Martin, Well said. Bream worked largely by intuition based upon his 20th century training. While HIP-sters consult a basic foundation of empirical research, so much of what is done stylistically is pure conjecture. There's a large element of the "Emperor's New Clothes." On many subjects, the sources are either silent, obscure, or so heavily filtered through our modern subconscious system of preconceptions that we should rightfully admit that there is no present answer to many important performance practice issues. But "I'm not sure" never goes over well with colleagues, so something is invented. Then we all agree to go on pretending that it works so well that it must really be what was done. Eventually it becomes dogma and the expected way early music should sound according to listeners in late 2013. But the "Hoppy and ideological alumni"-style is only one approach. Bream is another. Both are music.
Chris P.S. For several years I've been playing very close to the bridge. Having lived with it for a while, I've been surprised to find that the effect of this position is actually more drastic in the regions of phrasing and articulation than tone color. Dr. Christopher Wilke D.M.A. Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer www.christopherwilke.com -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 12/7/13, Martin Shepherd <mar...@luteshop.co.uk> wrote: Subject: [LUTE] Re: Bream Collection... I just noticed To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Saturday, December 7, 2013, 5:42 AM Hi All, I am a bit dismayed by a modern orthodoxy about lutes and lute music which is so dismissive of things which stand outside that orthodoxy. Whether or not you like Bream's lutes or his playing, he was the first to show that it *could* be done. But the main thing which troubles me is that the basis of this current orthodoxy is so shaky. Modern lutemakers base their instruments on just a few museum specimens which are not necessarily representative of the multiplicity of lutes of the past, and while we now make lutes which are much closer to historical instruments than those of 20 or 30 years ago, we still don't understand how strings were made in the past and still can't reproduce them. Despite much research, modern players have to guess at the nature of musical phrasing and mostly ignore the very important dimension of ornamentation, either playing no ornaments at all or taking an "anything goes" approach. We also mostly ignore the fact that 17th and 18th century lute players played very close to the bridge with their fingers plucking almost at right angles to the strings. This has far-reaching implications - playing more or less thumb-inside and over the rose, modern players need quite high string tensions, probably much higher than were used in the past. We may like what the best players do now, but it is foolish to think that it is historically plausible, let alone "correct". Martin --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
