It's much simpler than that, we are playing the trill backwards. I'm just suggesting to try it the other way round. That's it. People can play it anyway they want (they will anyway)--that's a good thing. You can take any aspect of the lute, I mean you could take the strings off, glue the pegs into the pegbox, and say, well, that's the way I play it. Or even document that: "In Italy, they always played with no strings, that's why the pitch was higher than the theoretical limit" I don't mean to suggest anyone give up any musical freedom. I'm just suggesting to try out the well documented way of playing something because it is fun, interesting, and musically rewarding.
BTW, not all musicologists are the same, there's good ones and not so good ones, just like anything else. You have to find the good ones. I myself studied it because I felt I was missing out on the essential detail. But all that detail is out on the net now. There's nothing wrong with the model. Early Music: It's the best. HIP: bad English. Take lute, take original music, look at painting, dance till dawn. Works for me. dt At 08:06 AM 2/3/2009, you wrote: >If it's still about ''French trill'', I'd insist -- it's ''ours >trill'', however long would be someone's explanations and >justifications. > >Therefore the HIP performance is always ''modern'' or ''currant'' or >''today'' (without going into the present day entangled terminology). >In a way the Early Music World permanently tamper or fake the truth >about the performance practice -- which is in reality inaccessible >after 200 or 400 years -- everyday only pleasing our eclectic notion >what ''was'' good at certain time. > >Once, 30 or 50 or 70 years ago, it was a ''modern'' revolutionary >approach (then ''modern music'', just based on old scores) in >opposition to a ''traditional'', evolutionary or conservative >attitude (however reaching for new scores)... Today it is largely >commercialized and we are not asked what it is. > >Another side. So called ''sources'', copies of instruments, strings, >etc. are very atractive gadgets of strong historical foundation. But >judges are we! The same people who by iPods. > >Every year musicologists are bringing up a new crap on which they've >been working for years and building their PhDs (Musicology seams very >afirmative). Is it realy all what has patine worth playing? Is the >''old music'' synonymous to ''good music'' ...without you super- >active and creative participation? Today. > >Have you ever uncovered, after some ''deconstruction'' work, that a >familiar gem is not such a jewel, as you were taught for years. Is >every French Menuet or entire Kellner or the so called ''early >Weiss'' from, say, Harrah MS, or half of Falckenhagen or... (you name >what) really worth your time, or it's only an atractive historical >cookie for verbal mill? > >So let's be honest? Is the early music old or new music? >And what are the implications? > >J >________ > > > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
