I think the good Jazz transcriptions are pretty good, and there are lots of them, but would you want to live in an imaginary world with no Jazz recordings? If you did, would you prefer the transcriptions to no Jazz at all?
In the case of the brouderie sources, we have essentially transcriptions, we can ignore them, of course. After all, we have no proof that they are valid, other than the fact that someone really wanted to write them down. And the people who wrote them down were often learned, knowledgeable and famous composers. I think the issue for me, is that when I coach a French baroque music ensemble at music workshops, I find that the students have not studied the ornaments, they can't distinguish between coule and pointe, they don't know that there are two types of inegal, one which is not based on rhythm, and so on and so on. The singers can't sing trills. And I find the same thing in professional recordings, where the longest port de voix is at the end of the piece, and the grace notes are backwards, the arpeggios upside down, even though the ornament chart is in the front of the book. This is all basic stuff. why don't they know it? I'm not down on the performers, I'm just puzzled Of course lute players know much more about ornamentation than the majority of early music performers, and this is a good thing. But for example, the article I cited, I have never met someone who has read it. I'm of the "read it and then throw it away, if you like" school. dt dt At 06:20 AM 6/20/2008, you wrote: >David, et al, > > > Here's a hypothetical: Imagine that a few hundred >years from now NO audio recordings of jazz have >survived, just some good written descriptions, "teach >yourself to play jazz saxophone/guitar/tuba" method >books, and a fair number of lead sheets. What kind of >jazz would our descendants really be playing without >ever having heard it? What would a 20th century >jazzer, zapped into the future, think of it? (I can >imagine that he or she might find the future jazz >stiff and academic, lacking imagination - maybe even >"all wrong." I doubt our jazzer would be very >impressed.) > > The jazzers in the future would probably be able >to re-construct the gist of it, but would any of the >future folks ever gain the ease and suppleness of >style - "the feel" - that a contemporary jazz master >intuitively understands and ineffably puts in >practice? Maybe. But they'd be unlikely to get there >just by following the steps in something like a "Play >just like John Coltrane" book. > > That's us with the French style. While I think >David's points are valid and it is important to >investigate all of these, there is a danger here. >Style in any form of music is possible to decribe in >writing but utterly impossible to teach solely in >writing. Its very easy to trick oneself into >believing that if you play French-style elements A, B >and C the way that writers X, Y, and Z have described >them that you're actually playing the style. The old >ones didn't learn French style from books, afterall. > > >Chris - prepared for time travel. > >--- David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That's a terrific question for which there is no > > easy answer. > > Here's a few basic starting points: > > 1. It is different at different times--don't > > conflate the different genres > > 2. Inegal is the most misused and most > > misunderstood. Read the > > original sources, don't rely on secondary sources. > > At a minimum,Distinguish between coule & pointe, and > > distinguish > > rhythmic inegal from articulation inegal--this is > > where it always goes wrong. > > 3. Read up on the "gout" > > 4. Learn all the agreements. Most people know 2 or > > 3, some know half > > a dozen, few know them all. > > You need to know at least a dozen, to put an > > arbitrary number on it. > > 5. Learn the three parts of the trill--the starting > > note, the > > repetition, and the escape. Most people don't play > > their trills > > right, or play them "evenly". > > 6. Use the 2/3rds rule for grace notes and the first > > note of the > > trill as a starting point--the grace note is the > > long note, not the > > other way around > > 7. Distinguish between the weight of medial and > > final cadential > > trills and ornaments, the lighter ones are often at > > the end, not the > > other way around. > > 8. At a minimum, read Monteclair on the agreements, > > especially for > > the port de voix, the ornament which is most often > > performed > > backwards (enough here for a separate post) > > 9. Also read the following which describes the > > actual ornaments used > > in Rameau's time: > > > > Author: MCGEGAN, Nicholas; SPAGNOLI, Gina > > Singing style at the Opera in the Rameau period. > > (Paris: > > Champion; Geneve: Slatkine, 1986) Music. In French. > > See RILM > > 1987-00887-bs. Collection: Jean-Philippe Rameau > > > > 10. You are right about the language, lots to > > investigate there. > > 11. Listen to a few recordings of unmeasured > > preludes for > > harpsichord, then arrange them for lute. A new take > > on stile brise. > > > > dt > > > > > > At 12:35 PM 6/19/2008, you wrote: > > >I'm wondering: what is it that makes up the > > "French style" of > > >Baroque music? I don't mean particularly stile > > brise, notes inegall > > >etc. Those are obvious, and to me insufficient > > explanations to > > >convey the French Baroque. It seems to me there's > > more to it than > > >that. Are there, for example, considerations in > > the French style > > >that have to do with the cadences and general kinds > > of rhythms of the > > >French language itself? What things does one need > > to understand / > > >appreciate in order to make effectively rhetorical > > music in the > > >French style? > > > > > >Anybody got any ideas on this? > > > > > >Best, > > > > > >David Rastall > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at > > > >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > >
