Dear Goran: I don't know whether the composers of the music played their stuff faster or slower than we tend to play it today, I really don't know if there is anyway to find that out. I tend to think that much of this material is played too fast just because it shows such virtuosity to do so, therefore many performers think this is the way to play it. I too came to that conclusion playing Milanos Fantasias/Ricercares, #s 3, 28, and 40. All have been recorded by a legion of virtuoso players at blinding speed. However when played slower they take on an elegance of tone and voice lost at higher tempos.
Does this mean they should be played slow? I think the real question is, in most cases, do they sound good at the speed you play them? Another piece that comes to mind is The Earl of Essex Galliard. Granted this composition is not a dirge, but some play it like a horn pipe. There is a lot to be said for flares of virtuosity, but this sometimes gets in the way of the real purpose; The expression of the music. When it comes to the dance compositions to be sure, the tempo of the dance should be kept in mind, but Fantasies were, as far as I know, not governed by some sort of predetermined tempi. However in reference to the Galliard it is my understanding that not all Galliards were fast, some were a bit slower and more stately. I believe The Earl of Essex falls into this latter category. The real bottom line is that you should play the piece at the speed where you think you are expressing the music. There are critics enough out there that will complain either way you play it, all of which is subjective and in no way graven in stone handed down from on high. If you make yourself happy with the way you play it what difference does it make is someone thinks you play it too fast and another thinks you play it too slow? There are a lot of great players, teachers and musicologists out there but----we all suffer from the same limitation; Having never heard this material played by the people that wrote it. Lacking that reference point we all speculate. I am sure there are a lot of carefully researched points of view on every angle of the problem, and many have the degrees to back up their opinion. There is one thing that cannot be determined through research: How fast is fast, and how slow is slow? It is all relative to some common starting point the nature of which I am unaware of. So before someone else says it, I am unaware of a lot of things, I just offer an opinion. Vance Wood. ----- Original Message ----- From: "G.R. Crona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 1:41 PM Subject: Tempo / Performance speed > Hi gang, > > I'm playing some "golden age" and Milano at the moment, and suddenly > realize, that (for me) much of the music actually gains in "stature" by not > being played too fast (cf. La compagna). Of course a piece like f. ex. > Dlugoraj's "Finale" is meant to be played fast, but have others had similar > experience, and is that drift to play everything virtuoso-fast more a sign > of our times than HIP? What is the consensus on tempo? Did "they" play the > lute pieces slower than "us"? > > Best regards > > Göran > > > > > > >
