Greetings bill, At 03:17 PM 8/30/2004, bill wrote: >first off, i'd have to say that you are 100 times the musician i am.
You are far too generous, bill. I get this with some frequency...until my accuser actually hears me _play_ music. All such illusions are immediately shattered. >so, seeing as how you're so erudite and such a gent, i'm going to ... ( >involuntary wince, here eugene ... ) write you what i think. > >in terms of music, if i were to buy a piece by dowland in notation and >subsequently play it, then i would consider myself to be 99.9% >"historically informed" about it. if i were to buy an original or even a >facsimile of the piece written in tab form, then i would consider myself >100% historically informed about it. > >take any other consideration into account - from costly replicas of period >instruments to stretchy nylon leotards - and we enter the wonderful world >of historic re-enactment. I really suspect we agree much more than not. We are just getting hung up on the fine points of definition. I think you are feeling friction from those who would aspire to "authenticity," which I would differentiate from HIP. You bring up interesting points here. There are certainly varying degrees of HIP, ranging from an effort to recognize period ornamentation on a modern charango or modern piano to donning tights, a 7-course lute, and a silly assumed cockney accent at a renaissance faire in a place where the more typical accent would be rural southern US drawl. (I'll be damned before I play my vihuela while wearing tights.) To some degree, recognizing a cadential trill by de Visee from the upper auxiliary or from the principal in a trill by Sor on a modern guitar is HIP. For me, however, the most qualifying and interesting aspect of HIP is the use of a working replica or period instrument and the effort to emulate what is known of period technique on that instrument. That said, I play modern guitar more than any other instrument. I love to do so and do so without shame when it comes to early music. While I try to be semi-HIP with modern guitar in hand, I tend to regard music by de Visee--even that by Sor--as transcription when realized on this instrument. I don't call such performances HIP. I don't think there is anything wrong with championing any instrument one chooses to; championing the obscure is something I celebrate. While I am absolutely certain I would relish hearing you wail away at mandolino or vihuela music on charango, I wouldn't label the instrument choice as HIP; Milan simply did not play 6-string guitars by Hauser nor did he play charango. >at some point, those who attempt hip must say "...or to the best of our >knowledge." and as any follower of perry mason knows, mutual consent >don't make it so. This is the real crux of the matter. It may seem a trivial distinction, but to my mind the HIP concept differentiates itself from the previous efforts at "authenticity" by embracing the phrase "...to the best of our knowledge." It may seem trivial, but this is an important, more embracing and less elite conceptualization than any pretense of "authenticity" could be. Again, I am not interested in your costume in this context; emulating costume and linguistic mannerisms would fall into the realm of reenactment. I am much more interested in the sounds of musical things. >also, if you consider there were probably more amateur musicians than >professionals in baroque times then it's quite possible that playing a >piece badly or incompletely could be a hip-er way to perform it. I _am_ evidence of that! Really, however and whatever you decide to play on whatever instrument, make sure you enjoy it and don't try to portray it for what it is not. Best, Eugene
