On Aug 4, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Tobiah <t...@tobiah.org> wrote: > I'm interested in how they played, but I like what Jimmy Hendrix did with > Francis > Scott Key
You mean John Stafford Smith, unless you’re admiring the way Hendrix recited poetry. > at the same time. Maybe a little light chorus effect will spice up a > Francesco > recording. I don't know, but I'm willing to try it. I'd like to study all > of the old methods of course, perhaps to better know the soul of the music. > So little was put into the written music to tell us about tempo, strictness > of tempo, dynamic range, tone color variation, and general emotional > intention, > that it almost supports the idea that things are open to interpretation even > if common practice at the time had an understood narrow accepted practice > regarding these things. Of course it supports the idea. The different interpretations are most of what we discuss here. > Our ears are in tune with a different set of practices > now (at least the general public). Perhaps if we looked up from anthropology It’s not anthropology. It’s the instruction manual. If you pay thousands of dollars for an instrument (and millions of dollars for strings), you should at least read it. > and viewed the old scribbles on parchment as a worthwhile resource for music > for > our time, We all view it that way. We fall so in love with the music that we are willing to put up with an instrument that is, logistically and practically, a royal pain in the ass, because we can make the music come alive with it. > lute music might have a greater following. If only we could get someone like Sting to take it up... > When I explain that > I play lute music on the guitar, I generally have to explain what a lute is. A task you could avoid if you played it on the lute. At least you could explain it specifically instead of generally. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
