Is it an HIP position to play with amplification ? Not sure it is coherent
with what was said about gut strings...
If you want to search for the lost sound... gut strings, no amps. Same
conditions as yesteryears...
No ?
V ;-)

-----Message d'origine-----
De : lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] De la part
de Peter Martin
Envoyé : mardi 19 octobre 2010 11:11
À : Lute list
Objet : [LUTE] Re: Lute volume

   Ah, amplification...

   I remember that David T and others made some recommendations a couple
   of years ago about contact mikes suitable for lutes.  Any fresh
   updates?
   I fear my lute and saxophone combo won't ever get started without a
   little electronic help.
   Peter
   On 19 October 2010 09:44, Stewart McCoy <[1]lu...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

     Dear Howard,
     I think you are right to say that it is the overall sound which
     counts
     with an ensemble. When choosing voices for a choir, a conductor may
     choose not to invite a soloist with a strong, distinct voice,
     because it
     will stick out like a sore thumb. So it is with instruments. There
     has
     to be a balance, and it is up to the conductor (if there is one) to
     get
     it right.
     One of the strengths of the theorbo is that it enhances the other
     instruments of the group, as a catalyst may do in a mixing of
     chemicals.
     For example, it covers up mechanical clatter from a harpsichord,
     reinforcing the bass, and letting the audience hear the sweet,
     silvery
     tones of the harpsichord's treble notes. It is often the case that
     people in the audience do not recognise the sound of the theorbo in
     a
     group, because they are unfamiliar with it, but they would notice
     the
     difference if it wasn't there.
     There are times when a conductor may want the audience to hear the
     theorbo clearly, in which case he asks players of other continuo
     instruments to sit out.
     I sympathise with Chris's frustration at playing an instrument which
     cannot be heard, or at least cannot easily be distinguished. That is
     one
     reason why I gave up playing the double bass in orchestras years ago
     -
     why bother turning up, if there are five other bass players playing
     the
     same notes? The trouble is, if everyone thought that, there would be
     no
     orchestra.
     However, there are circumstances (playing background music while
     people
     talk, playing outside in the open air or in too big a room, playing
     alongside six trombones in a large, modern orchestra) when plucked
     instruments, particularly lutes, simply cannot be heard at all, and
     it
     is futile trying to thrash the instrument into audibility. If that
     is
     the case, there is little point playing without amplification. It is
     sad
     if one is reduced to contributing only to the visual aspect of a
     performance, merely for the sake of the cheque afterwards.
     Best wishes,
     Stewart McCoy.
     -----Original Message-----
     From: [2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
     [mailto:[3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
     Behalf Of howard posner
     Sent: 19 October 2010 05:15
     To: Lute List
     Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute volume
     On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Christopher Wilke wrote:
     > Howard,
     Huh?  Wait, that's me!
     >   Alright, so next time I'll should ask people if they did not
     hear me
     as a discrete component, but rather as a subconsciously perceivable
     part
     of the composite tonal aggregate?
     Subconscious, no; part of the tonal aggregate, yes.  There's no
     reason
     to think the concept was any stranger in 1700 than it was in 1850 or
     is
     now.  Lots of instruments have the job of combining with other
     instruments to form a homogenized sound.  Listen to a Schumann
     symphony
     for an extreme example in its time.
     BTW, if the violinist sharing the stand with the concertmaster at
     your
     concert had asked someone in the audience "Could you hear me?" the
     answer would have been, "Never.  I couldn't distinguish your sound
     from
     the other first violinists'".  The same is true of the organist in
     most
     ensembles, including rock bands, or the rhythm guitarist in a jazz
     big
     band (or lots of rock bands, for that matter).  The issue in these
     cases
     is not whether you can hear the instrument, but how much better the
     group sounds with it than without it.  35 years ago Rick Kemp, then
     the
     Steeleye Span bass player, told me how fascinated he was watching
     Neil
     Young's bass player staring at the drummer's foot so he'd play
     together
     with the bass drum, making one percussive bass instrument.  "I don't
     know whether it's good or bad," Kemp said.
     > Frankly, I'm not a believer in this way of thinking for baroque
     music.
     There's no evidence that baroque composers thought of blending tone
     colors into "new sonorities" or Klangfarbenmelodie in the manner of
     Ravel or Schoenberg.
     But as you point out in your very next sentence, they very
     conventionally blended tone colors into familiar combinations of
     sonorities.
     >   Yes, bassoons double cellos and basses and oboes and violins
     play
     the same line in tuttis, but his rather goes to show how little
     regard
     baroque composers had for the actual colors of the instruments:
     I'd be inclined to disagree with this characterization of their
     regard,
     but since it pretty much proves my point, there's a limit to how
     hard
     I'll protest.  In his operas, Handel typically expected one treble
     sound
     composed of oboe/violin, and a bass sound composed of
     cello/bassoon/harpsichord/theorbo/violone.  He was obviously
     unconcerned
     with whether the bassoons were heard as bassoons: he just wanted a
     good,
     strong sound.
     > "If the part fits your register, play it for all I care."
     I'd be inclined to disagree with this characterization even more
     than I
     was inclined to agree with the characterization above (with which
     was I
     inclined to disagree, as noted above in the sentence that started
     "I'd
     be inclined to disagree...") but since it pretty much proves etc.
     ...
     > If Bach didn't have an oboist on a particular day for an obligato
     part, he had no qualms about re-writing it for traverso or violin,
     transposing if needed.
     I know of no instance in which Bach is known to have rewritten a
     part
     because someone wasn't available on a particular day.  Do you?
     >  How many times must this sort of thing have happened on the fly,
     with
     nothing being written down?
     Twelve.  Thirteen, if you include that time in Frankfurt in 1752.
     Not a
     lot, really...
     > ("We've got a great virtuoso guest chalumeau player with us today,
     Herr Bach."  "Well, I ain't got nothin' fer chalumeau, but tell him
     to
     take the traverso obligato on the third aria.") I don't think Handel
     or
     Telemann or either one of the Grauns ever thought, "This harpsichord
     is
     doing the job fine on its own, but it is a little thin sounding.
     Let's
     get a theorbo in here to warm it up, stat!
     They didn't have to think about it.  They assumed the theorbo and
     harpsichord were both available, for the same reason they assumed
     the
     violins and oboes were both available: because they were available.
     >  And tell the guy, even though it really goes without saying, that
     although the theorbo player CAN play to be heard, he needs to be a
     part
     of the musical texture without actually being noticed as a discrete
     sound.
     This is a very theorbocentric view of the whole matter.  It's more
     accurate to say that how the audience hears the theorbo, as such, is
     less important to the director (who needs to worry about the overall
     sound and overall balance) than it is to the theorbo player.  If the
     continuo sounds good and supports the singers, the director may not
     care
     at all if anyone can make out the theorbo separately.  And in a lot
     of
     venues where the acoustics are imperfect, the subtlety of different
     continuo colors might be an unaffordable luxury.
     It could be that your directors are bozos who don't know what
     theorbos
     are for.  It could also be that they have a much better notion of
     how
     things sound than the theorbo player in the middle of the mix does.
      But
     worrying about the theorbo player's desire to be heard isn't in
     their
     job description.
     To get on or off this list see list information at
     [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --
   Peter Martin
   24 The Mount St Georges
   Second Avenue
   Newcastle under Lyme
   ST5 8RB
   tel: 0044 (0)1782 662089
   mob: 0044 (0)7971 232614
   [5]peter.l...@gmail.com

   --

References

   1. mailto:lu...@tiscali.co.uk
   2. mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   3. mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   5. mailto:peter.l...@gmail.com





Reply via email to