It would be interesting to know when Robert Spencer made his comment.
Some years ago now, I suspect, and many aspects of early music
performance have probably evolved positively since.
If a good quality lute in the right hands is played in an appropriate
acoustic (here in France we are lucky to have numerous Romanesque
churches which certainly fit the bill), it is anything but 'nearly
inaudible'. As to the music being 'strange', I have very often noted how
immediately many even neophyte audiences take to renaissance music.
What is this 'inward' looking you suggest Ron? What ulterior motives
should I be looking for??
Here is a link to an introduction by David Crystal of original
pronunciation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s
I think he makes a very convincing case for the use and intelligibility
of an early accent. Obviously there was not just one Elizabethan accent
but that is hardly a reason for downing tools and systematically
adopting R.P., which itself is an obvious instance of your McDonald's
'predictable French fries' (and I am definitely not a consumer of the
latter). In my opinion, pronunciation is every bit as important as many
other aspects of early music performance for conveying aesthetics,
meaning and emotion and is anything but 'so much window dressing'.
Best,
Matthew
On 23/04/2017 23:28, Ron Andrico wrote:
While there is a case to be made for singers studying early
pronunciation, I have to say I agree with Robert Spencer that the
primary objective in performing lute songs to modern audiences is to
communicate the aesthetic to that audience. It's really enough to ask
of a modern audience just to sit and listen to strange music sung to
the accompaniment of a nearly inaudible instrument, let alone making an
otherwise familiar language obscure. I think those who strongly
advocate performing with a (very questionable) "authentic" English
pronunciation to a modern audience should look inward and ask
themselves what their real motives might be.
I, too, am a little tired of singers who learn and perform with a
"one-size-fits-all" technique - singing Morley today, Monteverdi
tomorrow, Machaut next week and Mahler next month. While it can be
done, it can't be done well and up to the standard we should expect.
Most importantly, specializing in lute songs means learning to sing
with a natural voice. Lute songs were nearly always performed in an
intimate, domestic environment, and singing with a modern projected
voice severely distorts the aesthetic of the music, which I happen to
think is much worse than trivial issues to do with pronunciation.
I don't recall who remarked that, when dealing with "authentic"
pronunciation, one must decide which pronunciation. Regional dialects
abound in every country and from every period. Deciding on one
approved historical pronunciation is following the path of McDonalds,
who used modern production techniques to produce a very predictable
french fry. I don't think this is a good thing.
Much to consider, but the most important aspect of performing early
music to modern audiences is to convey the aesthetic of the music. All
else is so much window dressing.
RA
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
