Brilliant! Yes, I would love a cupcake. I don't care how it's tuned.
soprano tuning
- Thread starter chuck in ny
- Start date
Brilliant! Yes, I would love a cupcake. I don't care how it's tuned.
stevepetergal
Well-known member
My apologies to the UU comunity for any misinterpretation of my opinions regarding this thread's original question. Please indulge me some clarification
I never said anyone advocated Low G tuning. I don't feel the need lie. I've read David Hurd's words that low G tuning is better on tenor. Sure. In the same paragraph he had mentioned concert low G tuning and said nothing bad about it, only that it was preferable on a tenor. I don't know if he makes concerts, but if he does, I'm sure he'd make one for you and string it low G if that's what you wanted.
I buy low G strings for my concert from Gordon Meyer. Does he advocate them? I have no idea. Would he say it would be better with a tenor? I don't know. Probably. I probably would, too. The size of the soundboard, and that of the sound chamber must make the tenor better capable of amplifying those (let's face it) 5 half steps and projecting that amplified sound. Please, understand that when Dirk at Southecoast Ukuleles misquotes me and misrepresents what I write, it doesn't make me a liar. When he calls me a "bald-faced" liar here on the forum, he is not being truthful. He sees I have an opinion that agrees with a large part of the ukulele community but not with him and assumes I'm dangerous or something.
A bit of evidence:
"Concert ukuleles may have the C course as an octave pair, with the second C string being higher; they may also be strung with the G note an octave lower..."
David Hurd (in context, here http://www.ukuleles.com/Technology/strings.html )
Ko'olau builds highly regarded ukuleles. I've only played one, but it was wonderful (only my opinion). Ko'olau makes strings as well. They have at least three different types of low G string sets for concert. They make at least three different sets for soprano low G. Do the fine craftsmen at Ko'olau advocate low G tuning on anything besides a tenor. Can't know. They clearly don't rail against it.
After researching on just one website, I find that Aquila sells at least five different types of low G string sets for concerts, and at least three for sopranos. Do they advocate them? Don't know. Don't care. (From this evidence alone, one might think ukulele and string technology has surpassed the understanding of Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles. But I won't say that. It couldn't be proven either way, and might be only half true.)
James Hill writes in Ukulele Yes e-zine that: "...my recent experience has convinced me that Low-4th tuning doesn't work on soprano-sized instruments unless a wound 4th string is used (recommended gauge is between 0.026" and 0.030")."
Is he advocating? No. But, he clearly implies it at least works with a wound string. And he is writing about a soprano.
I have heard that Ohta San has recorded on a low G soprano. If this is true, recording seems like advocacy.
As far as "'anti-tech' bias" is concerned, I have almost twenty seven years of background in acoustic instrument technology, but believe that the tech side not only should, but must serve the musical. The modern piano is the result of technologies Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles can't even begin to comprehend, which make it an immeasurable advancement over its predecessors in sound and range of auditory capabilities (not to mention playability). Would I, therefore, say that no one should play a harpsichord or virginal again? Never! These instruments are still being built, and being played by some of the greatest musicians in the world. I'm just a technician.
I don't want anyone to misunderstand me, the way Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles clearly does. I take his word that low G will sound better on a tenor than a concert, and that David Hurd agrees with him. I'll even bet that most luthiers would agree. It doesn't matter at all. What I say, in response to the original question of this thread, remains (check it out). I say give it a try. And I say it most emphatically. They make the strings, expert builders will string them this way for you (not Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles). Some of the best ukulele players accept it at least as an option, Ohta San and James Hill included. The musician and the listener, not the technical expert, must determine what they enjoy. It's almost heartbreaking to read on this thread that a player has the strings on hand for a long time and has determined to never use them because of what he has read.
Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles feels very differently. We in the technical field, have determined that the tenor scale and body size is optimum for low G tuning. Therefore, all people reading this thread must abandon the thought of anything else. To agree with Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles, you must buy into this.
We have a different kind of philosophy, he and I. I think the UU forum is not only an avenue for the exchange of ideas, but also a vehicle for expanding the experiences of the ukulele player. Even when, as I've shown, there's a place for all opinions, Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles makes it clear, with religious (almost nazi-ist) fervor and zeal, that the UU is a place where we must come to find out how we are to limit ourselves. And, he gets to determine those limits.
I have not called Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles a liar on the forum. He has incorrectly called me one. If he does not apologize for this, here on the forum, I call him a coward.
I never said anyone advocated Low G tuning. I don't feel the need lie. I've read David Hurd's words that low G tuning is better on tenor. Sure. In the same paragraph he had mentioned concert low G tuning and said nothing bad about it, only that it was preferable on a tenor. I don't know if he makes concerts, but if he does, I'm sure he'd make one for you and string it low G if that's what you wanted.
I buy low G strings for my concert from Gordon Meyer. Does he advocate them? I have no idea. Would he say it would be better with a tenor? I don't know. Probably. I probably would, too. The size of the soundboard, and that of the sound chamber must make the tenor better capable of amplifying those (let's face it) 5 half steps and projecting that amplified sound. Please, understand that when Dirk at Southecoast Ukuleles misquotes me and misrepresents what I write, it doesn't make me a liar. When he calls me a "bald-faced" liar here on the forum, he is not being truthful. He sees I have an opinion that agrees with a large part of the ukulele community but not with him and assumes I'm dangerous or something.
A bit of evidence:
"Concert ukuleles may have the C course as an octave pair, with the second C string being higher; they may also be strung with the G note an octave lower..."
David Hurd (in context, here http://www.ukuleles.com/Technology/strings.html )
Ko'olau builds highly regarded ukuleles. I've only played one, but it was wonderful (only my opinion). Ko'olau makes strings as well. They have at least three different types of low G string sets for concert. They make at least three different sets for soprano low G. Do the fine craftsmen at Ko'olau advocate low G tuning on anything besides a tenor. Can't know. They clearly don't rail against it.
After researching on just one website, I find that Aquila sells at least five different types of low G string sets for concerts, and at least three for sopranos. Do they advocate them? Don't know. Don't care. (From this evidence alone, one might think ukulele and string technology has surpassed the understanding of Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles. But I won't say that. It couldn't be proven either way, and might be only half true.)
James Hill writes in Ukulele Yes e-zine that: "...my recent experience has convinced me that Low-4th tuning doesn't work on soprano-sized instruments unless a wound 4th string is used (recommended gauge is between 0.026" and 0.030")."
Is he advocating? No. But, he clearly implies it at least works with a wound string. And he is writing about a soprano.
I have heard that Ohta San has recorded on a low G soprano. If this is true, recording seems like advocacy.
As far as "'anti-tech' bias" is concerned, I have almost twenty seven years of background in acoustic instrument technology, but believe that the tech side not only should, but must serve the musical. The modern piano is the result of technologies Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles can't even begin to comprehend, which make it an immeasurable advancement over its predecessors in sound and range of auditory capabilities (not to mention playability). Would I, therefore, say that no one should play a harpsichord or virginal again? Never! These instruments are still being built, and being played by some of the greatest musicians in the world. I'm just a technician.
I don't want anyone to misunderstand me, the way Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles clearly does. I take his word that low G will sound better on a tenor than a concert, and that David Hurd agrees with him. I'll even bet that most luthiers would agree. It doesn't matter at all. What I say, in response to the original question of this thread, remains (check it out). I say give it a try. And I say it most emphatically. They make the strings, expert builders will string them this way for you (not Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles). Some of the best ukulele players accept it at least as an option, Ohta San and James Hill included. The musician and the listener, not the technical expert, must determine what they enjoy. It's almost heartbreaking to read on this thread that a player has the strings on hand for a long time and has determined to never use them because of what he has read.
Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles feels very differently. We in the technical field, have determined that the tenor scale and body size is optimum for low G tuning. Therefore, all people reading this thread must abandon the thought of anything else. To agree with Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles, you must buy into this.
We have a different kind of philosophy, he and I. I think the UU forum is not only an avenue for the exchange of ideas, but also a vehicle for expanding the experiences of the ukulele player. Even when, as I've shown, there's a place for all opinions, Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles makes it clear, with religious (almost nazi-ist) fervor and zeal, that the UU is a place where we must come to find out how we are to limit ourselves. And, he gets to determine those limits.
I have not called Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles a liar on the forum. He has incorrectly called me one. If he does not apologize for this, here on the forum, I call him a coward.
Last edited:
ukemunga
Well-known member
Hi stevepetergal,
Great post. All have been interesting reading to say the least. I have no strong feelings about the initial question one way or the other and I think the nature of my post was obviously good-naturedly provocative.
And please don't be heartbroken because I have chosen not to try my low g strings on a soprano. I just figured I probably wasn't going to like it very much because I've got a low g set on a concert and don't play it much for the type of music and sound that I like. It's not for technical reasons. Like I said... give it a try, you might like it!
AND - to all, I have 2 sets of new low g strings for concert or soprano. 1 set is Worth Clear with unwound g and the other is Aquila with a wound low g. I'm not going to be using them so if you'd like a set to try it yourself just PM. Send me a (very) few buck by Paypal just so I know you're really gonna use them and I'l mail them out.
Great post. All have been interesting reading to say the least. I have no strong feelings about the initial question one way or the other and I think the nature of my post was obviously good-naturedly provocative.
And please don't be heartbroken because I have chosen not to try my low g strings on a soprano. I just figured I probably wasn't going to like it very much because I've got a low g set on a concert and don't play it much for the type of music and sound that I like. It's not for technical reasons. Like I said... give it a try, you might like it!
AND - to all, I have 2 sets of new low g strings for concert or soprano. 1 set is Worth Clear with unwound g and the other is Aquila with a wound low g. I'm not going to be using them so if you'd like a set to try it yourself just PM. Send me a (very) few buck by Paypal just so I know you're really gonna use them and I'l mail them out.
southcoastukes
Well-known member
No apology neccessary. You continue, even with this post to try to imply what simply isn't true. Do Kawika's own words not make it clear where he stands, both on the acoustics and his feelings toward someone who would try to twist them 180%?
When someone spends the better part of his career making a reputation based in no small part on the study of acoustics, then writes a landmark tome including those studies, anyone could understand why he categorizes what you have said and continue to say, as "brainless crap".
There is a pathology at work when someone thinks that if they continue to repeat the same lie, someone will believe it. An apology is what would be the cowardly thing to do, and I am not one of those.
coolkayaker1
Well-known member
I think low G sucks on everything. There...I said it.
Last edited:
ukemunga
Well-known member
I think low G sucks on everything. There...I said it.
The sky is falling!
H
Hippie Dribble
Guest
I think low G sucks on everything. There...I said it.
I agree. oh, except on eugenie's undies...oops, shucks :stop:
mketom
Well-known member
Let get back to talking about those cupcakes. May be that some of us need some more fiber in our diets... Got a high fiber cupcake recipe Jon?
H
Hippie Dribble
Guest
Let get back to talking about those cupcakes. May be that some of us need some more fiber in our diets... Got a high fiber cupcake recipe Jon?
ah, never thought you'd ask brother. Here's a little beaut I have for Dark Chocolate Cupcakes w/ Black Valentine Beans. Guaranteed to keep things moving
ld:
southcoastukes
Well-known member
At this point I hope the readers will indulge me in a clarification of my own. I had thought of doing this in a thread all its own, and the topic of free and honest expression on this forum likely deserves a separate discussion. Since there were rather specific statements made on this thread, however, I think it will be easier to reference them here. My apologies to Chuck, but it wasn’t my intention to hijack a thread on Soprano Tuning.
First, there is the use of the term “expert”. It is used in a derogatory manner. I don’t know for sure if it is meant to refer to me in particular. It seems from the remarks of both Steve and John that it may be. That would be better, in my view, than if it was meant to apply to anyone who broached the subject of acoustics at all.
Expert is not a term I have ever claimed. I do have a business that sells strings, so I just might have a contribution to make. However, if you read through this thread, you will also notice that not once did I criticize anyone who might like to try the tuning in question. I simply presented another option for a linear tuning – with a video – with no associated value judgment - to let people make up their own minds. Late in the thread, I said parenthetically that I in fact, I did agree with the acoustic opinions that were offered by Munga & Bill.
Just like the two “non-experts” seemed to know everyone else’s opinions and business, they put words into my mouth as well Kawika’s. Here is what is posted on our website for anyone to see about set-ups outside the realm of resonant tuning:
At this point, we’d just like to say again that we’re not trying to tell anyone how they have to tune or play their instrument. If you are enjoying some sort of arrangement outside the parameters we’ve just outlined, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Music is about enjoyment, after all. However these pages, this whole “Guide to Tuning & Strings”, for that matter, are about achieving the best in sound quality for your instrument. We worked hard to put together an assortment of strings that constitutes the widest selection, in terms of tone and tension, that you’ll encounter anywhere. If we were then to ignore acoustics, in our eyes, it would make the whole effort useless. You can have the best quality strings, with a wonderful tone and balance, but if your tuning doesn’t mesh with the acoustics of your instrument, none of that matters. We’ve wasted our time. So while optimal sound may not be a prerequisite for having fun with the Ukulele, remember that for many players, bringing out the best in their instrument gives an immense satisfaction. Obviously, these are the people we’re providing strings for. We’ve tried first to show how it really isn’t that difficult a proposition to tune well to begin with, and then, put together a “Guide” on how to take advantage of what are actually a staggering amount of possibilities for fully resonant tunings.…
If someone asks a question like Chuck did, why would anyone want to exclude acoustics from the answer? The only reason I can see is that there are some who simply don’t want to see any opinion that may cast even an imaginary slight on their own particular preference. As we have said above on our site, slighting anyone’s preference is not our intent, but “censoring” all acoustic data to prevent an imagined slight is a disservice to those seeking information here.
Presenting acoustic data might be likened to telling someone that there is a law of gravity. I suppose you could just step back and not say anything while someone jumped off a 20 story building, but would you really? I know the comparison is an extreme exaggeration, but the principle is the same. Why refrain from offering advice that could guide people in their search for good sound? They can take it or leave it. Are those opinions worth less than those who simply say “I like this or that”? If you want to make these sorts of questions a popularity contest, then it would be better to look at what well-known tunings are popular across the board, not what people post about them on a forum. Most folks prefer to post their positive experiences.
In the end, “Try it and see if you like it” is a cop-out. If someone wanted that answer, they wouldn’t have asked for advice in the first place. And what if there were a militant fringe on the forum who continually posted something on the lines of “Don’t listen to the people who tell you what sounds good to them. There are too many people with a tin ear – no concept of good sound whatsoever. Go strictly by the acoustics!” You don’t see that, so I think it’s obvious where the true tolerance and intolerance lie.
The reaction here to my simply presenting an alternative linear set-up (that’s all I did – no value judgment!) was completely hysterical. This is a thread on Soprano tuning, but since I had nothing negative to say about any of the options presented, John went off on a PM (that’s Personal Message - not a post!) I sent him on Baritone tuning and Steve proceeded to invent Luthiers’ support to back up his side in an argument I never made. I made a couple of requests for him to clarify those statements, and waited over a couple of day’s time. I was hoping he would just admit to an error. His only response was to say in no uncertain terms that I was wrong, so I called him on it. I have since received an insulting and irrational e-mail.
Actually this was not the first. I received another before and at that time, I felt so bad about unintentionally hurting someone’s feelings, that I “self-censored” myself from making any comments at all on string questions. After a time, I did go back to offering my advice, hoping that Steve would “buck up”. However, with the constant drumbeat of “don’t let the experts tell you what to do” and a posting of an unequivocal “You are wrong” about Kawika, I have realized that I am dealing with a different animal. I would be glad to post copies of Steve’s messages or forward them to the moderators. They arrived both through the forum and to my own e-mail.
The most truly ridiculous implication is that somehow we are against anyone “expanding their horizons”. That, if anything, should be our middle name. Let’s see how many firsts we have at this point. Flat wound strings for the Ukulele, reentrant G tuning string sets for the big Ukes, G tuning sets in both Linear and reentrant for small Ukes, Machete tuning sets, a full range of sets in Cuatro tuning, and a Piccolo Bass set. Soon to be released are Plectrum tuning sets, Eddie Freeman sets and more. If there’s a tuning we don’t advocate, it’s obviously not because we’re closed to the option of new possibilities.
There are various kinds of business models. Kawika, for example, had a truly relentless drive to make the best acoustic instruments he could possibly fashion. When it comes to the Ukulele, I consider him to be the genius of our generation, and his work has influenced those outside the 4-string world as well. Steve, he would not make a “low G” concert for you! First, because he has retired. But second, because the painstaking multi-multi step process he used to build his instruments for the best acoustic response possible meant he likely didn’t make a fortune doing it. If his work did not place profit at the pinnacle, how could someone like you presume to say he would take all that time and effort to build an instrument that he knew would never live up to his own standards. Steve, please, please refrain from wild speculation about people you know little or nothing about, and presenting it as fact!
And John, I had thought you were someone who one could at least respectfully disagree with, but you also rail at the “experts”. It seems, however, you have enough expertise to “know” for a certainty what good sound is and is not, based solely on how you hear it. You also are enough of an expert to tell me how to run my string business. Everyone has their own model. Mine is probably pretty close to Kawika’s. We turn a profit, but our philosophy is to present only strings we feel are acoustically appropriate. Our website has a “Philosophy” page, and if you’re that interested, I suggest you read it. I won’t retire on the income from the string business, but it makes a profit, and I’m happy with it. So I hope you’ll take this with good humor:
In the end, I hope that all can post their opinions on this forum without the insults, either direct or implied, that we have seen in this thread. And I also hope that we can be honest with the information we give to others.
First, there is the use of the term “expert”. It is used in a derogatory manner. I don’t know for sure if it is meant to refer to me in particular. It seems from the remarks of both Steve and John that it may be. That would be better, in my view, than if it was meant to apply to anyone who broached the subject of acoustics at all.
Expert is not a term I have ever claimed. I do have a business that sells strings, so I just might have a contribution to make. However, if you read through this thread, you will also notice that not once did I criticize anyone who might like to try the tuning in question. I simply presented another option for a linear tuning – with a video – with no associated value judgment - to let people make up their own minds. Late in the thread, I said parenthetically that I in fact, I did agree with the acoustic opinions that were offered by Munga & Bill.
Just like the two “non-experts” seemed to know everyone else’s opinions and business, they put words into my mouth as well Kawika’s. Here is what is posted on our website for anyone to see about set-ups outside the realm of resonant tuning:
At this point, we’d just like to say again that we’re not trying to tell anyone how they have to tune or play their instrument. If you are enjoying some sort of arrangement outside the parameters we’ve just outlined, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Music is about enjoyment, after all. However these pages, this whole “Guide to Tuning & Strings”, for that matter, are about achieving the best in sound quality for your instrument. We worked hard to put together an assortment of strings that constitutes the widest selection, in terms of tone and tension, that you’ll encounter anywhere. If we were then to ignore acoustics, in our eyes, it would make the whole effort useless. You can have the best quality strings, with a wonderful tone and balance, but if your tuning doesn’t mesh with the acoustics of your instrument, none of that matters. We’ve wasted our time. So while optimal sound may not be a prerequisite for having fun with the Ukulele, remember that for many players, bringing out the best in their instrument gives an immense satisfaction. Obviously, these are the people we’re providing strings for. We’ve tried first to show how it really isn’t that difficult a proposition to tune well to begin with, and then, put together a “Guide” on how to take advantage of what are actually a staggering amount of possibilities for fully resonant tunings.…
If someone asks a question like Chuck did, why would anyone want to exclude acoustics from the answer? The only reason I can see is that there are some who simply don’t want to see any opinion that may cast even an imaginary slight on their own particular preference. As we have said above on our site, slighting anyone’s preference is not our intent, but “censoring” all acoustic data to prevent an imagined slight is a disservice to those seeking information here.
Presenting acoustic data might be likened to telling someone that there is a law of gravity. I suppose you could just step back and not say anything while someone jumped off a 20 story building, but would you really? I know the comparison is an extreme exaggeration, but the principle is the same. Why refrain from offering advice that could guide people in their search for good sound? They can take it or leave it. Are those opinions worth less than those who simply say “I like this or that”? If you want to make these sorts of questions a popularity contest, then it would be better to look at what well-known tunings are popular across the board, not what people post about them on a forum. Most folks prefer to post their positive experiences.
In the end, “Try it and see if you like it” is a cop-out. If someone wanted that answer, they wouldn’t have asked for advice in the first place. And what if there were a militant fringe on the forum who continually posted something on the lines of “Don’t listen to the people who tell you what sounds good to them. There are too many people with a tin ear – no concept of good sound whatsoever. Go strictly by the acoustics!” You don’t see that, so I think it’s obvious where the true tolerance and intolerance lie.
The reaction here to my simply presenting an alternative linear set-up (that’s all I did – no value judgment!) was completely hysterical. This is a thread on Soprano tuning, but since I had nothing negative to say about any of the options presented, John went off on a PM (that’s Personal Message - not a post!) I sent him on Baritone tuning and Steve proceeded to invent Luthiers’ support to back up his side in an argument I never made. I made a couple of requests for him to clarify those statements, and waited over a couple of day’s time. I was hoping he would just admit to an error. His only response was to say in no uncertain terms that I was wrong, so I called him on it. I have since received an insulting and irrational e-mail.
Actually this was not the first. I received another before and at that time, I felt so bad about unintentionally hurting someone’s feelings, that I “self-censored” myself from making any comments at all on string questions. After a time, I did go back to offering my advice, hoping that Steve would “buck up”. However, with the constant drumbeat of “don’t let the experts tell you what to do” and a posting of an unequivocal “You are wrong” about Kawika, I have realized that I am dealing with a different animal. I would be glad to post copies of Steve’s messages or forward them to the moderators. They arrived both through the forum and to my own e-mail.
The most truly ridiculous implication is that somehow we are against anyone “expanding their horizons”. That, if anything, should be our middle name. Let’s see how many firsts we have at this point. Flat wound strings for the Ukulele, reentrant G tuning string sets for the big Ukes, G tuning sets in both Linear and reentrant for small Ukes, Machete tuning sets, a full range of sets in Cuatro tuning, and a Piccolo Bass set. Soon to be released are Plectrum tuning sets, Eddie Freeman sets and more. If there’s a tuning we don’t advocate, it’s obviously not because we’re closed to the option of new possibilities.
There are various kinds of business models. Kawika, for example, had a truly relentless drive to make the best acoustic instruments he could possibly fashion. When it comes to the Ukulele, I consider him to be the genius of our generation, and his work has influenced those outside the 4-string world as well. Steve, he would not make a “low G” concert for you! First, because he has retired. But second, because the painstaking multi-multi step process he used to build his instruments for the best acoustic response possible meant he likely didn’t make a fortune doing it. If his work did not place profit at the pinnacle, how could someone like you presume to say he would take all that time and effort to build an instrument that he knew would never live up to his own standards. Steve, please, please refrain from wild speculation about people you know little or nothing about, and presenting it as fact!
And John, I had thought you were someone who one could at least respectfully disagree with, but you also rail at the “experts”. It seems, however, you have enough expertise to “know” for a certainty what good sound is and is not, based solely on how you hear it. You also are enough of an expert to tell me how to run my string business. Everyone has their own model. Mine is probably pretty close to Kawika’s. We turn a profit, but our philosophy is to present only strings we feel are acoustically appropriate. Our website has a “Philosophy” page, and if you’re that interested, I suggest you read it. I won’t retire on the income from the string business, but it makes a profit, and I’m happy with it. So I hope you’ll take this with good humor:
In the end, I hope that all can post their opinions on this forum without the insults, either direct or implied, that we have seen in this thread. And I also hope that we can be honest with the information we give to others.
Last edited:
H
Hippie Dribble
Guest
Thankyou for that summary Dirk.
I would just like to say, as a friend of all three parties involved in this discussion, that I have respect for all of you. That said, I think we are inevitably on shaky ground when an opinion is presented and clung to in a dogmatic way. There is room at the table for most all of us, and what is favourable to one set of ears may not be so to anothers.
Finally, I have tried many string sets over the years and I believe the strings produced by southcoast to be the best I have ever used. The range of thicknesses, tensions and tunings that can be achieved from the southcoast catalogue is the widest on the planet. I will continue to use them. I trust Dirk's knowledge and advice implicitly, he hasn't bum steered me yet.
I would just like to say, as a friend of all three parties involved in this discussion, that I have respect for all of you. That said, I think we are inevitably on shaky ground when an opinion is presented and clung to in a dogmatic way. There is room at the table for most all of us, and what is favourable to one set of ears may not be so to anothers.
Finally, I have tried many string sets over the years and I believe the strings produced by southcoast to be the best I have ever used. The range of thicknesses, tensions and tunings that can be achieved from the southcoast catalogue is the widest on the planet. I will continue to use them. I trust Dirk's knowledge and advice implicitly, he hasn't bum steered me yet.
stevepetergal
Well-known member
I'm not going to criticize the last post by Dirk of Southcoast Ukuleles. Not even reading it.
"There are four courses of strings on an ukulele; each course may have as few as 1 or as many as 3 strings in it. Typically soprano and baritone ukuleles have a total of four strings. Concert ukuleles may have the C course as an octave pair, with the second C string being higher; they may also be strung with the G note an octave lower..."
I believe this is written by David Hurd.(?) If not, he should do something about it, because he is being credited with it on the Kawika web page below.
http://www.ukuleles.com/Technology/strings.html
Again, I say try it, you may hate it.
Your's truly,
the bald faced liar (until proven otherwise)
"There are four courses of strings on an ukulele; each course may have as few as 1 or as many as 3 strings in it. Typically soprano and baritone ukuleles have a total of four strings. Concert ukuleles may have the C course as an octave pair, with the second C string being higher; they may also be strung with the G note an octave lower..."
I believe this is written by David Hurd.(?) If not, he should do something about it, because he is being credited with it on the Kawika web page below.
http://www.ukuleles.com/Technology/strings.html
Again, I say try it, you may hate it.
Your's truly,
the bald faced liar (until proven otherwise)
Last edited:
OldePhart
Well-known member
I can't speak for Steve, but I can say that I quite specifically tried to keep your name out of the context of my post - you were the one who decided to insert it - and proceed to do so by mischaracterizing the PM I sent you. You opened that post saying I'd asked your advice and that was either a deliberate lie or illustrates a remarkably egotistical view of your own importance. As I've pointed out - I specifically asked you if you carried a flat-wound D string. I did mention why I wanted it, and in fact told you that I was quite thrilled with the mix of strings that I had come up with but felt that a flat wound D would be even better than the round wound D I was already using. You then proceeded to tell me that you didn't have it (that would have been sufficient) but then you went on to explain for several long paragraphs why the tuning I'd already said I was quite happy with was unsuitable.
So, yes, since you insist, I do use the term "expert" as derogatory when applied to you - but you are the one who wanted that made public; I was quite specifically keeping your name out of it. It was obvious from that post that you consider yourself the expert. Doesn't answering a simple question about the availability of something that I've already indicated suits my needs with long paragraphs explaining why it can't suit my needs pretty much define someone who regards themselves as an expert?
See last sentence above...
Again, I can't speak for Steve, but I never put words in your mouth at all. Nor did I claim to know anyone else's opinions. I do claim pretty extensive knowledge of my own opinions and that's all I've ever claimed! I did report accurately the content of PM's that I'd exchanged with an anonymous "expert". Again, you were the one that identified yourself as the "expert" I was talking about - and you completely misrepresented the nature of the PM exchange as well.
Right...might be interesting to visit the "way back machine" to see exactly how long that's been there...but I really haven't the time to waste.
Thank you for making my point for me (with the last sentence above). Of course, my question is, why would anyone want to exclude everything but acoustics from the answer?
And again, I wouldn't speak for Steve (this is getting tiresome, BTW) but I never did any such thing. All I did was mention a case where an anonymous expert, without being asked, presumed to know more than I did about what I wanted. Apparently, you couldn't abide the idea that a mere musician might actually think for him or herself.
And I'm not Steve, so why do you try to paint me with his actions? I guess anyone who doesn't agree that a calculator is the most important tool a musician needs is "the enemy" in your eyes.
Yeah, that's an interesting point, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question a couple of posts back... Just exactly when did you add that "innovation?" Was it before or after I made several posts about Thomastik-Infeld chromium steel flatwound strings on my bari after you'd told me you couldn't supply a flatwound bari string because the tuning was inappropriate? :biglaugh:
Yeah, another of those "I wonder when" cases. I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure it was long after several people began raving about the various successes they'd had with such tunings using fishing leader and various mixes of classical guitar strings...
Again...I only mentioned our exchange to make a point that at the end of the day musician's have to be in control of their music and they have to use what makes them happy, not what makes someone else happy. I also tried to keep your name out of it. You're the one who's ego is so badly bruised by any challenge to your edicts, it seems. And yes, I "know" for an absolute certainty what sounds good to me. Guess what - every musician has not only that right, but that responsibility. Are you really that threatened by the thought that somebody might like a different sound, or might value a quiet string for a specific application, or...shoot, I could go on forever.
I don't "rail at experts" as a general rule. I do "rail at experts" when their "expertise" seems to be restricted to recommending their own products to the exclusion of all else, using "acoustics" as an excuse, until it becomes obvious that a significant number of people aren't going to follow their lead, then changing their tune and pretending to have "innovated" the products they formerly recommended against. Yeah, that kind of "expert" I can do without.
Actually, I just quoted a pretty well-accepted business tenant. I'd never to presume to tell you how to run your business. It's amazing how you love to mischaracterize everything someone else says, then whine that Steve is doing that to you. LOL Though...now that I think about it...I'm quite confident in telling you the only way any business is going to win my patronage and nothing I've seen you do comes close to that mark.
Think for a moment - I was very obviously not pointing any fingers at you when I posted about my experience...I can't imagine a businessman intentionally inserting himself into that, proceeding to lie about, or at least very strongly mischaracterize, the previously anonymous communications mentioned. What possible "win" is there for the businessman? None whatsoever - he is absolutely going to alienate many people doing that. The only way it possibly makes sense is if his business model is wrapped around the idea that he is the be-all and end-all of expertise on the product being discussed and, honestly, after reading dozens and dozens of your posts inserted into every thread dealing with strings...I think maybe that is your business model.
Okay, it's a funny bit. I'll accept it in good humor as long as you keep in mind that there are four fingers pointing back at you... :biglaugh:
It would be a nice ideal...wouldn't it. Kind of ironic though considering that most of your post was just one long insult... (Heck, just being lumped with Steve is an insult - just kidding, man.)
John
OldePhart
Well-known member
BWAAA-HAAAA. I hadn't seen that before! Pretty funny. "As welcome as an undertaker at a 50th class reunion" - I'm going to have to remember that one!
John
Nicko
Well-known member
Priceless!
stevepetergal
Well-known member
Last edited:
southcoastukes
Well-known member
Steve,
I can see how you may have looked at that page and drawn the wrong conclusion. It is meant to show the "typical" stringing for ukuleles.
If you were unaquainted with Kawika or his work, it might be possible to misunderstand his intent, and so you have my apology.
I can see how you may have looked at that page and drawn the wrong conclusion. It is meant to show the "typical" stringing for ukuleles.
If you were unaquainted with Kawika or his work, it might be possible to misunderstand his intent, and so you have my apology.
Last edited:
I thought better of my original post here (no need to pour fire on flames), but I will re-post that I respect you taking the high road Dirk (and I would hope I'm not alone in that sentiment).
Last edited:
Similar threads
