Dear David, Thank you for your reply. I didn't mean to get controversial and I understand your point very well. Moreover, being a lefty - including for lute playing - I know what you mean when you speak of "backwards" movements, but I am quite sure my memory"works both ways" ;-). Lewis Carroll is a fascinating writer indeed...
Happy trillin' anyway ! Best wishes, Jean-Marie Poirier ======= 29-01-2009 13:37:33 ======= > >Dear Jean-Marie, >Thanks for you detailed response. > >I would be happy to refute your points one by one, but my main >point--in fact my only point, really-- >that everyone is playing the ornament backwards, is the one you don't discuss. > >I'm sorry about the spelling of Broderie, although it is interesting >that Broderie is itself a "doublet", an etymological term for a word >that is spelled wrong--the original derives from the French "border." >So "broder" is an early example of a word that is spelled wrong. >I tend to use the spellings that I see in the sources, and many of >these are spelled wrong, like "baricades misterieuses" of Couperin or >"Pigmalion" of Rameau. >I also make lots of spelli nmistakes :) > >I think it is important to play the music in a new way, especially if >it is based on an old way. And that is all--there's no right and wrong. >I encourage people to try out these ornamnents. Some may think it is >backwards, some may think it is forwards, I think it is being played backwards. >These are not my ornaments! I don't need to defend them, they have >survived 400 years just fine, please play them if you find it fun. >Any which way. > >Best wishes, >David Tayler > > > >`I don't understand you,' said Alice. `It's dreadfully confusing!' > >`That's the effect of living backwards,' the Queen said kindly: > >`it always makes one a little giddy at first -- > >`Living backwards!' Alice repeated in great astonishment. `I never >heard of such a thing!' > >` -- but there's one great advantage in it, that one's memory works both ways.' > >`I'm sure mine only works one way.' Alice remarked. `I can't remember >things before they happen.' > >`It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards,' the Queen remarked. >--Through the Looking-Glass > > > > >At 01:17 AM 1/29/2009, you wrote: >>======= 29-01-2009 01:14:46 ======= >> >I only mention the Monteclair because it is so >> >readily available, and explains the key points. >> >I think that for most of the basic things, that >> >is fine. It is translated into English, and so on. >> >Experts will always prefer the primary >> >sources--mainly the music itself. Most people >> >will not want to read twenty books when they can >> >look at one eight page document. >> > >>I am sorry to disagree David. Too many musicians tend to >>consider written information as secondary or boring wheareas I do >>think it is not. And your encouragement to be happy with "one eight >>page document." instead of a thorough, honest and valuable research >>into such a field as, say, ornamentation, doesn't sound fair to me. > >DT I just said that; we agree on this point. We are saying the same >thing. Besides, I'm not encouraging anyone to be happy with an eight >page document, never have, never will. But if you have a student that >is taking a summer course, and you have an hour per day, you can't' >go through all the sources. Even Rognioni--one of the most important >sources for ornamentation that has been completely ignored--would >take months. Incidentally, I have never met anyone (well, one...but >not a lute player ) who has read all of Rognioni, so we get to >rerecord the Italian music as well, since he specifically mentions >the ornaments. I can't wait! > > >> >Basically, when applying French ornamentation you >> >are looking at the multiple sources for the >> >theory, and then the multiple sources for the practice. >> >>Doesn't it sound slightly contradictory with the previous argument ? > >DT: No, I'm sorry, you misread my point. I merely stated that >Monteclair is a good introduction, obviously people can read more, my >survey--with a very large statistical sample over thirty years--shows >that many have not read even Monteclair. > > >> >For example, any ornamentation chart can be derived from the "doubles" >> >The process is simple, you identify the interval, >> >look in the double, paste it into the chart. The >> >composers have left thousands of clear examples. >> >If you don't want to use primary sources, you can >> >rely on premixed recipes, such as the article in the Grove, >> >In other words, the ornaments can be reverse >> >engineered. The sources are easily reconciled. >> > >> >Brouderie , >>Sorry to insist, again, as a French native speaker I am more than >>pretty sure that the correct word is "broderie", not "brouderie", please. >> >is too big a topic to go into here. I >> >don't think of it as colloquial, however. It is >> >essential for playing lute music, and probably is >> >related to earlier English and French styles. >> > >> >To say that the lute players differ from the >> >mainstream is an interesting idea, but I look at it differently. >> >Since most of the ornaments are written out in >> >the doubles, using primary sources, one can see what the ornaments >> really are. >> >We can then see if the music is different. >> >And then you can say, well, there few examples of >> >this kind of lute ornamnent in French music. The >> >lute players were trying to be different. >> >However, I don't see that. In fact, if you look >> >at ornamentation charts they tend to be >> >exhaustive--they cover almost all of the ways to get from note A to note B. >> >>So you admit that you read more than eight pages about that, after >>all ;-) It is indsipensable if you want to get a decent idea of >>waht can be done. > >DT: I have a PhD in musicology; I would never imply or say that I had >not read all the sources. Why would I? Who would believe me? > > >> >Even the unmeasured preludes cover most of the ornamnents. >> >But if you have looked at all the doubles, all >> >the cadences, all the brouderie >><broderie> >> >and say the lute >> >ornaments are different, I would be very interested in the work. >> >And then, we would know for sure--it would not be >> >speculation. I've looked at thousands of these >> >pieces--I'm always struck by the similarities. >> > >> >The real question revolves around the >> >appogiatura: is everyone playing it backwards? Is >> >it Sdrawkcab? And the answer is, yes. And here I >> >cited Monteclair because most sources agree that >> >the appogiatura is long--specifically 1/2 or 2/3 the note length. >> >And in the performance of lute solos, lute >> >players invariably perform these notes shorter >> >than that--much shorter. In fact, 1/3 or less >> >than the note length. And that is backwards, like >> >a Scotch snap. Or a French snap, since they had it is well. >> > >> >I don't really care--I think people can play the >> >solos however they want. If you have read all the >> >primary sources, >> >>Ah, ah, more than eight pages again ;-))) > >DT: I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying here. > > >> > if you have looked at the >> >doubles, cadences & brouderie, >><broderie> >> >and you say, you know, I just prefer to play it backwards, fine. >> >Play it backwards. >> >But I don't really think that is the case. I >> >think this is simply a modern tradition and no >> >one wants to change it--it is harder on the lute >> >to play the appogiaturas longer, and you have to >> >study the voice leading as well. It is slightly more work. >> >Few people will do it; the best players will >> >solve the technical problems--they always will. >> > >> >Here is a clear, parallel example: if you look at >> >modern lute performance, the trills are most of >> >the time played on the "easy" positions. >> >Is that historical? Of course not. >> > >> >If I look back at all the ornamnentation classes >> >over the last thirty years I cannot cite a single >> >example of anyone who had read in may classes: >> > >> > >> >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 >> >>How will you esthetically reconcile the Rameau period (c. 1730) and >>the Mesangeau period, roughly one century earlier ??? >>What apllies to the latter may not (is not) applicable to the former, IMHO. > > >DT: If you have an opinion about the ornaments, please tell us, and >give the primary sources. >You say it "may not (is not)" which is it? These are not the >same. Suppose they are similar? >I'm sorry to say that I have to assume that you have not read the >article. If you have read it, what part specifically do you disagree with?. >What part is not relevant? Are you saying it is not relevant based on >the title? > >> > >> >and of the Monteclair--available in English--only >> >two people in thirty years. And they read it in English, which is fine. >> >And that is maybe 600-800 students on just that >> >topic. So the info needs to be made easily >> >accessible, and teachers of baroque lute need to >> >at least tell their students about it even if they teach it differently. >> > >> >So I think it is, as far as the appogiatura--and >> >that is only one point of many--we have recorded >> >all the operas with the wrong ornaments and pronounciation-- >> >we have it backwards. >> > >> >Since we now have youtube, you can see exactly >> >how these notes are now being played, but you can >> >hear them on the hundreds of recordings of French >> >music as well. Julianne Baird's old but great >> >recording of French Cantatas demonstrates most of >> >the main ornaments beautifully. >> >>Do you seriuosly imagine Airs de Cour at the court or inthe >>bourgeois circles at the time of Louis XIII were sung with this >>rather late baroque style ? > >DT: In my comments, I specifically state that a large part of my >system is based on extracting the ornaments from the music itself. In >the case of the airs de cour, I personally looked at hundreds of >pieces in my analysis, and I use these ornaments--taken directly from >the music--, which I organized into tables, in my concerts, >recordings and summer courses. Since the ornaments are "written out >by the composers", one can assume that that they are real. >If you "know" how they sang it, I would of course be interested. > > > >> > >> >We need a lute recording that does the same--a "goto" disk. >> >>For which music of which period ? We already have quite a few in >>fact, don't we ? > > >DT: I have not seen any, but it would be impolite to mention specific >ones. Perhaps they are out there. If they aren't out there now, there >will be soon because many other musicians are adopting these >ornamentation styles. >The recorder players, singers, viol players, and harpsichordists are >starting to adopt this style of long appoggiaturas, some have been >doing it for years. >People go with the flow, then against the flow. If you look at >recordings from the last thirty years, you can see at least four >separate styles. They can't all be historical, can they? > >> > >> >But let's be practical--you are suggesting that >> >Monteclair is not on point because he is later, >> >but is his description true and accurate for most 17th century music? >> >>I honestly don't think so if you consider the first part of the 17th century. > >DT: I have spent the last 35 years studying the 17th century, >specifically the first part. > >And, let's be practical, how, exactly, do your sources contradict what I say? > > >>JM: > >here again I recommend the book by David Ledbetter "Harpsichord and >Lute Music in Seventeenth Century France", Indiana University Press, >1987...because it's in English ans readily available to all. I have >no commision on it whatsoever, promised ;-) > >DT: I would like to make it very clear that Mersenne (Basset), >Monteclair, Lambert & Bacilly are examples of primary sources, and >Ledbetter's book is a secondary source. Always, always use primary sources. >It is a fine book, please buy it and read it, although there are >others that deal purely with ornamentation. > >Why use a secondary source? It is no substitute for reading the originals. > >Sincerement votre, >dt > > > > > > >Bien amicalement, > >Jean-Marie Poirier > > > > > >jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr >http://poirierjm.free.fr >29-01-2009 > > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. >Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr http://poirierjm.free.fr 29-01-2009
