Dear Patrick, At a time when paper was expensive and not everyone could read, it is likely that people used their memories more than they do now. I believe that you are right that some exceptional people have the ability to hear a piece of music (maybe even just once) and commit it to memory. I have read (if I remember correctly) that there was a famous 19th-century blind ragtime piano player, Blind Boone, who would bet $1000 that he could play any rag having heard it just once. Apparently people would try to catch him out by slipping in a few mistakes, but he would play back their mistakes. He always won the bet.
Mozart's ability to memorise music he heard is well-documented, as are amazing feats of memory in other fields. As human beings we have the ability to remember all kinds of things, but literacy can get in the way, and make us lazy. For example, tablature is so easy to read, that it is tempting not to make the effort to memorise a piece of lute music. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:14 PM Subject: Re: The cost of lute music I was thinking this question of what lute music may have cost in past is somewhat accademic. If I am not mistaken, people could remember a lot more than they care to now. Not that we cannot, it is just that we do not have to. There was a program with James Burke (Connections or one of those), and he explained how architects could remember complex designs for things like cathedrals. They had to; they had no blueprints. There was just a totally different method remembering, that with the availability of cheap paper and printing, we have ceased to use. I guess we are capable of all sorts of things, when we have no other choice, or do not know anything different. So, is it not possible that many musicians just watched someone play a piece, and could then remember it? Patrick Hansen
