Talk:Strings (music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Details vary

This is a good start to the article. Please remember that the subject applies to strings for a wide variety of instruments. What I'm reading looks like it applies to my fiddle a lot more than to my classical guitar. Kbh3rd 23:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that too. Made it a little less violin-centric by pointing out different materials used for string winding depending on the instrument. --ILike2BeAnonymous 06:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Material in violin article

I added a note the the violin talk page noting that the discussion on strings there seems a lot richer in some details than here, and that seems backwards. Who can merge that information into this article? -- Kbh3rd 20:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "Guitar strings" into this article

I propose this be done. The guitar strings article is redundant (and badly written to boot). Put a redirect from "guitar strings" to here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. It should be just scraped and replaced with a redirect. --GreyCat 19:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
How do you do that? I'll do it right away, absent any strong protest. --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean badly written? I was just respnding to a request plus it was the first article I've written. it wasn't that bad apart from the start. St jimmy 11:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, nothing personal: you know what they say here about having a thick skin, seeing your work get "mercilessly edited" and all. Yes, it is badly written, but your creating it in response to a request is still appreciated. But you didn't respond to the merge question: is it OK with you to merge it into this article? --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it's ok to merge. What could I do to improve the article or do different next time? St jimmy 10:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that the articles should be merged. (See Guitar Strings "talk" page.) So how do we get this done? How does one "just scrape" an article? Can someone do this? --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. I just cut-and-pasted the article without seeing this discussion. I don't think the Guitar strings article was not of bad quality, just the information is more useful in the context of this article. So therefor, I put the information in this article. Anyone disagree, take it out. --Banana04131 20:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I did just that. Looks like you didn't really even read this article before pasting the "Guitar strings" stuff into it. That material was 98% redundant with what was already here. So the articles are now merged. I'll go ahead and remove the suggested merge tag. That is all. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] History section requested

Someone could include a History section in which they could write about the history of the musical strings, when where the first strings made? for what instruments? What materials were used? etc... --Francisco Valverde 09:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Why is this page title at the plural "Strings"? See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns. Hyacinth 18:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but contra that, see this. Me, I'm not sure: seems to me that since almost all stringed musical instruments have more than one string, it would make more sense to refer to them in the plural. When talking about a piano, for instance, it seems more natural to refer to "piano strings" rather than "the/a piano string", unless one particular string is under discussion. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silk and Steel

I edited the article to remove the suggestion that silk and steel strings were only for 12-string guitars. I've bought and used 6-string sets for years. In fact, I've only just recently found silk and steel strings for my 12-string. Having said that, I love them on the 12-string!!

Also, I've never seen the wound with unplated bronze -- the ones I've used were usually silver-plated. andersonpd 23:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And generally the windings on sets labeled "silk and steel" are not bronze but silver-plated copper--see Frank Ford's strings page at frets.com or the D'addario or GHS sites' description of their S&S set. The only companies I could find that use bronze wrap on silk/steel-core sets are GHS, John Pearse, and Tomastik--and these are all labeled "silk and bronze" (except the Pearse sets, which are called just "Silks"). RLetson 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strings wound for mass, not thickness

This is apropos the little edit-spat we (JustPlainBill) and me had recently, over a pretty small thing: a statement that strings were wound for reasons of mass and thickness. Sorry to be such a nit about this, old buddy, but my initial research is showing that I'm correct in this. From just the first page of Google hits on "string instrument" wound mass comes these links:

Wound strings rely on the additional string mass per unit length supplied by the spiral wrap to supply lower pitched notes at an acceptable string tension.
Nothing about thickness. (Gawd, the language patent writers use is just as stilted as the stuff around here! "Supply" lower-pitched notes? "Hey, Larry, we're running out of them low G-flats. Got any more back in the warehouse?")
Table 4.6 shows that the density for aluminium is 2 x Gut, for steel it is 6 x, for silver 8 x and for gold and wolfram (tungsten) it is 15 x. Thus the string mass could be greatly increased by winding with little increase of thickness", i.e., the string weight has been doubled but the diameter has not been changed.
But this merely says that the choice of winding metal will affect the diameter (thickness) of the wound string, which we already know, and that certain choices may result in less increase in diameter. But the reason for winding the string in the first place is still to increase its mass, not its diameter.
  • Lutherie Info; this site has the formulaic stuff relating string tension, pitch, blah blah blah, but it also has an interesting little explanation of the rationale behind wound strings: an 16th century instrument, the orpharion, which had splayed frets to accomodate the extremely thick (and "floppy") bass strings then used.

I could probably find more, but I think I've had enough fun for now. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I don't have all the time in the world to pick at this nit, but here are two things that popped out near the top of a search for Pickering Daddario and Helicore:
String manufacturers pay attention to a lot of things about their product. Thickness is one of those things:
"These innovative materials have enabled us to design strings with a very
small diameter to provide extremely quick bow response. The application of
damping resins under selected windings gives the Helicores a warm, rich sound,
quite unlike steel strings of the past."
That's from p.5 of a Daddario blurb
An interesting interview with a Daddario R&D engineer doesn't say "we wind for thickness" but does hint at the variety of reasons behind the choices made in designing a string and its winding. Manufacturer asks string players what they want. They say they want a certain feel or response or sound. I bet none of them says they want a certain mass per length. You can bet the manufacturers design the winding to give the players what they want. Mass is just one factor to balance among many others.
The easy things for a player to tell about a string include rigidity/floppiness (while off the instrument), thickness/thinness, a rough idea of playing tension at pitch, fast/slow response, whether the string is "hard" like steel or "soft" like gut when played into, plus subjective stuff about the sound. There's an interaction between all of the above and probably other stuff as well. Golden ears may be able to tell something about the damping of a string, bright, warm or otherwise, but I bet very few of us consciously judge the sound of a string in terms of damping factor.
That a metal winding makes a string thicker is undeniable. That manufacturers choose winding materials to manage string diameter will likewise be hard to argue against. Seen any aluminum-wound Dominant 4/4 violin G strings lately? No need to wonder why... they'd probably be as fat as my C string, and not be accepted well in the market.
All of this doesn't even go near the reasons for winding an E string. How about leaving the "why" out of it, for example, "or they may have a core of one material with an overwinding of other materials, increasing their mass and thickness."
__Just plain Bill 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this is just a misunderstanding. But no, I disagree with that last suggestion: I still stand by the assertion that strings are wound to increase their mass. Period. However, that doesn't mean that the windings aren't selected with the string's final diameter in mind: obviously, string manufacturers don't want to produce strings that have the correct mass, but feel like bridge cables to the player. So yes, the selection of the winding material does affect the diameter (and possibly even something more subtle, the feel of the string under the finger); but the only reason strings are wound in the first place (unless you can find an explanation to the contrary) is to increase their mass. (I believe this even goes for wound violin E strings.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Wound E strings are a peculiarity of the violin world. For those unfamiliar, a violin E is almost always a steel wire, of about similar gauge to a guitar high E. Some are plain, some are plated, and some are aluminum wrapped. The plating and wrapping have very little to do with mass, and a lot to do with the surface characteristics of the string, managing how it responds to certain attacks of the bow hair. Some players have a problem with a whistling E string in some musical circumstances, which the winding is supposed to alleviate. Not about mass at all, maybe a bit about thickness, probably more about giving the string a different torsional behavior.
Let's let it sit this way for a while. __Just plain Bill 23:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there's always an exception, isn't there? How about this: Strings are wound to increase their mass, except in the case of bowed string instruments, where a string's winding may affect how the string responds to the bow. Or something like that ... later, as you say. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of time and thought, I've discovered a root of the misunderstanding. We've been looking at it upside-down, arguing about bananas when the issue is really blueberries. Strings are not wound to make them thicker, they are wound to make them thinner. The average player cares jack about mass, but can easily feel how thick or thin a string is. Pirastro's Chorda plain gut violin set has three plain-gut strings and a wound G, since plain gut for that string would be inconveniently thick. Eureka! __Just plain Bill 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/r/Talk%7EStrings_%28music%29_4292.html"