with its magnificient behaviour when held between the hands, was Mimmo's latest version of his Venice loaded. As I understood it, the cream of Tartar was used to obtain an even smoother loading than he had obtained before. The result is that a very thin Venice core could be maintained, as a heavier loading could be used, allowing the loading to be increased in steps on the same core (just as the Dutch lute allows the same thickness of bass to be used for all basses, by increasing their length by steps). This would give an exceptionally low impedance (as explained above) and a remarkably true resonance pattern, as shown by Gerle, Leroy, Mersenne, etc: I can't be sure because Mimmo's explanations on this topic weren't absolutely clear, but as far as I and some other people understood this was just a sample of transitional state of gut production after a treatment with tartar oil (which idea was borrowed not necessarily from the string makers) , however the string would be stiffened again in later phases. Probably this doubt could be solved only by Mimmo himself (I am sorry if I got something wrong). PARA I quite agree, a good lutenist can make beautiful music with wirewounds, and it is true that it can be better to hear an excellent musician on a lute strung that way than a lesser musician with loaded strings. However, that is a little like saying (but to a lesser degree) that you would prefer to hear a first rate pianist playing Bach, than a second rate harpsichordist (when it comes to French harpsichord music, however, I might begin to prefer the second). No, this is just to say that many first class musicians choose wire wounds or synthetics or both (in various combinations) for some reasons. Now, you can ask yourself why. Probably for various reasons. But I don't think that the main reason is they are cheap. Actually they posses some musical qualities that gut doesn't, and it was recognized by some good musicians. Whether you like these qualities or not is a matter of preference, but it can't be denied they posses some valuable virtues. As I repeatedly say, I love gut too, but it's for me just different not necessarily much better. It is better for some music and for some occasions. Unless new types of gut are invented that will surpass all other string types I will use both. All the best Jaroslaw To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Switching between gut and synthetics [Wirewound/Loaded] London?
Jaroslaw Just one question, first, did you receive my message from the lute list, or was it quite empty. I have been told that some people received a blank message (probably with some relief). Anthony, As far as sustain is concerned I was rather talking about the bass strings. Obviously sustain is related to the instrument construction, but this is another topic. Yes but we can see what they were trying to do by looking at instrument structure, not so easilly by looking at strings, as there are not many available, except the Mest string. See for example the French/Dutch lute: we see that the lute maker is trying to achieve the same thickness of rope across all the basses (as Mimmo is trying to do with loading strings). The result could be different in terms of sound quality, but there is a similarity in purpose. We can see from the sympathetic stringing that they were indeed trying to obtain more sustain, but they could have just put them on the bass end, if it was only bass sustain they were interested in. That was the point I was making (admittedly we are talking about Viols and not lutes here, but the aesthetics could be similar). It is not quite true that sympathetic stringing does not concern the strings. The sympathetic stringing was usually in metal, so you could say that it already evokes the idea of using metal and gut together; but still they were for all strings, and not just the bass. However, you are right in relation to the fact that the big problem was the impedance of bass strings, and I believe there were several solutions attempted (possibly Lang Lay, Spring and Loaded), finally demifilA(c) were probably found to be the easiest to make, and also eventually to be preferred aesthetically, but also they may have become almost necessary when the 13th course was added on a rider lute. So yes, in as much as during the whole period bass courses were progressively being added, we could say that we were slowly working towards that goal (but I feel that might be too determinist from the point of a French Dm musician). PARA PARA I also agree with Mimmo, but this does not mean that the differences in lute string structure according to register means a less homogeneous sound, on the contrary. Different material has to mean difference in tonal quality. Homogeneous means: 1/of the same nature or kind 2/uniform in structure or composition throughout. The other term is harmonious meaning: having component elements pleasingly or appropriately combined. So real homogeneity is not achievable on baroque lute because of technical problems you mentioned. Moreover I don't think that ideal of homogeneity was valued in Baroque era any longer to the same extent as in past. The only thing we can discuss is smoothness of transition between registers. I agree that it has some importance for French music, however German music works very well on instruments with very distinct registers. The point is that the different types of string are not chosen to differentiate the voices, but to bring them as close as is possible, to make them sing together, and this can only be done by acheiving a similar impedance across the voices (good harmonicity, or low impedance). Sucess is not 100% that is quite so, it cannot be, but that was true even during the Renaissance period, where we also had Bass, Meanes, and Trebles. You are evidently correct that there is not a sudden break, but a gradual transition from the Renaissance to late German, so depending on what features you look at you will see more of one and less of the other. In a debate, we are forced to simplify to a certain extent, to bring out a particular argument. French Dm could of course be considered closer to late German Baroque than to early Italian Renaissance, (or at least sole of the features will already be there in French Baroque), so, yes, it has to be a question of degree. Here, I think we understood things differently. I may be wrong, but I thought this superb string, with its magnificient behaviour when held between the hands, was Mimmo's latest version of his Venice loaded. As I understood it, the cream of Tartar was used to obtain an even smoother loading than he had obtained before. The result is that a very thin Venice core could be maintained, as a heavier loading could be used, allowing the loading to be increased in steps on the same core (just as the Dutch lute allows the same thickness of bass to be used for all basses, by increasing their length by steps). This would give an exceptionally low impedance (as explained above) and a remarkably true resonance pattern, as shown by Gerle, Leroy, Mersenne, etc:
[LUTE] Re: Switching between gut and synthetics [Wirewound/Loaded] London?
Dear Jaroslaw What a pity I missed you. I did look out thinking I might see you, but evidently we must have been sitting in two different areas. PARA Anyway, I have a strong impression from what you are writing, that during our string talk you were very much relating to the 17 c. French. (Jaroslaw) PARA Yes, I think there is a clear difference according to school and period. My impression is that the later French musicians (to a certain extent) cut with an earlier renaissance and transitional aesthetic. I only have the contrasting evidence of Burwell and Mace, and the lute type choices; but it seems fairly clear: some late Renaissance early transitional players were probably exploring deeper bass, while the French Dm musicians switched more to exploring the Meanes. Later again there was a return to an interest in deep bass for the ground, as the German Baroque school broke with the Mid-rich complexity of the previous French tradition (although, perhaps the English and Dutch schools had kept some of the earlier aesthetic ideas alive). I am sure this is an abusive simplification, but I just wanted to say that not all were so interested in bass sustain (on the contrary, some may have wanted to control it). PARA music. In this case I would be more inclined to agree on the string choice. However I was rather talking about lute string evolution in general. Existing sources confirm that the longer sustain wasn't necessarily avoided as you suggest. On the contrary there were attempts made to prolong sustain as much as their technique allowed for. (Jaroslaw) PARA I would not argue against that, but I would suggest that it was not always bass sustain they were looking for. There seems to have been a great deal of research attempted on the way strings resonate, although the full explanations of sympathethetic resonance come a little later, and we see all sorts of instruments with sympathetic strings created (including Dm in which the open strings that are unused do act that way), but this is not just to increase bass sustain. PARA Recently in England the instrument has been fitted with a peculiar addition. Under the six ordinary strings lie eight steel and twisted brass strings, on a brass bridge (like those used on a pandora). These are tuned to accord exactly with the upper gut strings; then, when one of the latter is excited by the bow or the finger, the lower strings of the steel or brass immediately vibrate in sympathy. This considerably adds to the beauty of the sound. Syntagma Musicum,Preatorius PARA As I can see, you are looking for the homogeneity in lute's sound, however I don't think this is the only way a lute can work. Mace makes very clear distinctions between lute registers and probably absolutely different types of strings were used for those registers as Mimmo were suggesting during the London meeting. I agree with him in this respect. ( Jaroslaw) PARA I also agree with Mimmo, but this does not mean that the differences in lute string structure according to register means a less homogeneous sound, on the contrary. Of course each string type may have a slightly different timbre, but the purpose of the difference is to have them sing together with as close a sustain, and as little harmonic difference, as possible. The difference in structure is necessitated by the problem of impedance at the bridge, which is increased at every step-up in thickness. If you keep the same string type all the way through from Treble to Meanes and Bass, you would find that the increasing impedance would cut the bass sustain short and reduce its high frequency harmonic content, resulting in a klonk-like sound (very different from that of the Meanes); but also this increased impedance at the bridge presents a break to the resonance of the Meanes and trebles. The result is a general curtailing of the sustain of all voices. PARA This is, I think, is why Mimmo makes Venice twine Meanes, which are very flexible and which present a similar impedance to that of a lower twist thin treble; but when we reach the bass register, this simple twine treatment, even with chemicals, is insufficient: a thick bass Venice string still shows too much impedance (compared to the Meanes). Loading the Venice allows a thinner bass, so lowering its impedance nearer to that of the Meanes. Thus by using Venice Meanes and by loading Venices at the Bass, we obtain a fairly equal impedance across the voices and a more equal sustain, as well as a better singing quality to each voice, actually, giving less of a break between voices (better homogenity). PARA Nevertheless, using Venice Meanes as
