Dear Anthony,
I think we had this conversation some time ago, but nothing can be
said with certainty in the face of deficient evidence.
However, I wonder whether mild loading could not also have been used
on other strings than basses, just to help conservation.
Mace tells us about rotten strings:
"I have sometimes seen strings of a yellowish colour, very good; yet,
but seldom; for that colour is a general sign of rottenness, or of
the decay of the string."
This must have been common problem. Perhaps a mild loading could help
conserve strings (admittedly, Mace does also say that red strings are
often rotten).
I don't think this is what he really meant. In the chapter you quote
Mace explains how to choose the good strings. He advices two types:
Minikins and Venice-Catlines as the best ones:
(Mace p.65-66) "Both (Minikins and Venice-Catlines) which are
(generally) at the same price, and the signs of goodness, both the
same; which are, first the clearness of the string to the eye, the
smoothness, and the stiffness to the finger...."
Then he mentions Lyon strings which are not as good in his opinion:
"But they are much more inferior strings than the other."
The sentence that follows (which you cited) maybe interpreted
twofold. Either he continues on commenting Lyons, or he gives the
general remark concerning yellowish coloration which may or may not
be a sign of rotteness. This is like saying beware of yellowish
strings because they might be rotten, but nothing more. We can't
jump into the conclusion that the most strings would be rotten if not
loaded.
Again Mace mentions "There is another sort of strings, which they
call Pistoy basses, which I conceive are none other than thick Venice-
Catlins, which are commonly dyed, with a deep dark red colour."
So perhaps, if loaded basses existed they would have been from
Pistoia, Bologne, etc, and not Rome.
Well, he doesn't say "which are commonly loaded" but rather
"commonly dyed". As I say, we had this discussion on differences
between the loading and dyeing process, so I won't repeat my
arguments (can be checked in the archives), but we really shouldn't
use these terms interchangeably, because by dyeing Mace could mean
only the process of applying a color to the string (which is the
most common meaning of this word).
Perhaps, also if loaded strings were often red, and at the same time
of high repute, other makers of lesser strings, might have also dyed
theirs red.
to cash in on their prestige (i agree, I am just adding to the
speculation).
The red color wasn't really a sign of string goodness. The remark
you cited, Mace applies to the thick red Venice-Catlines only. But
they apparently weren't very popular since he says: "but they are
hard to come by". Quite contrary to what you wrote, when Mace
describes the goodness of colored strings, he says that: "the red
commonly rotten".
Morover he mentions several string colors in common use: "There are
several sorts of coloured strings, very good; but the best (to my
observation) was always the clear blue; the red, commomly rotten;
sometimes green, very good."
If we claim that the red loading prevented decay process, than why
he says the red strings were commonly rotten?
It seems to me that the dyeing (coloration) had nothing to do with
decay preventing.
There are however, some more convincing examples that do look like
loading.
On the same Art site, I saw another Caravaggio painting including a
lute with just one red string, and it was the 7th. Now this might
well be a loaded 7c-D.
http://www.caravaggio.rai.it/eng/opere.swf?currentImage=3
The answer could be very easy - just because he had only one red
bass string at home. But seriously, this prooves nothing yet.
Looking at my photo, it is difficult to tell whether the string is
loaded or just coloured, unless you take account of the relative
thinness.
http://tinyurl.com/cyvnyo
Yes, absolutely I agree, the gauge of the bass strings and the
bridge holes may signify the existence of loading. Italian
traditional receipts for loading other popular items may be the
other evidence. But we can't say anything more by now.
I think historical research should be used to open up new-old
possibilities of approaching the music, not to shut down any other
personal investigation. It should just help us to refine our choices.
Absolutely! However we have to take the evidence as it is.
Nevertheless, I agree entirely with you. It would be such a pity if
every lutensist adopted exactly the same solutions to all these
problems.
How much more interesting from the point of view of tone and texture,
if players personal research come up with varied solutions.
That Ed Martin with Dan Larson refine the Gimped solution to basses,
while Satoh and others develop their low tension hypothesis, will, I
hope, result in less standardization, not more.
Even if Gimped strings were not around at that time (French Baroque),
and low tension strings do not actually allow such a small diameter
as shown by historic lute holes.
I still do hope to hear more lutenists adopting the loaded
solution, and perhaps demifile for later Baroque.
This has to be a personal choice for each lutenist, and some
clearly feel that strings contribute such a small part to their
overall performance, that synthetics will do, or are even better. Not
that they are without their own problems: at least for French
Baroque: lack of homogeneity, tonal problems, lack of warmth, and
loss of clarity; for which the lutensist may well be able to
compensate with the right technique and touch.
I have to stress here, that I am not against loaded strings even if
it may sound paradoxicaly. I admire Mimmo's great contribution in
finding the best strings for a modern lute player. I use his strings
very often and will advice them to other musicians as well. The only
difference between our attitude is the reason for doing so. Assuming
that if one day it definitely occurs that from historical point of
view there is no such a thing as loaded strings ,will you take them
off your lute and throw away? I won't, because if I choose something
it means that I like it best! What I am trying to say is that in
strugling to be HIP one can forget the most important thing, namely
the Music. This is our obligation as early musicians to search the
truth about the past. As somebody posted recently "the theorbo is
made of dreams" I would add "so is the Music". And will use any
means to attain this including strings. I love pure gut on my
renaissance lute, it's feeling and tone, but am open much more to
experiment with the baroque lute stringing (as Miguel Serdoura,
Nigel North and many others do).
It is the sort of contradictory status of a performer of early music.
We are no longer steeped in a tradition that both constrains and
frees us within its limits (or even to push at its limits and
innovate). How much each modern lutenist wants to stay within those
limits (if he can be sure what they are) is a matter of his own
personal choice as an artist and a result of his own research and
taste, but is he in a position to truly innovate, to create new
rules, within that tradition? Perhaps, that might differentiate the
modern interpreter from the performer-composer of the time.
Well, our possition is very strange, because the Old Ones never
played early music (they always played something new), so in
imitaiting them we should do the same but aren't able to. In my
opinion the only solution is to express one's personality in
individual way within the given limits, however breaking them will
mean departing from the early music world. How long there will be a
need for this type of performance? Who knows? But it seems that
there are always people who want to listen to Bach, Mozart or
Bethoven and they hopefuly won't disapear for ever.
Best wishes
Jaroslaw
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
