Dear Rob:
I don't usually have much to say on this list, leaving lengthy discourse to the
many experts. But your thoughful response raises some general points I think
are very important to how we approach playing polyphonic music.
First and foremost, everyone in the sixteenth century who was fortunate enought
to lay hands on a lute was first taught to sing. I can state this without
reservation. When singing part music, a singer only had one part to read, and
did not have the luxury of scanning the complete score to see where he or she
could add bits here or there. The object was to blend and to be a pleasing
part of the whole.
Zarlino, in _Istitutioni harmoniche_, 1558, wrote: "Matters for the singer to
observe are these: First of all he must aim diligently to perform what the
composer has written. He must not be like those who, wishing to be thought
worthier and wiser than their colleagues, indulge in certain rapid
improvisations that are so savage and so inappropriate that they not only annoy
the hearer but are riddled with thousands of errors, such as many dissonances,
consecutive unisons, octaves, fifths, and other similar progressions absolutely
intolerable in composition. Then there are singers who substitute higher or
lower tones for those intended by the composer, singing for instance a whole
tone instead of a semitone, or vice versa, leading to countless errors as well
as offense to the ear. Singers should aim to render faithfully what is written
to express the composer's intent, intoning the correct steps in the right
places."
[Gioseffo Zarlino, _The Art of Counterpoint_, translated by Guy A. Marco and
Claude V. Palisca, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968) ppg 110-111.]
This may not seem to have much to do with adding 'twiddly bits' with our
fingers on (too expensive) lute strings. But I believe an understanding of how
to approach polyphonic music from an historical singer's perspective tells us a
great deal about how to appropriately transfer this music to our instrument.
Apparently, I'm not the only person who thinks this. A few years ago, Donna
and I performed for a public masterclass with Hopkinson Smith. We were,
fortunately, last on the roster and had the opportunity to witness Inspector
Smith coerce the three players before us to find and sing the polyphonic lines
in the pieces they had chosen - on stage in front of a paying audience. I had
the good sense to bring my own singer, and was thus spared.
I was delighted that Martin went to the trouble to write out the parts of the
fantasia from the Marsh book. This is the first step in understanding a piece
well enough to determine whether or not it needs embellishment. Personally, I
think this fantasia has its own calm, quiet integrity and really does not need
finger ornaments to tart it up.
>From another perspective, we have the tradition of sean nos singers, Sligo
>fiddlers, Scandnavian fiddlers, and many other musical traditions where
>ornamentation is an important and integral part of the music. The wonderful
>appropriateness of such highly ornamented music is tied to the fact that the
>performer is decorating a single line of music. Now think of Joe Pass, a
>brilliant jazz guitarist who often performed solo versions of jazz standards.
>He would alternate appropriately-voiced chord melody passages with dazzling,
>highly ornamented single lines. I compare this approach to Albert de Rippe's
>wildly intabulated alternate version of Sebastian Festa's 'O passi sparsi,' in
>which the part music is often interrupted with some pretty darn flashy passage
>work. I mention this example because it is a version of a 'standard' that is
>meant to draw attention to the performer. When playing this sort of piece,
>both Albert and Joe were showing their stuff and asking to be notice!
d, in a version of a well-known song that one couldn't possibly sing along
with.
What is at issue is the way we have come to the music. Most lutenists today
have found their way to lute through guitar, having been taught to produce a
full, round, warm tone that is characteristic of the instrument. While clarity
of line is possible and and desirable with music on the guitar, lines are
usually produced with a soft, covered sort of sound that makes it difficult to
extract the parts from the whole. A few weeks ago, I heard a radio broadcast
of a very prominent guitarist playing arrangements of Bach, and he produced a
sound with a really good sense of the polyphony, but at a cost. The individual
notes of his line sounded like they had their own on and off switch. I
eventually used the off switch of the radio.
The renaissance lute has a much more transparent tone compared to classical
guitar. There is really nowhere to hide in terms of a thick, sustaining tone,
and we are forced to either concentrate on the touch necessary to produce clear
lines in polyphonic music, or to find ways to add graces that otherwise keep
the fast-decaying sound alive. It all depends upon the piece and the
performer's intent, but when working to bring out the polyphonic lines of a
piece, there comes a point when the lines begin to have a singing life of their
own, and sometimes really don't need embellishment. Ornamentation of polyphony
in the form of mordents, turns, or whatever you wish to call them, helps to
keep the sound alive on the lute, and adds a wonderful bit of spice in many
genres. But ornaments in sixteenth-century polyphony really ought to be
applied from the perspective of a singer whose goal is to blend into the
texture in a pleasing way. Ornaments indicated in Capirola's book should !
really be a starting place.Best wishes,
Ron Andrico
www.mignarda.com
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:40:03 +0100> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC:
> lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [LUTE] Re: new piece
> of the month> > This is an interesting subject. I have to own up and say it
> was me who asked> Martin why there were no twiddles in his performance. I
> didn't mention it on> the list in case it came across as criticism, which of
> course it isn't. I> thank Martin for bringing the subject to the list.> >
> Please excuse me personalising this for one moment. There was an internet>
> discussion many years ago (I can't recall if it was here or elsewhere) about>
> ornamentation in early music, and one guy said 'you should here Rob>
> MacKillop - he ornaments on every other note' - this came as a surprise>
> because I didn't think I was adding ornaments at all. So I listened to the>
> cd Flowers of the Forest, and yes, I was surprised by the amount of>
> ornamentation - although not quite on every other note! The thing is, I>
> never consciousl!
y added ornaments, and now see those twiddles as an outcome> of phrasing. I
added those notes because it helped make the phrase sing.> Now, that was with
Scottish lute music which is closely related to a living> tradition of singing
in Scotland, and I've often said that the biggest> influence on my playing was
the phrasing and, I guess, ornamentation of> traditional singers. Of course,
the singers would argue that they do not add> ornaments, and would be just as
surprised as I was to hear that they have> been. It's all about phrasing.> >
So, what might that have to do with more 'posh' music - Milano to Dowland?>
Well, I don't think they are so unrelated. I can't quote chapter and verse,>
but it is my understanding that the same pieces can be found in different>
manuscripts with ornament signs in different places. Therefore...it is not> an
exact science about where these things go or how often they can be used.>
Different strokes for different folks, so to speak.> > One of t!
he reasons I have probably avoided the English 6c and 7c reper!
toire> is that I feel uncomfortable playing it in what seems to be the
accepted> style, which has very few if any ornaments. When I play with the
freedom I> have with Scottish music, the English repertoire sounds strange! I
put it> down to my inability to 'play the music properly', but maybe players>
generally should be adding more twiddles - it changes the phrasing, though,>
and to many that might be unacceptable.> To more practical matters: Ron, how do
you know that clarity of line in> polyphony was of prime importance to singers?
With one voice to a part, each> singer might have extensively decorated their
own part. The clarity of the> written score (especially in modern editions with
all the parts standing to> attention alongside each other) might not have been
general practice. This> also goes for imitative graces at points of imitation.
It looks neat and> tidy, but did singers really care about that? And was there
always a Choral> Director, one person dictating how al!
l the others should sing?> I'm not making any bold statements here. The bottom
line is I don't know how> much ornamentation was added or how it was
sung/played. But I do think> singable phrasing is of prime importance, and this
very often implies adding> twiddles where they feel natural for the phrase.> >
Just a feeling.> > Rob> > --> > To get on or off this list see list information
at> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself wherever you are. Mobilize!
http://www.gowindowslive.com/Mobile/Landing/Messenger/Default.aspx?Locale=en-US?ocid=TAG_APRIL
--
