Stuart: I think you may have missed my point - or points. As I said, this is a pet peeve of mine. I believe the level of understanding historical music has sunk to an unfortunately low standard. This has less to do with amateur indulgences versus professional training than it does to do with commitment. While a great deal of 16th century music had and has a certain 'horizontal' complexity, there is a great deal of simple dance music that is really not much different from traditional dance music of the British Isles and America - played by ear and learned by heart. The forms are easy to grasp and choices for harmonizing not entirely out of the reach of amateurs. This is not far removed from what you were discussing regarding making ren guitar arrangements. As for the Nashville musicians, you should not underestimate their training and ability. I mention Nashville because it is a very competitive market, and has attracted a huge number of very talented musicians. The level of playing is very high and I'm sure there are players there who could not only do justice to Boulez but give him a run for his money in composition. The point here is that we seem to be stuck in the narrow realm of interpreting historical music available in scraps of notation composed to be played on unruly instruments. Generally speaking, I think we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg with this music by not embracing a more comprehensive view of music from the period in question. People were making up dance tunes, songs, and fantasias not because they were absolute geniuses but because that was what musical training prepared people to do. I reference Dowland's introductory remarks from A Pilgrimes Solace, where he laments the falling standards of basic understanding of the hexachord on the part of 'simple cantors'. In terms of over-harmonizing a dance tune, I can only recommend that you play dances and you'll understand what I mean. Come up with a brilliant arrangement that harmonizes every beat with four-voice chords laid out with the best possible voice leading - and then play it for 10 - 15 minutes while dancers are drowning you out with the noise of their feet - and driving you out with aroma of nature's fecund dew. I did this for 25 years or so and learned to harmonize intelligently and improvise just to stave off boredom. Improvisation is not a new concept, and we have plenty of historical examples to learn from. RA
> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 22:23:18 +0000 > To: praelu...@hotmail.com > CC: lutesm...@mac.com; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > From: s.wa...@ntlworld.com > Subject: [LUTE] Re: strumming Gervaise > > On 01/11/2011 17:30, Ron Andrico wrote: > > Stuart: > While the choices and execution by (notice I didn't use the ambiguous > 'of') a modern folk player might be different, I'm fairly certain that > the process is conceptually the same. We have to assume that musicians > in the 16th century were skilled enough to reduce the written music to > its functional form and invent an arrangement. > > Of course! I was wondering what they (in ordinary, humble, everyday > performances) might actually have done. > > This is a pet peeve of mine: I don't think we can strip away the basic > musicianship of historical players simply because of what was not > written down. I never fail to point out that playing continuo is a > laughably basic musical skill that any Nashville guitar player could do > well without even trying. That's because Nashville guitarists get work > based on their knowledge of how to respond tastefully to whatever - and > do it right on the spot. > > I'm sure Nashville professionals are very good but would they be able > to 'tastefully respond' to a complex line of Bach? Surely they get paid > for responding to the kind of music that they get asked to play - a > reasonably broad range of American popular music. > If the guitarist for a performance of 'Le Marteau Sans Maitre' (Boulez) > fell ill, I can't really envisage a Nashville guitarist tastefully > vamping along. > Though, I do remember a TV series on improvisation by the late Derek > Bailey (the completely 'free' improvisor who never actually sounded > notes on the guitar, only extracted sounds) and he was talking to some > Nashville musicians who then played and the bass player, remaining > within the popular tune that was being played, made all sorts of funny > and ridiculous sounds too. It was a very clever send-up. > > I once had a conversation with a well-known but unnamed organist who > lives in a particular but unnamed city. He told me he received a > frantic call from the musicians union to accompany a popular touring > vocal group for a performance because their pianist was suddenly taken > ill. He was given the charts for their rep and all he saw were lyrics > and chord symbols. He said he had to decline the job because that > wasn't enough information, and he at least needed a bass line and > figures. Real musicians don't need bass lines and figures, and compose > their own bass lines with very nice accompaniments on the spot. > > > That just takes music out of the hands of virtually everybody but a > tiny handful of 'pros'. A rather dismal thought? What are you saying to > all of us on this list? Why should a 'real' musician be able to play > absolutely anything and on the spot? Do any exist? > > Anyway, the process of analyzing a piece, especially a dance piece, > reveals the important points of rhythm and pulse, and one can create a > nice accompaniment by finding the strong pulses, not over-harmonizing, > and applying tasteful movement. I will add again that books like > Chardavoine's Recueil de chansons en forme de voix de ville (1576) only > needed to print the melodies because musicians knew how to harmonize > them. Same thing with Playford's Dancing Master. It's the same thing > as playing from a modern fake book. > > I don't get it. Why not over-harmonize if you want to? Berio's Folk > songs. Vaughan Williams. Bartok etc. Can there be an over-arching > concept of 'taste', anyway? > In one of Peter Seeger's books he says not to use a maj6 because it's > like too much fat in the gravy. How dreary. > Are you wanting to mystify 'real' music? > Stuart > > RA > > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 09:22:31 +0000 > > To: [1]lutesm...@mac.com > > CC: [2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > > From: [3]s.wa...@ntlworld.com > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: strumming Gervaise > > > > But that would be what a modern folk player might do, and I wonder > what a chordal instrument player might have done then. > > > > > > Stuart > > -- > > References > > 1. mailto:lutesm...@mac.com > 2. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > 3. mailto:s.wa...@ntlworld.com > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
