I would be extremely cautious in trying to apply relativistic effects to a string that straightforwardly. Nevertheless, we can at least try to think about such a thing. I think we haven't considered the effect of length contraction here (whatever that means in the context of strings). We assume that the (non-extensible) string is moving with constant (relativistic) speed (no GR effects, only SR). The only oscillations would be transverse. If we assume the string is moving in a direction perpendicular to that of the oscillations (that is in the direction of its extension), then, according to my understanding, the "stuff" that makes up the string suffers no relativistic effects (and the frequency remains the same, hence the mass is unchanged). Now, we work in the direction of motion of the string to make sure everythings holds. The string is contracted in its direction of motion, and its length appears smaller to the observer. Now, we must be clear about what frame we are referring to... as I understand Mike, he's talking about the frame of the string. The oscillations on the string are stationary (for the sake of argument), hence the velocity of the wave traveling to the right of the string is equal to the velocity of the wave traveling to the left...but we have a shorter string... but hey, now there's the effect of time dilation.. that is the velocity remains the same for the observer (and for the string). Thus, no change in frequency, hence no change in mass (assuming Mike's hypothesis of mass is proportional to frequency is correct). We can also speak in terms of "tension", but I am hungry... Maybe someone can work the maths out.. it should be straightforward! Now, we can argue to infinite lengths about all I have just said.. what is this "stuff" which makes strings, etc... hence, I believe that the idea of trying to think about strings as "things" that actually behave in classical relativistic manner does not hold (hence the need for a quantum gravity theory, or whatever it might be called).