I agree----I think. The snare for me is in having to accept the judgment of
others that have through research and study come to the same conclusion that
I came to without the research and study: We can only guess at how this
music was played considering that none of us were around to hear it first
hand.
I don't begrudge the research and study but in the end should not the music
be played musically, and as well as is humanly possible? Why should we
settle for a sound that is akin to rubber bands stretched over a cigar box
just because it is historically perfect---as far as we can determine. Much
is said and debated about over strings; over-spun strings seeming to be the
major casualty of this debate. Even when we have some sort of accurate idea
of the materials in ancient strings we still do not know for certain the
exact technology in manufacturing them. There fore we cannot possible know
for sure what they sounded like.
I was told at one time by another Lute maker that the finish Tielke (sp?)
used on his instruments is unidentified and by modern standards, impervious.
The fact remains: If our knowledge of a thing is only limited by existing
literature and surviving examples then our opinions of afore mentioned
things must of necessity be limited. We can make assumptions and even teach
from the basis of those assumptions but in the end that is all we
have---assumptions. Every thing about the Lute is based on our assumptions
of how they were made, how they were strung and how they were played.
However; the reason the Lute today has some sort of following is because
someone took the time to find a way to get music out of the thing and played
his/her heart out on it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Tayler" <vidan...@sbcglobal.net>
To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:38 PM
Subject: [LUTE] HIP, was string tension of all things
Without wishing to offend or annoy anyone, I
would advise against the use of the term HIP.
There are reasons for and against, but I think
the "cons" have it over the "pros."
The main reason not to use the phrase is that it
is excruciatingly bad grammar. It makes us look
bad. It is hard to imagine a group of any three
words that have so many problems. Performance, of
course, is not informed. People are informed. By
extension, I concede the transfer to the action
of the person:one can, of course, make an
informed decision. "Make" takes on the temorary
role of a stative verb. And one can have an
informed opinion, again, there is an implied
reference to the owner of the opinion. But can
one make an informed performance? It is, I
suppose, as E.B. White famously remarked, a
matter of ear. Or possibly it is problematic in
that there is no speaker--in a performance, there
are many actors and events, it isn't just a person.
Performance is also not
"historically"--performance can be historic, but
that means something very different.
And performance is not historically informed, and
neither are people. People are informed about
history; they don't undergo a process of being
informed that is historic, unless the process of
learning is at a memorable occasion.
It's cast in the passive. It has an undertone of
fudgery with an overtone of elitism: After all,
some performances must logically not be
"informed" -so sad, if only the others read more!
I'm sure the players of modern instruments, many
of whom attended Conservatory, don't appreciate
being the historically uninformed.
There are other problems with the term as well;
obviously people wanted more freedom to play how
they wanted, with less emphasis on the
"authenticity" aspect. But the result has been
the recapitulate the last 200 years into twenty
and give us quite a bit of modern blended in.
On the plus side, HIP is hip, and anything like
that is goodwho want to be unhip? Alas, even
with Sting how hip can we be? It's like the
Gollux in the Thurber's "The Thirteen Clocks"
-It's always then; it's never now. If we want to
be HIP, ditch the word history. Replace it with
sex, food, clothes, designer drinks. There has to
be a better word than history.
So a new phrase, or live with the old one? I like
Early Music performance-the term was reviled by
many in the '70s, maybe there is something
better. I have no problem with Historical
Performance. It seems pretty descriptive. I like
it more than when it surfaced as the title for
EMA's magazine. Obviously authentic is a bad word
to bandy about--implying that everything else is
fake. But we can be historical without being authentic.
Historical Performance-History is back, and this time It's Personal.
dt
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4978 (20100326) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4978 (20100326) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
