Good points all, David (as far as I understand them :o\ )
One great example is that of renaissance ornamentation. When we
compare the 'Varietie' versions of Dowland with MS versions of the same
thing (for example the King of Denmark's Galliard, or the Fantasie) we
find that MS versions are dripping with ornament indications. I HAVE
heard people attempting these, but usually as a demonstration between
consenting lutenists - not something to be incorporated in a public
performance or on a CD.
Diana Poulton was pointing this out (as well as pinky down) long, long,
long ago, but none of the pros (and few of the ams) at that time paid a
blind bit of heed. Since then, pinky down seems to have become the
norm, but as you say, renaissance ornamentation is tucked away out of
sight.
A serious point is that exploration of authentic playing practice very
often comes from the amateur side of things, where they don't HAVE to
make the lute sound that audiences have come to expect, to earn a
living.
Let's not give up on these things, fellow amateurs. The professionals
will eventually follow us, though it will be a L-O-N-G haul . . .
Bill
From: David Tayler <vidan...@sbcglobal.net>
To: lute <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 6:58
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Right hand plucking position - was Re: Quality vs
Quantity
This is a weight of evidence vs "minority report" scenario (sorry,
I'm
from the Berkeley area and we value our Philip Dick)
So for example in the lute world you can say do you want octave
stringing on Dowland?
And the weight of evidence answer is, No, because 90 percent of the
sources, or more, show octave stringing.
But of course we have Dowland's instructions.
So the issue is, how do you balance these things? And that requires
some finesse.
Starting with rule No. 1, the uniformity rule, we can immediately see
that there was no one way of doing things. Then we proceed along a
line
of research, addressing a specific repertory, in a specific time and
place, possibly even a special group or school of playing.
Then the question changes, and you are left with, well, some did
this,
but most did this, WHY did they do this and WHO were the ones doing
it.
And then you make a judgment. You don't always know the who and the
why, and that is the musical archeology part, building the house from
a
brick or two.
Each person has to decide, do they want to be in the majority or the
minority? Well, then you are making the same judgment that someone
back
then would make.
I would add, from a personal point of view, that there is also a
compelling necessity. So for example, after playing for for X number
of
years, I can say, well, I tried it that way for forty years, well
forty-four years, and it still feels wrong. That isn't history, it is
kinesthetic sensibility. On the larger scale of things, that follows
the neoplatonic ideal that the hand and eye should be the measure of
all things.
It is always good to try it: plant that pinky and try it. I try it
all
the time. And fail.
The whole musicology issue is a glorious way to re-imagine the past,
not give pinky parking tickets.
So for example I have never seen a piece of renaissance lute music
played with renaissance ornamentation. So I could become grumpy and
categorical, or I could say, wow, this is so cool, that this is right
around the corner, can't wait to see this,
License my roving hands, and let them go
Before, behind, between, above, below.
O, my America, my Newfoundland....
__________________________________________________________________
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
[1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
