I found this hidden in my "drafts folder", I don't know if it was sent but it looks as if it has been sitting there a while. I send it on without review. jwm
Tim, I have apolgized to David for a direct comment, but yet I stand by my viewpoint. I probably misworded it by taking a narrow focus myself. Of course the music is affected by the instrument used, Bach on the harpsichord and the piano is different, and even more so if you put him on a modern organ (and some of the great organists have done that, E. Power Biggs at Yale and Carl Weinrich at Princeton in the forties and fifties wandered into the harpsichord music). My point, and one better made by (was it Stewart), better a song be played with understanding and feeling than as a duplicate of the notes and the instrument. Best is if one can do both, the legitimate instrument and the good "chops" to play it. But if the instrument is only allowed to be authentic, then hoi polloi is cut out of the action, even though there may be poets there. There is a distinctive sound to the "Bach trumpet" that is keener than the orchestral trumpet of today, does that mean I won't listen to brasses play Bach? So yes Tim, I agree with all you have said, but this thread was started by a request from a beginner looking at the lutar, and probably not even looking to play it, just carry it on stage. There is so much difference between the instruments that styles get disguised. but the song is often better understood when it comes from different styles and instrument, whatever instrument it was designed for. I have the sneaky feeling that Bach might have "jammed" with Louis Armstrong had they been around at the same time. I have an armchair, as many men do. My armchair is located in front of the TV (which is instructed to play only news, Discovery, History and a few others). On the right side of my armchair is my collection of penny whistles in various keys, in front of it is my double strung harp (the smaller cross strung is across the room). On my left is the guitar (retuned for lute), and just over my left shoulder are the psaltery and the mountain dulcimer. (And the bowed psaltery is in its box across the room, but may soon take its rightful place in the Valhalla of instruments). If a song goes through my head I may grab an instrument, or just leave the song circulating around my brain. But whichever I grab, I'll play the same song on a couple of other instruments, whether having to modulate or going straight through. I'll have to find a place for the lute in that Pantheon, but if I have to hang it from the ceiling it will be there. Yes, the instrument is important, but the playing is more so. Yes the harpsichord and piano-forte are different, but the keyboard is very simila$4 r ----- Original Message ----- From: "Timothy Kuntz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Rastall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 11:12 AM Subject: Re: looking for a "lutar" - forwarded > > Hi, > > > >Jon said: > > > > > >>I totally disagree with your premise. The form of the instrument may > >>drive > >>the way it is played, but the music drives the player. > >> > >> > >And David Rastall replied: > > > >I'm sorry to sound so obtuse, Jon, but I'm not aware of operating on > >any one particular premise. > > > > I've noticed that Jon seems to underestimate the possible importance of > the instrument in affecting how the music is played. I'm not a guitar > player so I can't really speak to the lute - guitar differences, but > I've spent over 30 years years playing the piano and the harpsichord. > The playing and interpreting of Bach on either of these instruments is > enormously different from playing on the other one. What one listens > for and how one achieves what one does - and even the underlying style > is completely different. And some other harpsichord music really can't > be played on the piano or vice versa. The Fitzwilliam book sounds > extremely boring to me on the piano and who wants to hear Debussy on the > harpsichord. The notes of the music are not the only thing. I'd love > to read a thread (hopefully without too much political heat) exploring > the differences between the lute and guitar. > > >>Jon said: > >> > >> I find the thrust of > >>the messages on this list to be rather narrow in the conception of > >>music > >> > >> > > > >And David replied: > > > >Well, I guess our "interest in music" is just as valid as anyone > >else's, Jon. Bear in mind that being focussed on a particular area of > >interest and study, and being narrow-minded, are not the same thing. > > > >David Rastall > > > > > > I also find Jon's occasional jibes at the members of this list as being > narrow-minded, and dogmatic to be polarizing. There is breadth and > depth issues here. Many members of this list are interested in depth > rather than breadth (although this is certainly not universal), and to > suggest one is more "right" than the other is akin to religious > bickering. Jon appears to be a breadth fundamentalist. > > Tim Kuntz > > -- > >
