>That passage describing and naming ornaments was clearly >lifted from 'classical' tutors for other instruments. >It does not discuss how these ornaments might be fingered, for example. >Have you - has anyone - had Fenwick - ever heard a turned >shake on the NSP? >The description of staccato is redundant in the context of >closed fingering, >the technique recommended elsewhere in the book. >It would be fun to see what source was being plagiarised here.
So we don't always have to believe fallible Fenwick? As i've said before, a problem is the misuse of "staccato" to mean "short". It doesn't. It means "detached/separated", as all notes must be (except of course the components of a mordant or shake, which would sound silly if detached). It's interesting that Fenwick distinguishes (like some contemporary pipers) between simply separate (non-legato), short and very short. Oops, I said I wasn't going to get involved this time round. But I agree with Dave Shaw. c To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
