Dnia 18-10-2005 o godz. 8:38 Rob MacKillop napisa³(a): > I'm a little surprised at people who try pinkie playing for a either a > few > minutes or as much as a couple of months and then reject it.
No one rejected it in the posts I have read so far. Personally I use and develop what I have learned while coming to 19th-c instrument on moder cannon and found that modern instrument sounds much better when played old way. The pinkie support is impossible because the strings are too high. You have to adopt the old technique, but once you can do it, you are rewarded. > It is an extraordianrily subtle > technique > by a master guitarist, Personally I do not believe that professional, active concert performer is unable to learn some BASIC movements of fingers in a period of two months. Movements that differ from the modern technique very slightly. Because we are talking about Sor Method. About the BASIC technique explained in a tutor for ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS. It may be considered as a treatise of great depth and importance, sure, but it was oriented towards serious amateur who is supposed to come with no previous knowledge or skill. > This topic seems to keep being dragged into debate about whether it is a > good technique or not. I am extremely sorry, but I am not of that opinion. I cannot locate any such discussion in a thread. >I'm sorry to have to keep saying that these points > are irrelevant to a historical discussion, You are absolutely right. But what we talked about here, in my view, was the historical question of the practice, its sources, importance and its decline. What we were able to establish is quite important, and the personal playing experience reports from the participants as Rob and Paul gave us deep insight in the problem. To sum up the discussion (as I see it): We know that Sor used little finger as a support, but not all the time. There were circumstances hus pinkie was released. Therefore his LF usage was very flexible. This technique differs from that of lutenist's, although it eventually developed from it. The habit was dropped later, but we still look for historical data as to when it happened and why. We have discussed the relevance of late-19th-century sources that show the preservance of the technique. This is all very important and I can only congratulate all of the participants for their efforts. The open question is: why the technique was not preserved? Did Tarrega use it? On the other hand: did 19th-c flamenco guitarists used the LFST? On modern instrument, as said above, LFST is hard if not impossible due to the construction of the instrument. Therefore: if the LFST was dropped due to constructinal changes or if those changes were possible due to to the LFST decline? And nobody yet toched upon Sor's concerts reviews (there were some, weren't they?). We should check if some critics remarked upon Sor's sound. This is the only record of actual sound of Sor we have access to. All of the above is of historical nature and relevance. I will insist on that opinion. > The discussion I would like to see is how different Sor's technique makes > Sor's music sound. An appreciation of that might shed new light on Sor's > music. Funny misunderstanding here. What you ask for is very important, but it bears no relevance to historic problems. (I hope you do not use the term "historic" in a sense that daily newspaper reviews use it - the modern performance on old instruments). I would welcome any discussion about various approach to the 19c-guitar technique practiced by todays performers. I will refrain from participating in it because, as Rob kindly pointed out, I have no experience and therefore I have nothing to say on the topic. However I would like to establish the proper wording for further discussions. Experiments of modern performer are of no historical relevanse whatsoever. They are invaluable for establishing "Sor's sound" and will help us all to come to the conclusion as to Sor's style. It is very important that Sor's music is a music of our time, and that it is so important for us. But your quest for Sor's techniques and its true subtleties on the proffessional, not basic, level of performing arts will not take us close to what Sor did, and how he sounded. Just because you have different hand than he had. You have different instrument and strings. Even if you are lucky enough to have his actual instrument, today, after 200 years it is different instrument. This time barreer is something we can try to brake, and perhaps we should try, but we have to understand that we will not succeed. Please, do not take me wrong: this is not said against you or anyone. It is not said against those who develop modern way of playing historic instruments and are so sensitive to the demands of the instruments and to the clues and hints that historical data can provide. Again, it is very important task you have undertaken. And this is is important for us today. Alas, untill we will meet Sor one day, we are unable to come closer to his way of playing. Whatever comes from the experiments and research will remain belonging to our time. This cannot be overestimated. I will welcome any recording of yours and look forward to the new discussion on developing Sor's style and sound. Respectfully yours Krzysztof ---------------------------------------------------- W dzieñ i w nocy naKlubowo! kliknij: http://klik.wp.pl/?adr=www.naklubowo.wp.pl&sid=534 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
