What Mathias meant is that self-expression did not become the standard goal
for all music
intil the 19th century.
Self expression certainly has existed ever since Froberger. Some, like
Zelenka, tried to control it, but it was coming out anyway.
Some, like CPEBach and Müthel, have let is spew.
It is certainly present in JSB, except his personality had a certain
Olympian immutability.
THe the majority of music practitioners between Hasse (high end) and Matteis
(low end) would not have selfexpression in the same paragraph with their
names.
RT
----- Original Message -----
From: "David R" <d_lu...@comcast.net>
To: "Mathias Roesel" <mathias.roe...@t-online.de>
Cc: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 1:18 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: What's the point to 'historical sound'
On Jul 2, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Mathias Roesel wrote:
...Music as a way of personal expression is a notion that didn't develop
until
the 19th century. Music to _raise_ fear, joy, anger, sadness,
tranquility
etc. has been composed since the invention of monody. But not music that
expresses fear, joy, anger, sadness, tranquility etc. of its composer
What about music that expresses the emotions of the performer? After
all, if you don't play with feeling, you will never inspire any feeling
in an audience. Who wants to sit and listen to a note machine? Not me.
Anyway, I don't believe for one moment that music pre-19th C was not
supposed to contain emotion. To me, it's pointless to play music unless
it's an experience of delight for the performer. Surely it's that
delight that causes an audience to sit up and take notice! I don't care
how professional, or how historical, the performer purports to be, boring
is boring.
D
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
