[LUTE] Re: damping of basses
Mersenne gives 20 seconds as the ring length, which is longer than the Pyramid strings ring on my lutes. Obviously, they had some strings we don't have, one candidate would be the brass core overspun with gut or silk which you see on some Asian instruments. I'm sure they had other types as well. dt At 08:58 AM 1/3/2009, you wrote: >On Jan 3, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Anthony Hind wrote: > >>>I agree with you, being able to damp strings does not mean that >>>you have to damp them all the time. >>It is something to be kept in the panoply of the lute player. If >>you don't know how to do so, however, >>you have no choice. >>I add that I would prefer this was not true, as I am new to Baroque >>lute, and it is something I need to learn. > >and: > >>I think there is often a tendance to overuse a technique, vibrato >>or whatever, that the player has just mastered, or likes to use. >>It is not specific to damping. The performance can then become far >>too mannered. > >Your newness may render you innocent about the horrible, unspeakable >Baroque lute past, in which damping the bass strings was taught as >part of the basic technique, considered to be necessary to avoid >having the bass strings ring like gongs and fog the music. Indeed, >the Pyramid strings in common use 20 years ago tend to do this, >because they sustain for a long time, which is what they were >designed for; sustain was considered the hallmark of excellence in >instruments and strings. So damping was not a matter of taste, but >necessity. > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: damping of basses
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 5:05 PM, wrote: > Quite right. I once brought a recording of a famous > lutenist to a recording engineer to give him an idea > of the type of sound I admired. After a few moments > of listening he said, "Yuck, turn that horrible stuff > off! It sounds so awful - nothing but 'chuck!' > 'chuck!' chuck!' all the time." The engineer was > refering to the player's rapid re-setting of the thumb Reminds me of the girl I took to a concert of the Amazing Yamashita playing Dvorak's Ninths Symphony on One Guitar. I was stunned. But she had only heard squeeking noise from his fingers on the strings. Our ears are selective. David -- *** David van Ooijen davidvanooi...@gmail.com www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: damping of basses but not my enthusiasm, I hope!
Howard I would love to be as new and innocent as you would like to imagine me (Is that your wish to me for the new year?, I gratefully accept, see below). I hope I do come over as young to the lute, but if that is so that is probably because I have a mad strain of enthusiam and the spark has not been quite "damped out". I am new to playing Baroque lute (that is true), but my first contact with French Baroque lute was around the end of the 60s, when I received lessons in renaissance lute from Terence Waterhouse a student of Michael Schaeffer. Terence was above all a Baroque lute performer, and I attended a lesson he gave on the Baroque lute just before my renaissance lute session. Around that time I bought the RCA Schaeffer recording as well as the reference EMI Bailes record. I soon acquired a good library of Baroque lute LPs (Hoppy Astrée etc), and assisted at many concerts. I stopped playing the lute, because of my work load, but did not drop my interest. Fortunately, perhaps, this happened to me when gut strings were already the rage, and before the return of synthetics. I am now retired and profiting from this second youth to spend more time with lute music and my beautifully gut strung lutes. I am, however, quite aware of the ins and outs of lute fashion (which remind me of a rondo "eternel retour"), my fascination with history has made me particularly sensitive to this whole question, on which I have often ventured to communicate on this list. Le 3 janv. 09 à 17:58, howard posner a écrit : On Jan 3, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Anthony Hind wrote: I agree with you, being able to damp strings does not mean that you have to damp them all the time. It is something to be kept in the panoply of the lute player. If you don't know how to do so, however, you have no choice. I add that I would prefer this was not true, as I am new to Baroque lute, and it is something I need to learn. and: I think there is often a tendance to overuse a technique, vibrato or whatever, that the player has just mastered, or likes to use. It is not specific to damping. The performance can then become far too mannered. Your newness may render you innocent about the horrible, unspeakable Baroque lute past, in which damping the bass strings was taught as part of the basic technique, considered to be necessary to avoid having the bass strings ring like gongs and fog the music. Indeed, the Pyramid strings in common use 20 years ago tend to do this, because they sustain for a long time, which is what they were designed for; sustain was considered the hallmark of excellence in instruments and strings. So damping was not a matter of taste, but necessity. Surely ytou have noticed that the same thing has occurred with thumb- out. At one time lutists from the guitar world all used thumb out, and then someone discovered TI in a few paintings and communciated it to Michael Schaeffer. Suddenly, TI became the rage and showed you were no longer one of those guitare-lutenist "glute" players (Julian Bream). Lutenists did not realize that in this over-generalization they were still caricaturing the past. Now as a more complex view is surfacing, we are gradually seeing that both TI and TO have a role, but not to be applied systematically (I am one of those trying to struggle to play TI and TO, but depending on context, not easy actually). Perhaps damping was also seen as the techniqe of the guitar-lutist and rejected along with TO by revolutionary TI players (I am not criticizing them, this is how we progress). Perhaps it is time to revisit it, not as a caricature, but as part of a lutenists panoply which can help clarify the musical discourse. Particularly, as we are beginning to understand that historic lutes may have had more sustain than some modern lutes now have when strung with some types of modern gut. To tell the truth, I do not use this technique, and it could be costly to acquire, particularly, as I think it should be used sparingly. Thanks for the rejuvenation, I really needed that. I just recieved a mail from the university telling me that I might be too old to be paid for my recent lectures, bit of a shock (not that I wouldn't be paid), but I had quite forgotten how old I was! Regards Anthony To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: damping of basses
On Jan 3, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Anthony Hind wrote: I agree with you, being able to damp strings does not mean that you have to damp them all the time. It is something to be kept in the panoply of the lute player. If you don't know how to do so, however, you have no choice. I add that I would prefer this was not true, as I am new to Baroque lute, and it is something I need to learn. and: I think there is often a tendance to overuse a technique, vibrato or whatever, that the player has just mastered, or likes to use. It is not specific to damping. The performance can then become far too mannered. Your newness may render you innocent about the horrible, unspeakable Baroque lute past, in which damping the bass strings was taught as part of the basic technique, considered to be necessary to avoid having the bass strings ring like gongs and fog the music. Indeed, the Pyramid strings in common use 20 years ago tend to do this, because they sustain for a long time, which is what they were designed for; sustain was considered the hallmark of excellence in instruments and strings. So damping was not a matter of taste, but necessity. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: damping of basses
Chris I entirely agree with all your remarks. I don't know how scientific the measurements were. I know that Charles Besnaiou makes measurement of string behaviour on a special resonance box. However , this is not a lute. Yet if you use an actual lute the measure is even less scientific. I am certain that there are many factors in sustain, and not just the quality of the string, but the quality of neighbouring strings. Sympathetic resonance is an essential factor. Perhaps different lutes might give more sustain with particular string types; and of course string tension is an important factor too. From this point of view Miguel's reference is not sufficently complete. Although, intuitively, I would guess the proportional values (not the absolute ones) might not be completely wrong. Le 3 janv. 09 à 17:05, a écrit : Anthony, --- Anthony Hind wrote: Miguel can't believe that harpsichordists used damping and sustain, but that lutists completely ignored this practice. I'd never argue for this. Its part of intelligent music making. I agree with you, being able to damp strings does not mean that you have to damp them all the time. It is something to be kept in the panoply of the lute player. If you don't know how to do so, however, you have no choice. I add that I would prefer this was not true, as I am new to Baroque lute, and it is something I need to learn. As to whether the use of wirewound and pure gut makes a difference, MS cites tests showing that where wirewounds have a sustain of about 6 to 8 seconds, pure gut has about 2 to 3 seconds (loaded somewhere between, about 4 to 6, I would guess). Even so, Miguel argues "that this is still too long in passages in which the harmony may change in a fraction of a second". At what distance from the lute where this measurements taken? 8 seconds seems like a very, very long time, even with brand new wire wounds. Let's assume for a moment, however, that a player may occasionally hear an isolated note last for 8 seconds, but even a listener seated quite close to the instrument in a small room will never perceive this. One can argue that the resonance of the instrument may be adversly effected by too many close harmonies ringing on. I don't think Miguel attempts to make an 11c lute sound like a 6c lute. I don't think he is just damping out resonance to get 6c clarity. Might as well play a 6c lute in that case. If you've got time and it bothers you, please damp the offending basses. If its going to take a lot of bother and impede the flow of the music, don't bother. I think it is a question of where it is good to allow the music to flow, and where it should be impeded. Miguel told me that he was now working on late German Baroque music, and if I understood him correctly, he feels that an essential part of that music is in the way notes die progessively, or might be cutt off. Issues of very subtle timing could be involved here. (Many times, undamped basses can actually enhance the resonsance.) Quite so. I must also point out that the comparison between wires and guts was made using modern gut strings. We can't necessarily assume that their guts were the same. Yes, that is what I said to David. It is quite possible that strings and lutes of the time had more sustain than modern ones do. I forgot to mention the question of lute sound-boards possibly loaded with salts (Mimmo Peruffo). Such a lute would very probably have more sustain. I have heard pieces damped that seem to become too stacatto (loss of liason), Quite right. I once brought a recording of a famous lutenist to a recording engineer to give him an idea of the type of sound I admired. After a few moments of listening he said, "Yuck, turn that horrible stuff off! It sounds so awful - nothing but 'chuck!' 'chuck!' chuck!' all the time." The engineer was refering to the player's rapid re-setting of the thumb (Mace's "tut") to avoid clashing basses. It didn't bother me, but I found it ironic that the player had gone to such lengths to make things "correct," yet had produced an end product that someone found extremely ugly. Naturally, the recording specialist was more sensitive to mechanical noises on a recording than most people, but I wondered how many other casual listeners felt the same way. I think there is often a tendance to overuse a technique, vibrato or whatever, that the player has just mastered, or likes to use. It is not specific to damping. The performance can then become far too mannered. I suppose this is a great danger when approaching ancient music: it is always possible to fall into something that becomes caricature. Rather like when an actor tries to imitate an accent and they over use some accent feature. Speakers of the particular dialect can find this tedious. Regards Anthony Chris and damping should not necessarilly be used just to avoid a clash (the clash might be desirable). Howev
[LUTE] Re: damping of basses
Anthony, --- Anthony Hind wrote: > Miguel can't believe that harpsichordists used > damping and sustain, > but that lutists completely ignored this practice. > I'd never argue for this. Its part of intelligent music making. > As to whether the use of wirewound and pure gut > makes a difference, > MS cites tests showing that where wirewounds have a > sustain of about > 6 to 8 seconds, pure gut has about 2 to 3 seconds > (loaded somewhere > between, about 4 to 6, I would guess). Even so, > Miguel argues "that > this is still too long in passages in which the > harmony may change in > a fraction of a second". > At what distance from the lute where this measurements taken? 8 seconds seems like a very, very long time, even with brand new wire wounds. Let's assume for a moment, however, that a player may occasionally hear an isolated note last for 8 seconds, but even a listener seated quite close to the instrument in a small room will never perceive this. One can argue that the resonance of the instrument may be adversly effected by too many close harmonies ringing on. If you've got time and it bothers you, please damp the offending basses. If its going to take a lot of bother and impede the flow of the music, don't bother. (Many times, undamped basses can actually enhance the resonsance.) I must also point out that the comparison between wires and guts was made using modern gut strings. We can't necessarily assume that their guts were the same. > I have heard pieces damped that seem to become too > stacatto (loss of > liason), Quite right. I once brought a recording of a famous lutenist to a recording engineer to give him an idea of the type of sound I admired. After a few moments of listening he said, "Yuck, turn that horrible stuff off! It sounds so awful - nothing but 'chuck!' 'chuck!' chuck!' all the time." The engineer was refering to the player's rapid re-setting of the thumb (Mace's "tut") to avoid clashing basses. It didn't bother me, but I found it ironic that the player had gone to such lengths to make things "correct," yet had produced an end product that someone found extremely ugly. Naturally, the recording specialist was more sensitive to mechanical noises on a recording than most people, but I wondered how many other casual listeners felt the same way. Chris and damping should not necessarilly be used > just to avoid a > clash (the clash might be desirable). However, a > judicious use of > damping could be part of the lute players panoply. > Those who want to > verify Miguel's theory could listen to his latest > recording, and see > whether he has used damping to good effect. > Bets wishes to all > Anthony > > Le 1 janv. 09 à 16:54, a > écrit : > > > I don't know whether its a modern practice. > Absence > > of written evidence may mean that it was done so > often > > that it didn't need mentioning. > > > > Even with modern strings, I'm becoming convinced > that > > we fixate on it a little too much. It is much > more > > obvious for the player than for the listener. > Since > > the lute has such a quick attack and rapid > sustain, > > what a player imagines sounding like an out of > control > > pedaled grand piano often sounds pleasantly > resonant > > to someone in front of the lute, even up close. > This > > is particularly true for fairly slow moving lines > or > > bass parts that move in thirds, fourths or fifths. > > > > I'm speaking of maybe 60-75% of general bass > parts. > > One still has to put in the effort to articulate a > > line for musical reasons, however. If its > appropriate > > to the character of a bass line we often have to > go to > > considerable lengths to keep it from sounding like > a > > nondescript legato mush. In sections in which the > > Affekt calls for a staccato character and there > are a > > lot of leaps, its a real workout for the thumb! > > > > Chris > > > > > > --- Edward Martin wrote: > > > >> I believe it is a modern practice, to utilize the > >> damping effect. I though > >> here actually is a mention in the Gallot > >> instructions about damping basses, > >> but (I believe we discussed this on this list 10 > >> years ago) I had read this > >> in a modern translation, and others pointed out > that > >> the translation into > >> English was faulty, so my previous argument in > favor > >> of finding a reference > >> to damping was wrong. > >> > >> So, to answer your question, the old treatises do > >> not mention damping > >> basses, anywhere. Yes, I think it is a modern > >> practice, to help deal with > >> wound metal bass course, which have too much > >> brightness and sustain, > >> requiring we must do something to tame them down. > >> > >> Since about 1995, I have played only gut on > baroque > >> lute, and I have > >> forgotten how to dampen basses, because it is > >> absolutely unnecessary. > >> > >> Happy NY to you, too! > >> > >> ed > >> > >> > >> > >> At 02:36 PM 1/1/2009 +0100,
[LUTE] Re: damping of basses
David, Miguel Serdoura's pages are 122-124, and not the ones I just gave. I am only forwarding the point of view expressed there. It would be interesting to record a passage on a gut strung lute, following the Miguel's dampling indications, testing how this sounds when the basses are stopped as he indicates, and when they aren't. Benjamin Narvey did play a piece in that way, but I think he was playing his own lute with wirewounds, not mine. Of course only certain basses notes are indicated as damped, otherwise the result would be excessively sacatto. Le 1 janv. 09 à 18:49, David van Ooijen a écrit : > Thanks to all for their quotes from historical sources. My immediate > question is answered, but I welcome an ongoing discussion, of course. > >> there is one explicit mention of damping in Mace (1676). He >> indicates the >> damping of a note with two small dots before it., and calls this >> effect >> "Tut". >> "The tut is a Grace always with the Right hand ... strike your >> Letter, >> (which you intend shall be so Grac'd) with one of your Fingers, and >> immediately clap on your next striking Finger, in doing you >> suddenly take >> away the sound of the Letter ..." Mace > > > Sounds to me like an indication for staccato. Perhaps, looking at how Mace used this sign, if there are extant examples, would answer your question (perhaps the // of Falckenhagen and Weicheberg also?). I don't have access at present to any tablature of Mace in which this appears. There are at least two possible explanations, if this is indeed damping, and if it also applies to basses: 1) that this was only necessary with double-headed lutes that had bass extensions of the type played by Mace. Indeed, there are indications that the long basses could be quite loud (Burwell), and Stephen Gottlieb confirmed this from the double-headed lute that he recently made. If we accept that Falckenhagen and Weichenberger also gave damping indications, we could argue perhaps that by then they were already using demi-filé (so neither case would be valid for the 11c lute). 2) That damping preexisted Mace and was also used on the 11c lute (but that no clear evidence now exists of this practice), and this was either necessary, a) because gut basses were more powerful than today (loaded?), or b) simply because basses were always sacrificed when clarity of the mid was likely to be lost, whatever the quality of the basses. The remarks in Burwell about only keeping the small eleventh, to avoid drowning the other voices seems to show that basses were quite powerful, but also readilly sacrificed, when ever the mid was in danger of being muddied. I do agree that the technique is absoluely essential for wirewounds that have too much sustain, but has to be proved for gut loaded lutes. It could perhaps be argued by some that with gut strung lutes it is usually the lack of sustain that might be the challenge. Of course it would be much easier if we can avoid damping, but perhaps we might be losing a small means of expression, however tiny that might seem. Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: damping of basses
Thanks to all for their quotes from historical sources. My immediate question is answered, but I welcome an ongoing discussion, of course. > there is one explicit mention of damping in Mace (1676). He indicates the > damping of a note with two small dots before it., and calls this effect > "Tut". > "The tut is a Grace always with the Right hand ... strike your Letter, > (which you intend shall be so Grac'd) with one of your Fingers, and > immediately clap on your next striking Finger, in doing you suddenly take > away the sound of the Letter ..." Mace Sounds to me like an indication for staccato. > can't believe that harpsichordists used damping and sustain, but that > lutists completely ignored this practice. Of course, as Chris also pointed out, articulating lines is indispensible in good music making. My question was about historical evidence for the emphasis on the technique of damping basses in modern baroque lute methods. There does not seem to be much. To me, this looks like one of the modern practices in early music: modern strings inviting modern techniques. It's hard to get back. Like position of the right hand. Or double versus single first course. Inappropriate uses of appropriate temperaments and vice versa, continuo playing on good-for-all equals appropriate-for-nothing instruments (did I mention baroque guitars in Bach?), standards of 392, 415 and 466 for baroque music, the fashion to poppify a lot of baroque continuo bands, &c. I'm not complaining about it or accusing anybody, only observing what I'm part of; we're not as hip as we could or should be, there's a lot of early music Esperanto going on. David -- *** David van Ooijen davidvanooi...@gmail.com www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: damping of basses
Dear Chris and All, According to Miguel Serdoura (p111-123) in his Baroque lute method, there is one explicit mention of damping in Mace (1676). He indicates the damping of a note with two small dots before it., and calls this effect "Tut". "The tut is a Grace always with the Right hand ... strike your Letter, (which you intend shall be so Grac'd) with one of your Fingers, and immediately clap on your next striking Finger, in doing you suddenly take away the sound of the Letter ..." Mace Miguel goes on to say "In the works of Adam Falckenhagen and Johann- Georg Weichenberger, we find the sign (//) which, in our opinion, indicates the same effect." Miguel considers that French musicians also used this technique, but preferred not to give indications, keeping as much as possible to themselves. Miguel can't believe that harpsichordists used damping and sustain, but that lutists completely ignored this practice. As to whether the use of wirewound and pure gut makes a difference, MS cites tests showing that where wirewounds have a sustain of about 6 to 8 seconds, pure gut has about 2 to 3 seconds (loaded somewhere between, about 4 to 6, I would guess). Even so, Miguel argues "that this is still too long in passages in which the harmony may change in a fraction of a second". I have heard pieces damped that seem to become too stacatto (loss of liason), and damping should not necessarilly be used just to avoid a clash (the clash might be desirable). However, a judicious use of damping could be part of the lute players panoply. Those who want to verify Miguel's theory could listen to his latest recording, and see whether he has used damping to good effect. Bets wishes to all Anthony Le 1 janv. 09 à 16:54, a écrit : I don't know whether its a modern practice. Absence of written evidence may mean that it was done so often that it didn't need mentioning. Even with modern strings, I'm becoming convinced that we fixate on it a little too much. It is much more obvious for the player than for the listener. Since the lute has such a quick attack and rapid sustain, what a player imagines sounding like an out of control pedaled grand piano often sounds pleasantly resonant to someone in front of the lute, even up close. This is particularly true for fairly slow moving lines or bass parts that move in thirds, fourths or fifths. I'm speaking of maybe 60-75% of general bass parts. One still has to put in the effort to articulate a line for musical reasons, however. If its appropriate to the character of a bass line we often have to go to considerable lengths to keep it from sounding like a nondescript legato mush. In sections in which the Affekt calls for a staccato character and there are a lot of leaps, its a real workout for the thumb! Chris --- Edward Martin wrote: I believe it is a modern practice, to utilize the damping effect. I though here actually is a mention in the Gallot instructions about damping basses, but (I believe we discussed this on this list 10 years ago) I had read this in a modern translation, and others pointed out that the translation into English was faulty, so my previous argument in favor of finding a reference to damping was wrong. So, to answer your question, the old treatises do not mention damping basses, anywhere. Yes, I think it is a modern practice, to help deal with wound metal bass course, which have too much brightness and sustain, requiring we must do something to tame them down. Since about 1995, I have played only gut on baroque lute, and I have forgotten how to dampen basses, because it is absolutely unnecessary. Happy NY to you, too! ed At 02:36 PM 1/1/2009 +0100, David van Ooijen wrote: --===AVGMAIL-495CC870=== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Could it be that the damping of bass strings for baroque lute, to which much attention is given in many if not all modern methods for the baroque lute, is a 20th century phenomenon that has to do with modern bass strings? Or are there historical sources mentioning this practice? David - happy 2009 to all. Here's my card: http://home.planet.nl/~ooije006/david/homepage_p.html -- *** David van Ooijen davidvanooi...@gmail.com www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --===AVGMAIL-495CC870=== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="===AVGMAIL-495CC870===" --===AVGMAIL-495CC870=== Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Description: "AVG certification" No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1870 - Release Date: 12/31/2008
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: damping of basses
I believe it is a modern practice, to utilize the damping effect. I though here actually is a mention in the Gallot instructions about damping basses, but (I believe we discussed this on this list 10 years ago) I had read this in a modern translation, and others pointed out that the translation into English was faulty, so my previous argument in favor of finding a reference to damping was wrong. So, to answer your question, the old treatises do not mention damping basses, anywhere. Yes, I think it is a modern practice, to help deal with wound metal bass course, which have too much brightness and sustain, requiring we must do something to tame them down. Since about 1995, I have played only gut on baroque lute, and I have forgotten how to dampen basses, because it is absolutely unnecessary. Happy NY to you, too! ed At 02:36 PM 1/1/2009 +0100, David van Ooijen wrote: >--===AVGMAIL-495CC870=== >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Could it be that the damping of bass strings for baroque lute, to >which much attention is given in many if not all modern methods for >the baroque lute, is a 20th century phenomenon that has to do with >modern bass strings? Or are there historical sources mentioning this >practice? > >David - happy 2009 to all. Here's my card: >http://home.planet.nl/~ooije006/david/homepage_p.html > >-- >*** >David van Ooijen >davidvanooi...@gmail.com >www.davidvanooijen.nl >*** > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >--===AVGMAIL-495CC870=== >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="===AVGMAIL-495CC870===" > >--===AVGMAIL-495CC870=== >Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=ISO-8859-1 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Content-Disposition: inline >Content-Description: "AVG certification" > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1870 - Release Date: 12/31/2008 = >8:44 AM > >--===AVGMAIL-495CC870===-- > >--===AVGMAIL-495CC870===-- Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: e...@gamutstrings.com voice: (218) 728-1202
