Dear Eugene;
I think your summary contains at least one red herring. Since I am
the only person who used the word "elitist", I'm assuming "1b" was aimed at
me.
I did not say that "anybody who tries to incorporate more or
different aspects of historical performance than I do is an elitist,
snobbish purist." What I said was that the "let-them-eat-cake" attitude of
some toward those of limited means who are trying to acquire a lute seems
elitist to me. This attitude was manifested by statements of some to the
effect that "new boy" should pry a few dollars from his wallet and buy a
lute of a such and such a quality or forget about it, implying that "new
boy" was just being miserly, trying to do it on the cheap, rather than
acknowledging the dilemma of loving the instrument and desiring to play, and
facing the economic realities involved in acquiring an instrument that, for
whatever reasons, is generally very expensive to acquire and maintain, if
one has limited means.
This seems to me to be a legitimate dilemma. Is the lute solely to be a
plaything of the wealthy?
My reference to "historical correctness" was in response to the gut vs.
synthetic debate and contained no attribution of elitism or snobbery to
anybody.
Regarding that, I do think that the lute is more than a vehicle for
ressurrecting a bygone age. I get the feeling sometimes that some approach
early music as if it were some kind of Amish sect or (as in the USA)
something similar to a group dedicated to reenacting the Civil War. These
are perfectly valid in their own right, but I like to think that the lute is
a living instrument, and that it continues to develop and grow as it did in
the 16th century. Scholarship into historical performance practices etc. is
necessary, enlightening and fascinating, but it should not evolve into some
kind of strait jacket of orthodoxy.
All the Best,
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:34 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Summary: gut vers. plastic strings
> At 12:09 PM 10/29/2005, EUGENE BRAIG IV wrote:
> >I think the whole of the argument can be distilled to two camps:
> >
> >1) Prescriptive: "My approach to musical anachronism is truer than your
> >approach, so your approach is flawed and/or wrong; you should do what I
do
> >or your music making will be inferior," or
> >
> >2) Descriptive: "This is how I approach old music and this is how it may
> >differ to what was done by contemporaries to its composition; think of it
> >what you will."
>
>
> In thinking even more on this prescriptive approaches can be further
> divided into two subsets:
>
> 1a) As in 1 above, and
>
> 1b) "My approach potentially differs from historic practices in these
> 'practical' ways, and anybody who tries to incorporate more or different
> aspects of historic performance than I do is an elitist, snobbish purist."
>
> I still prefer a descriptive approach, as exampled above. Just randomly
> musing... Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release Date: 10/31/2005
>
>
