Tweet
Something like this is what I was thinking of for a high A and Floyd, except the Floyd would be a 7 string Floyd with a short scale length high A as a fixed bridge component. Basically the reverse of this (15 string?) Baroque lute based on an oud.
All the drone notes on wound strings are something that could just be done by a bass guitar, which is why I really don't understand why many of these instruments exist unless all the strings are being constantly used via sweeps, arpeggios, tapping, etc. When he's playing the melodies on the two course upper set of strings (except for the two highest which appear to be singles) so much of the instrument's potential seems to be wasted because the human hand can't handle that many strings.
Meanwhile the piano/keyboard isn't wasted because you can do such wide intervals on it, whereas a stringed instrument still boxes you in to either a fixed number of frets or crossing strings. Imagine trying to play one of the lower wound strings and higher unwound strings more than 3 frets apart on that instrument. Impossible. But not so with a keyboard.
I can see the need for this instrument in a live setting if you are the only musician. But I would still prefer a small ensemble similar to Vivaldi's string arrangements over some kind of huge multi stringed instrument trying to do everything poorly.
Many independent players/lines will always be better than a single player with many strings, IMO. It's probably only in gypsy jazz where it seems like there's one guitar player playing two fully independent parts. That's also why it's such a challenging genre to play.
I think it's sort of sad that luthiers 500 years ago were taking more creative chances than we are now. Then again, we're doing with software what they had to do by altering the timbre and nature of the instrument.
All the drone notes on wound strings are something that could just be done by a bass guitar, which is why I really don't understand why many of these instruments exist unless all the strings are being constantly used via sweeps, arpeggios, tapping, etc. When he's playing the melodies on the two course upper set of strings (except for the two highest which appear to be singles) so much of the instrument's potential seems to be wasted because the human hand can't handle that many strings.
Meanwhile the piano/keyboard isn't wasted because you can do such wide intervals on it, whereas a stringed instrument still boxes you in to either a fixed number of frets or crossing strings. Imagine trying to play one of the lower wound strings and higher unwound strings more than 3 frets apart on that instrument. Impossible. But not so with a keyboard.
I can see the need for this instrument in a live setting if you are the only musician. But I would still prefer a small ensemble similar to Vivaldi's string arrangements over some kind of huge multi stringed instrument trying to do everything poorly.
Many independent players/lines will always be better than a single player with many strings, IMO. It's probably only in gypsy jazz where it seems like there's one guitar player playing two fully independent parts. That's also why it's such a challenging genre to play.
I think it's sort of sad that luthiers 500 years ago were taking more creative chances than we are now. Then again, we're doing with software what they had to do by altering the timbre and nature of the instrument.
Comment