Very interesting. I learned a lot. But I missed an explanation of this paragraph: “Why is this lecture important for baroque people, being them players or conductors or managers? Because it explains why the set-up widely used in “Historically Informed Practice” was nonexistent and not possible until 1915.”
What is that setup in HIP and what was the technology innovation? Was it polishing the gut string?
Thank you! In this case, the most common HIP violin setup is two plain guts and two wound strings, the most often wound strings are Pirastro with flat wire. This particular mix of strings was not possible at least until 1915 because an affordable way to obtain aluminium was discovered in 1860 but not widely spread until WWI and the need for light planes. However, before someone got a flat aluminium wire and the technology to use it on a string, it was 1951. But round wire hand polished to flat was possible in the twenties, even though not the preferred choice for pro. Without aluminium you cannot overspun a third string. So, even if none would have made this choice (as documented by several sources, from Flesch, to Heifetz, to orchestra repair records), before 1915 technically that solution of 2+2 was not available. Even after that it was never the choice, because a steel E entered in the usual pro setup way before the wound D. This means that a setup with steel E, plain gut A and D, and wound G (with round wire) would me more appropriate (at least for first half of 20th century music.
The “baroque” set of string that we see today so often (sob), 2+2, was created in the 1970s from the revival pioneers, but it was never in use before, and could not exhaust before 1915.
So, the big innovation was the affordable way to produce aluminium, which is the lightest metal available for wires.
Thank you for explaining this. The past is always elusive. I do think we have learned a lot and I appreciate many stylistic devices that we have “recovered” as well as many “architectural” features of bows, instruments and strings. But even if we could recreate everything perfectly we cannot purge our minds of the experiences of the intervening centuries that shape our abilities to hear and perform.
Very interesting. I learned a lot. But I missed an explanation of this paragraph: “Why is this lecture important for baroque people, being them players or conductors or managers? Because it explains why the set-up widely used in “Historically Informed Practice” was nonexistent and not possible until 1915.”
What is that setup in HIP and what was the technology innovation? Was it polishing the gut string?
Thank you! In this case, the most common HIP violin setup is two plain guts and two wound strings, the most often wound strings are Pirastro with flat wire. This particular mix of strings was not possible at least until 1915 because an affordable way to obtain aluminium was discovered in 1860 but not widely spread until WWI and the need for light planes. However, before someone got a flat aluminium wire and the technology to use it on a string, it was 1951. But round wire hand polished to flat was possible in the twenties, even though not the preferred choice for pro. Without aluminium you cannot overspun a third string. So, even if none would have made this choice (as documented by several sources, from Flesch, to Heifetz, to orchestra repair records), before 1915 technically that solution of 2+2 was not available. Even after that it was never the choice, because a steel E entered in the usual pro setup way before the wound D. This means that a setup with steel E, plain gut A and D, and wound G (with round wire) would me more appropriate (at least for first half of 20th century music.
The “baroque” set of string that we see today so often (sob), 2+2, was created in the 1970s from the revival pioneers, but it was never in use before, and could not exhaust before 1915.
So, the big innovation was the affordable way to produce aluminium, which is the lightest metal available for wires.
Thank you for explaining this. The past is always elusive. I do think we have learned a lot and I appreciate many stylistic devices that we have “recovered” as well as many “architectural” features of bows, instruments and strings. But even if we could recreate everything perfectly we cannot purge our minds of the experiences of the intervening centuries that shape our abilities to hear and perform.
Totally agree! But I would be so curious…