[LUTE] Cantiones Sarmatoruthenicae 69-75
http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/images/373.pdf http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/audio/373.mp3 http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/images/376.pdf http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/images/374.pdf http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/audio/374.mp3 http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/images/375.pdf http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/audio/375.mp3 http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/images/377.pdf http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/audio/377.mp3 http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/images/378.pdf http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/audio/378.mp3 http://www.torban.org/sarmatoruthenicae/images/379.pdf Enjoy. Amitiés, RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
Hi there - as a choral singer, director and journalist as well as lute player, I have to object to the generalizations about choral musicians below. Of course, musicians of all stripes are as prone to demagoguery, bloviation, rudeness and snarkiness as any other human being; But I've worked with choral musicians for a long time, and they haven't struck me as any better or worse than other musical folk in this respect. Beyond that, I agree that many ensembles don't know what do with lutes in either a choral, chamber or orchestral context. All lutenists can do is be helpful, friendly and respectful - but persistent - as we give thoughts and suggestions to the other players involved. Interesting discussion. I've never met Ron, but I always find his posts challenging, entertaining and thought-provoking. Cheers, Ben S Quoting Ron Andrico : Yes, John, alternative points of view are a good thing. And medieval music has not been completely ruined by critics with an agenda. But lutenists, especially in the US, aren't plugged into the ultra-snarky world of choral music, where everyone has an opinion and will lavish it upon you in great depth and crying 'uncle' does no good. Lutenists today are mostly drawn from the ranks of the classical guitar world, where the focus is on technique and the qualities of different instruments. In the broader context, a convincing interpretation of 16th century music has to involve an understanding of collision of vocal and instrumental music, otherwise we miss the target that our best composers had in there sights - and their ears. There is a problem however when choral singers define the parameters of the discussion of how old music should be performed. Many choral singers think of the lute as a really poor excuse for an organ because they can't hear the darn thing and, when they do hear it, it just makes rattly noises. We who occupy the sound world of the lute are much more attuned to subtlety and we owe it to the choral mafia to say 'shut up and listen' now and then. Actually, people did have a thing or two to say about Berlioz. Check out Slonimsky's _Lexicon of Musical Invective_ for some amusing musical criticism. RA > Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:08:36 + > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > From: johnle...@hotmail.com > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes > > The way it's described here, it sounds like a vast conspiracy to > discredit instrumental medieval music. If so, let's be thankful it was > one perpetrated by tweedy music critics for a very serious magazine > with a limited readership, which I suppose is why Sequentia, the Boston > Camerata, Ensemble PAN, Ensemble Alcatraz, the Dufay Collective, > Ensemble Unicorn and many, many others have since done wonderful, if > sometimes a little weird, work and instrumental students at early music > programs still spend at least a semester hawanging on musty old > hurdy-gurdies, vielles and gothic harps, struggling through Ars > Subtilior music while their singer friends mispronounce old French or > fail to get the rhythms of Landini ballate. To think it might all have > been brought to nought, but thank goodness we mostly rely on critics > for nice quotes to put in our press packets, grouse a little bit when > they savage us, and otherwise view most of them as grumpy eunuchs. > Regarding the ethics of music criticism, I'd be interested to see if we > could have a bit more conflict of interest and get more serious > musicians, hopefully better writers than I, to write criticism, and if > it would make the field more vibrant. Nobody faults Schumann or > Berlioz, two of the most readable critics of the nineteenth century, > for their conflicts of interest, do they? Schumann had it right about > Chopin and Brahms, huh? > > Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:35:21 -0800 > > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > > From: howardpos...@ca.rr.com > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes > > > > > > On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Ron Andrico wrote: > > > > > While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little > incensed > > > that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial > recordings > > > with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics? > > > > Would you be incensed by a reviewer who panned Herbert von Karajan's > recordings of Bach because the critic's "one point of view" was that > Bach should be played with attention to historical performance > practice? Or a reviewer who admitted that in the 1970's he had > deliberately conveyed the message to buy the period-instrument > recordings of Bach's cantatas by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt and "leave > the rest" (modern-instrument performances by Richter and Rilling and > whoever)? > > > > Or, closer to home on this list, is it wro
[LUTE] Dumps and Downes
What can the collective wisdom share about a style of composition called down(e) or dump? I have four of these: two from Holmes (ff. 12, 94) and two from Marsh (ff. 124, 426). Questions: Are they basically divisions on a ground? Does one follow a strict rhythm with them? I enjoy playing (in some cases simply attempting) these. Are there others, perhaps by different names/titles? Thanks and regards, Leonard Williams To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
IMHO I think it is important to keep in mind that one critic's
viewpoint
is just that: one person's OPINION. Yes, maybe they are "right", but
sometimes there is no "black and white" viewpoint. One person's trash
is another person's treasure, so to speak. I think we should feel free
to
enjoy what we want to enjoy, despite somebody else's (sometimes VERY
narrow and limited) focus. ( Remember - THEY KNOW MORE than you do,
because THEY HAVE A DEGREE! {or do they?} [ I bought mine online
from Indonesia... ] )
Personally, I don't let anybody tell me what music not to like / buy
and
vice versa: something I learned in high school. In Don Campbell's
book,
"The Roar of Silence" he talks about sitting in Carnegie Hall as a
music critic,
having an absolutely miserable time because he was listening for the
slightest
mistake, while the person next to him was having a religeous
experience.
If you like Karajan's Brandenburgs buy them, listen to them, love
them,
bask in their lush soundscapes, and to &e11 with the critics!
ENJOY Music!
Tom
> On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Ron Andrico wrote:
>
> > While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little
> > incensed
> > that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial
> > recordings with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics?
>
> Would you be incensed by a reviewer who panned Herbert von Karajan's
> recordings of Bach because the critic's "one point of view" was that
> Bach should be played with attention to historical performance
> practice? Or a reviewer who admitted that in the 1970's he had
> deliberately conveyed the message to buy the period-instrument
> recordings of Bach's cantatas by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt and "leave
> the rest" (modern-instrument performances by Richter and Rilling and
> whoever)?
>
> Or, closer to home on this list, is it wrong for a critic to opine
> that lute recordings on instruments built like modern guitars are not
> the ones to buy?
>
> Critics are paid to convey information and make judgments. If a
> critic writing for a publication about early music has reached a
> conclusion that voices-only performance is "correct," and that any
> instruments make it as wrong as Karajan's Brandenburgs, it isn't
> unethical for that viewpoint to inform his writing--indeed, how could
> he possibly put it aside and pretend he didn't think the performances
> with instruments are historically wrong (just as you might conclude,
> if the instruments were saxophones)? You might find his viewpoint
> wrong or overly limited, and maybe you're right. But it isn't
> unethical for a critic to approach his work with his own ideas.
>
> The potential ethical problems stem from the small-world nature of
the
> early music community, where the prominent performers and scholars
all
> know each other, and cronyism, or the reverse, is always a problem.
> When I was review editor for the LSA quarterly, I told some folks
(all
> of them on this list, I think) that there were ethical problems
> because they were performers writing about other performers or
> publishers writing about other publishers ("competition" in common
> parlance), making for inherent conflict of interest. I don't think
> anyone had ever brought it up before, and while the (soon-to-be
> former) reviewers themselves seemed to understand, or at least
> accepted, my insistence on avoiding systemic conflict of interest,
> the responses I got from the LSA officialdom was much the same
> response I would have gotten if I'd said only Martians could write
> reviews for the Q. And maybe they were right: perhaps if the
> community is small enough, you have to put up with conflic!
> t of interest if you want a pool of reviewers.
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Tom Draughon
Heartistry Music
http://www.heartistrymusic.com/artists/tom.html
714 9th Avenue West
Ashland, WI 54806
715-682-9362
--
[LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
LOL! :-) I just hope that Wayne and or others don't get upset over this funny silliness clogging their inboxes...this is the last thing I am going to say about it! Sorry...but I had some GREAT laughs! You are ALL wonderful people... Warm regards and God bless, BJ __ From: Ron Andrico To: dwinh...@comcast.net; brentl...@bellsouth.net Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Mon, February 6, 2012 12:32:08 PM Subject: RE: [LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? Now, then. Careful with the allusions to delusions or I might have to send my cousin Ludovico Grosso da Venice Beach to your address. RA > Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:34:49 -0800 > To: brentl...@bellsouth.net > CC: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > From: dwinh...@comcast.net > Subject: [LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > > Yes- 3.5 mm fistmele for the average cricket longbow sounds about right. But cricket lutes are gonna be tight, whether they even played lutes is still controversial. Entymusicologists have been wrestling with this question for decades. John Milton Ward and Howard Meyer Brown actually came to blows over this one- it all turned on a misunderstanding of Medieval Arab units of measurement relating to Locust ouds, a thankless task for even the most dedicated investigators. The Pepito Grillo artifact rescued from a Libyan anthill in 1922 turned out to be totally bogus. Adding to the acrimony is the original text of the famous Josquin chanson- "El grillo non cantare". > > On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:56 AM, brentlynk wrote: > > > Thanks Dan! > > But if one happens to be an English cricket, his longbow might be that small, > > LOL! :-) > > > > > > > > - Original Message > > From: Daniel Winheld > > To: brentlynk > > Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu List" > > Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 2:29:46 PM > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > > > > > > > > My Baroque lute (Robert Lundberg, 1977) is a bare touch less than 4 mm at both > > 9th and 10th frets (1st string lines up exactly with the line on my ruler- to > > top of fret). Feels fine, would not want it lower & certainly no higher. > > > > The fistmele of an English Longbow (distance from the bottom of the string to > > the surface of the inside of the bow when braced) should be the distance from > > the edge of the hand to end of the extended thumb, approx. 6-1/4", depending of > > course on various factors- length of the bow, size of the archer, etc. A little > > more room to play around with than the lute action distance. > > > > Dan > > > > On Feb 5, 2012, at 9:45 AM, brentlynk wrote: > > > >> P.S. It's much appreciated, Roman and Eugene...Indeed, 4 mm was the "max" that > > > >> the expert/master luthier told me was "acceptable"...My 10-course was in for > >> repairs recently (after 15 years of me playing it...) and the action had > >> risen > >> > >> to about 5.5 mm at the 9th fret. The luthier corrected it and it plays a > >> GREAT > >> > >> deal better now. I am glad to know the same basic rule applies to the action > >> on > >> > >> baroque lutes...Heck, they are lutes, not long-bows to shoot arrows with, LOL! > > > >> :-) > >> > >> Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, > >> BJ > >> > >> > >> > >> - Original Message > >> From: Roman Turovsky > >> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; brentlynk > >> Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:36:01 PM > >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > >> > >> 3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. > >> RT > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" > >> To: > >> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM > >> Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? > >> > >> > >>> Hello Everyone! > >>> > >>> Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a > >>> quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) > >>> > >>> What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute > >>> with > >>> a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could > > be > >>> "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is > >>> there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? > >>> > >>> IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: > >>> > >>> I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was told > > > >>> by > >>> a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint > >>> for > >>> a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also sa
[LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
Now, then. Careful with the allusions to delusions or I might have to send my cousin Ludovico Grosso da Venice Beach to your address. RA > Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:34:49 -0800 > To: brentl...@bellsouth.net > CC: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > From: dwinh...@comcast.net > Subject: [LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > > Yes- 3.5 mm fistmele for the average cricket longbow sounds about right. But cricket lutes are gonna be tight, whether they even played lutes is still controversial. Entymusicologists have been wrestling with this question for decades. John Milton Ward and Howard Meyer Brown actually came to blows over this one- it all turned on a misunderstanding of Medieval Arab units of measurement relating to Locust ouds, a thankless task for even the most dedicated investigators. The Pepito Grillo artifact rescued from a Libyan anthill in 1922 turned out to be totally bogus. Adding to the acrimony is the original text of the famous Josquin chanson- "El grillo non cantare". > > On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:56 AM, brentlynk wrote: > > > Thanks Dan! > > But if one happens to be an English cricket, his longbow might be that small, > > LOL! :-) > > > > > > > > - Original Message > > From: Daniel Winheld > > To: brentlynk > > Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu List" > > Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 2:29:46 PM > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > > > > > > > > My Baroque lute (Robert Lundberg, 1977) is a bare touch less than 4 mm at both > > 9th and 10th frets (1st string lines up exactly with the line on my ruler- to > > top of fret). Feels fine, would not want it lower & certainly no higher. > > > > The fistmele of an English Longbow (distance from the bottom of the string to > > the surface of the inside of the bow when braced) should be the distance from > > the edge of the hand to end of the extended thumb, approx. 6-1/4", depending of > > course on various factors- length of the bow, size of the archer, etc. A little > > more room to play around with than the lute action distance. > > > > Dan > > > > On Feb 5, 2012, at 9:45 AM, brentlynk wrote: > > > >> P.S. It's much appreciated, Roman and Eugene...Indeed, 4 mm was the "max" that > > > >> the expert/master luthier told me was "acceptable"...My 10-course was in for > >> repairs recently (after 15 years of me playing it...) and the action had > >> risen > >> > >> to about 5.5 mm at the 9th fret. The luthier corrected it and it plays a > >> GREAT > >> > >> deal better now. I am glad to know the same basic rule applies to the action > >> on > >> > >> baroque lutes...Heck, they are lutes, not long-bows to shoot arrows with, LOL! > > > >> :-) > >> > >> Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, > >> BJ > >> > >> > >> > >> - Original Message > >> From: Roman Turovsky > >> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; brentlynk > >> Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:36:01 PM > >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > >> > >> 3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. > >> RT > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" > >> To: > >> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM > >> Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? > >> > >> > >>> Hello Everyone! > >>> > >>> Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a > >>> quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) > >>> > >>> What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute > >>> with > >>> a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could > > be > >>> "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is > >>> there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? > >>> > >>> IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: > >>> > >>> I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was told > > > >>> by > >>> a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint > >>> for > >>> a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said > >>> that > >>> on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with > > those > >>> with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at > >> the > >>> neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." I > >> am > >>> NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a > > very > >>> reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps > >>> he'll > >>> answer this question along with others?
[LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
Oh, Dan, you are TOO funny and you made my day! God bless you and yours... BJ - Original Message From: Daniel Winheld To: brentlynk Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.eduList" Sent: Mon, February 6, 2012 11:34:49 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? Yes- 3.5 mm fistmele for the average cricket longbow sounds about right. But cricket lutes are gonna be tight, whether they even played lutes is still controversial. Entymusicologists have been wrestling with this question for decades. John Milton Ward and Howard Meyer Brown actually came to blows over this one- it all turned on a misunderstanding of Medieval Arab units of measurement relating to Locust ouds, a thankless task for even the most dedicated investigators. The Pepito Grillo artifact rescued from a Libyan anthill in 1922 turned out to be totally bogus. Adding to the acrimony is the original text of the famous Josquin chanson- "El grillo non cantare". On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:56 AM, brentlynk wrote: > Thanks Dan! > But if one happens to be an English cricket, his longbow might be that small, > LOL! :-) > > > > - Original Message > From: Daniel Winheld > To: brentlynk > Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu List" > Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 2:29:46 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > > > > My Baroque lute (Robert Lundberg, 1977) is a bare touch less than 4 mm at > both > 9th and 10th frets (1st string lines up exactly with the line on my ruler- to > top of fret). Feels fine, would not want it lower & certainly no higher. > > The fistmele of an English Longbow (distance from the bottom of the string to > the surface of the inside of the bow when braced) should be the distance from > the edge of the hand to end of the extended thumb, approx. 6-1/4", depending > of > > course on various factors- length of the bow, size of the archer, etc. A > little > > more room to play around with than the lute action distance. > > Dan > > On Feb 5, 2012, at 9:45 AM, brentlynk wrote: > >> P.S. It's much appreciated, Roman and Eugene...Indeed, 4 mm was the "max" >> that > > >> the expert/master luthier told me was "acceptable"...My 10-course was in for >> repairs recently (after 15 years of me playing it...) and the action had >> risen >> >> to about 5.5 mm at the 9th fret. The luthier corrected it and it plays a >> GREAT >> >> deal better now. I am glad to know the same basic rule applies to the >> action >> on >> >> baroque lutes...Heck, they are lutes, not long-bows to shoot arrows with, >> LOL! > > >> :-) >> >> Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, >> BJ >> >> >> >> - Original Message >> From: Roman Turovsky >> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; brentlynk >> Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:36:01 PM >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute? >> >> 3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. >> RT >> >> >> - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM >> Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? >> >> >>> Hello Everyone! >>> >>> Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a >>> quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) >>> >>> What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute >>> with >>> a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could > be >>> "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is >>> there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? >>> >>> IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: >>> >>> I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was >>> told > > >>> by >>> a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body >>> joint >>> for >>> a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said >>> that >>> on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with > those >>> with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at >> the >>> neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." >>> I >> am >>> NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a > very >>> reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps >>> he'll >>> answer this question along with others? :-) >>> >>> Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 >>> course >>> baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what > the >>> general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of string >>> clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too > high? >>> >>> >>> I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally >>> mean > > >>> to >>> splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course >> baroque >>> lute of 72 cm shoul
[LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
Yes- 3.5 mm fistmele for the average cricket longbow sounds about right. But cricket lutes are gonna be tight, whether they even played lutes is still controversial. Entymusicologists have been wrestling with this question for decades. John Milton Ward and Howard Meyer Brown actually came to blows over this one- it all turned on a misunderstanding of Medieval Arab units of measurement relating to Locust ouds, a thankless task for even the most dedicated investigators. The Pepito Grillo artifact rescued from a Libyan anthill in 1922 turned out to be totally bogus. Adding to the acrimony is the original text of the famous Josquin chanson- "El grillo non cantare". On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:56 AM, brentlynk wrote: > Thanks Dan! > But if one happens to be an English cricket, his longbow might be that small, > LOL! :-) > > > > - Original Message > From: Daniel Winheld > To: brentlynk > Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu List" > Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 2:29:46 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > > > > My Baroque lute (Robert Lundberg, 1977) is a bare touch less than 4 mm at > both > 9th and 10th frets (1st string lines up exactly with the line on my ruler- to > top of fret). Feels fine, would not want it lower & certainly no higher. > > The fistmele of an English Longbow (distance from the bottom of the string to > the surface of the inside of the bow when braced) should be the distance from > the edge of the hand to end of the extended thumb, approx. 6-1/4", depending > of > course on various factors- length of the bow, size of the archer, etc. A > little > more room to play around with than the lute action distance. > > Dan > > On Feb 5, 2012, at 9:45 AM, brentlynk wrote: > >> P.S. It's much appreciated, Roman and Eugene...Indeed, 4 mm was the "max" >> that > >> the expert/master luthier told me was "acceptable"...My 10-course was in for >> repairs recently (after 15 years of me playing it...) and the action had >> risen >> >> to about 5.5 mm at the 9th fret. The luthier corrected it and it plays a >> GREAT >> >> deal better now. I am glad to know the same basic rule applies to the >> action >> on >> >> baroque lutes...Heck, they are lutes, not long-bows to shoot arrows with, >> LOL! > >> :-) >> >> Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, >> BJ >> >> >> >> - Original Message >> From: Roman Turovsky >> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; brentlynk >> Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:36:01 PM >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute? >> >> 3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. >> RT >> >> >> - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM >> Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? >> >> >>> Hello Everyone! >>> >>> Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask >>> a >>> quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) >>> >>> What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute >>> with >>> a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could > be >>> "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is >>> there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? >>> >>> IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: >>> >>> I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was >>> told > >>> by >>> a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body >>> joint >>> for >>> a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said >>> that >>> on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with > those >>> with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at >> the >>> neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." >>> I >> am >>> NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a > very >>> reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps >>> he'll >>> answer this question along with others? :-) >>> >>> Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 >>> course >>> baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what > the >>> general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of >>> string >>> clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too > high? >>> >>> >>> I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally >>> mean > >>> to >>> splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course >> baroque >>> lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? Personally, > having >>> only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have always >> preferred >>> the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 course >>> baroque lute I am referring to is so much longe
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
Yes, John, alternative points of view are a good thing. And medieval music has not been completely ruined by critics with an agenda. But lutenists, especially in the US, aren't plugged into the ultra-snarky world of choral music, where everyone has an opinion and will lavish it upon you in great depth and crying 'uncle' does no good. Lutenists today are mostly drawn from the ranks of the classical guitar world, where the focus is on technique and the qualities of different instruments. In the broader context, a convincing interpretation of 16th century music has to involve an understanding of collision of vocal and instrumental music, otherwise we miss the target that our best composers had in there sights - and their ears. There is a problem however when choral singers define the parameters of the discussion of how old music should be performed. Many choral singers think of the lute as a really poor excuse for an organ because they can't hear the darn thing and, when they do hear it, it just makes rattly noises. We who occupy the sound world of the lute are much more attuned to subtlety and we owe it to the choral mafia to say 'shut up and listen' now and then. Actually, people did have a thing or two to say about Berlioz. Check out Slonimsky's _Lexicon of Musical Invective_ for some amusing musical criticism. RA > Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:08:36 + > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > From: johnle...@hotmail.com > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes > > The way it's described here, it sounds like a vast conspiracy to > discredit instrumental medieval music. If so, let's be thankful it was > one perpetrated by tweedy music critics for a very serious magazine > with a limited readership, which I suppose is why Sequentia, the Boston > Camerata, Ensemble PAN, Ensemble Alcatraz, the Dufay Collective, > Ensemble Unicorn and many, many others have since done wonderful, if > sometimes a little weird, work and instrumental students at early music > programs still spend at least a semester hawanging on musty old > hurdy-gurdies, vielles and gothic harps, struggling through Ars > Subtilior music while their singer friends mispronounce old French or > fail to get the rhythms of Landini ballate. To think it might all have > been brought to nought, but thank goodness we mostly rely on critics > for nice quotes to put in our press packets, grouse a little bit when > they savage us, and otherwise view most of them as grumpy eunuchs. > Regarding the ethics of music criticism, I'd be interested to see if we > could have a bit more conflict of interest and get more serious > musicians, hopefully better writers than I, to write criticism, and if > it would make the field more vibrant. Nobody faults Schumann or > Berlioz, two of the most readable critics of the nineteenth century, > for their conflicts of interest, do they? Schumann had it right about > Chopin and Brahms, huh? > > Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:35:21 -0800 > > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > > From: howardpos...@ca.rr.com > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes > > > > > > On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Ron Andrico wrote: > > > > > While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little > incensed > > > that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial > recordings > > > with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics? > > > > Would you be incensed by a reviewer who panned Herbert von Karajan's > recordings of Bach because the critic's "one point of view" was that > Bach should be played with attention to historical performance > practice? Or a reviewer who admitted that in the 1970's he had > deliberately conveyed the message to buy the period-instrument > recordings of Bach's cantatas by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt and "leave > the rest" (modern-instrument performances by Richter and Rilling and > whoever)? > > > > Or, closer to home on this list, is it wrong for a critic to opine > that lute recordings on instruments built like modern guitars are not > the ones to buy? > > > > Critics are paid to convey information and make judgments. If a > critic writing for a publication about early music has reached a > conclusion that voices-only performance is "correct," and that any > instruments make it as wrong as Karajan's Brandenburgs, it isn't > unethical for that viewpoint to inform his writing--indeed, how could > he possibly put it aside and pretend he didn't think the performances > with instruments are historically wrong (just as you might conclude, if > the instruments were saxophones)? You might find his viewpoint wrong or > overly limited, and maybe you're right. But it isn't unethical for a > critic to approach his work with his own ideas. > > > > The potential e
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
Howard, you have a point. But I still think a reviewer who is
professionally and thoroughly enmeshed in a particular clique is doing
his feather boa dance very close to the edge of a slippery slope when
he curls his lip in print at others with an alternative view. While I
have no personal axe to grind, I am perturbed that this reviewer
deliberately stuck it to groups who had the temerity to interpret old
music using instruments instead of solo voices (even though I may agree
with him). And he admits that he and other reviewers "wanted to
influence the performers, the record-buying public and through them the
record companies, and...we spared none of the instrument-based groups
whose records came our way." In the US, Fox is effectively following
the same format. I am a little uncomfortable with this sort of
propaganda used deliberately to destroy the career and reputation of
one group to advance the interests of another. Not that it matters
anymore, since record companies no longer have much interest in early
music and everyone thinks music is free...
RA
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:35:21 -0800
> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> From: howardpos...@ca.rr.com
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Ron Andrico wrote:
>
> > While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little
incensed
> > that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial
recordings
> > with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics?
>
> Would you be incensed by a reviewer who panned Herbert von Karajan's
recordings of Bach because the critic's "one point of view" was that
Bach should be played with attention to historical performance
practice? Or a reviewer who admitted that in the 1970's he had
deliberately conveyed the message to buy the period-instrument
recordings of Bach's cantatas by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt and "leave
the rest" (modern-instrument performances by Richter and Rilling and
whoever)?
>
> Or, closer to home on this list, is it wrong for a critic to opine
that lute recordings on instruments built like modern guitars are not
the ones to buy?
>
> Critics are paid to convey information and make judgments. If a
critic writing for a publication about early music has reached a
conclusion that voices-only performance is "correct," and that any
instruments make it as wrong as Karajan's Brandenburgs, it isn't
unethical for that viewpoint to inform his writing--indeed, how could
he possibly put it aside and pretend he didn't think the performances
with instruments are historically wrong (just as you might conclude, if
the instruments were saxophones)? You might find his viewpoint wrong or
overly limited, and maybe you're right. But it isn't unethical for a
critic to approach his work with his own ideas.
>
> The potential ethical problems stem from the small-world nature of
the early music community, where the prominent performers and scholars
all know each other, and cronyism, or the reverse, is always a problem.
When I was review editor for the LSA quarterly, I told some folks (all
of them on this list, I think) that there were ethical problems because
they were performers writing about other performers or publishers
writing about other publishers ("competition" in common parlance),
making for inherent conflict of interest. I don't think anyone had ever
brought it up before, and while the (soon-to-be former) reviewers
themselves seemed to understand, or at least accepted, my insistence on
avoiding systemic conflict of interest, the responses I got from the
LSA officialdom was much the same response I would have gotten if I'd
said only Martians could write reviews for the Q. And maybe they were
right: perhaps if the community is small enough, you have to put up
with conflic!
> t of interest if you want a pool of reviewers.
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
[LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute?
Thanks Dan! But if one happens to be an English cricket, his longbow might be that small, LOL! :-) - Original Message From: Daniel Winheld To: brentlynk Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu List" Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 2:29:46 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: P.S. Re: Action on Baroque Lute? My Baroque lute (Robert Lundberg, 1977) is a bare touch less than 4 mm at both 9th and 10th frets (1st string lines up exactly with the line on my ruler- to top of fret). Feels fine, would not want it lower & certainly no higher. The fistmele of an English Longbow (distance from the bottom of the string to the surface of the inside of the bow when braced) should be the distance from the edge of the hand to end of the extended thumb, approx. 6-1/4", depending of course on various factors- length of the bow, size of the archer, etc. A little more room to play around with than the lute action distance. Dan On Feb 5, 2012, at 9:45 AM, brentlynk wrote: > P.S. It's much appreciated, Roman and Eugene...Indeed, 4 mm was the "max" > that > the expert/master luthier told me was "acceptable"...My 10-course was in for > repairs recently (after 15 years of me playing it...) and the action had >risen > > to about 5.5 mm at the 9th fret. The luthier corrected it and it plays a >GREAT > > deal better now. I am glad to know the same basic rule applies to the action >on > > baroque lutes...Heck, they are lutes, not long-bows to shoot arrows with, > LOL! > :-) > > Best regards and have a wonderful Sunday evening, > BJ > > > > - Original Message > From: Roman Turovsky > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; brentlynk > Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 12:36:01 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Action on Baroque Lute? > > 3.5mm @ the 8th fret. Definitely no more than 4mm. > RT > > > - Original Message - From: "brentlynk" > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:27 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Action on Baroque Lute? > > >> Hello Everyone! >> >> Quick question to all the experts out there (if it's possible for me to ask a >> quick question, LOL -- sorry! :-) >> >> What is the "ideal action" at the neck/body joint on 13 course baroque lute >> with >> a 72 cm vibrating string length "supposed" to be? I realize that this could be >> "subjective," based upon individuals and their playing styles, etc...But is >> there a general consensus of a "range" that most people consider ideal? >> >> IF interested, here is more background as to why I am asking the question: >> >> I have played ten course renaissance lute for the past 20 years, and was >> told >> by >> a great luthier that "4 mm of clearance is acceptable at the neck/body joint >> for >> a 63 cm vibrating string length, 10 course renaissance lute." He also said >> that >> on smaller renaissance lutes, such as six course lutes, (especially with those >> with shorter string lengths...) the ideal action is even lower than that at > the >> neck/body joint -- say, "around 3 mm of clearance at the neck/body joint." I > am >> NOT a luthier and have no clue...I am only repeating what I was told by a very >> reputable luthier who knows his stuff. He gets this newsletter, so perhaps >> he'll >> answer this question along with others? :-) >> >> Anyhow, the reason I ask is that soon, I am going to be blessed with a 13 >> course >> baroque lute with a 72 cm vibrating string length, and I am wondering what the >> general consensus is on the action for such a lute? Is 4 mm to 5 mm of string >> clearance at the neck/body joint acceptable? Or is that too low? Or too high? >> >> >> I realize that we are talking about millimeters here...I don't literally >> mean >> to >> splice hairs, LOL :-). I am also wondering if the action on a 13 course > baroque >> lute of 72 cm should/could/would be even higher than 5 mm? Personally, having >> only played renaissance lute up to 10 courses thus far, I have always > preferred >> the lowest action possible without buzzing...But since the 72 cm,13 course >> baroque lute I am referring to is so much longer than what I am currently used >> to with the 10 course, 63 cm lute I play, I want to make sure I know what to >> expect... (I am happy to make the transition and adjust accordingly...no >> worries!) >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> BJ >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
[LUTE] Re: imperfectly tune
With a tuner, correct the frets string by string. Mark the (in tune) fret spacing of each string on a piece of paper. Then compare the fret spacings of all strings and make a compromise that will make the first five frets more or less in tune for all strings. David On 6 February 2012 11:43, Nicolae Szekely wrote: > In fact, what things do to a good tune of a lute ? after 4 years, I > can't tune my lute... It is a lute ? (imperfect construction?) Or the > strings ? I use New Nilgut. I thing the soundboard makes some harmonics > that "harm" the perfect sound. Maybe it is some secrets to make a verry > good lute (sounboard) ? I am a little dispered... I cant play on lute > when, for example, the first string, in a position, is correctly "g", > but in c position is NOT "a" > Sorry for my bad english. > > -- > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- *** David van Ooijen davidvanooi...@gmail.com www.davidvanooijen.nl ***
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
Oh dear, I suddenly realized, maybe in ye oulde times they were painted into
the paintings.
Perhaps fraude is a thing of the past too!
Lex
Op 6 feb 2012, om 09:40 heeft William Samson het volgende geschreven:
> Makes me wonder if all these harps, vielles, symphonies, gitterns,
> citoles, lutes, nakers and sundrie wind instruments weren't
> photoshopped into the paintings in recent times by early instrument
> manufacturers?
>
> Bill
>
> [Is this how conspiracy theories start?]
> From: John Lenti
> To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net"
> Sent: Monday, 6 February 2012, 8:08
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
> The way it's described here, it sounds like a vast conspiracy to
> discredit instrumental medieval music. If so, let's be thankful it
> was
> one perpetrated by tweedy music critics for a very serious magazine
> with a limited readership, which I suppose is why Sequentia, the
> Boston
> Camerata, Ensemble PAN, Ensemble Alcatraz, the Dufay Collective,
> Ensemble Unicorn and many, many others have since done wonderful, if
> sometimes a little weird, work and instrumental students at early
> music
> programs still spend at least a semester hawanging on musty old
> hurdy-gurdies, vielles and gothic harps, struggling through Ars
> Subtilior music while their singer friends mispronounce old French or
> fail to get the rhythms of Landini ballate. To think it might all
> have
> been brought to nought, but thank goodness we mostly rely on critics
> for nice quotes to put in our press packets, grouse a little bit when
> they savage us, and otherwise view most of them as grumpy eunuchs.
> Regarding the ethics of music criticism, I'd be interested to see if
> we
> could have a bit more conflict of interest and get more serious
> musicians, hopefully better writers than I, to write criticism, and
> if
> it would make the field more vibrant. Nobody faults Schumann or
> Berlioz, two of the most readable critics of the nineteenth century,
> for their conflicts of interest, do they? Schumann had it right about
> Chopin and Brahms, huh?
>> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:35:21 -0800
>> To: [1]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>> From: [2]howardpos...@ca.rr.com
>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
>>
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Ron Andrico wrote:
>>
>>> While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little
> incensed
>>> that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial
> recordings
>>> with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics?
>>
>> Would you be incensed by a reviewer who panned Herbert von
> Karajan's
> recordings of Bach because the critic's "one point of view" was that
> Bach should be played with attention to historical performance
> practice? Or a reviewer who admitted that in the 1970's he had
> deliberately conveyed the message to buy the period-instrument
> recordings of Bach's cantatas by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt and "leave
> the rest" (modern-instrument performances by Richter and Rilling and
> whoever)?
>>
>> Or, closer to home on this list, is it wrong for a critic to opine
> that lute recordings on instruments built like modern guitars are not
> the ones to buy?
>>
>> Critics are paid to convey information and make judgments. If a
> critic writing for a publication about early music has reached a
> conclusion that voices-only performance is "correct," and that any
> instruments make it as wrong as Karajan's Brandenburgs, it isn't
> unethical for that viewpoint to inform his writing--indeed, how could
> he possibly put it aside and pretend he didn't think the performances
> with instruments are historically wrong (just as you might conclude,
> if
> the instruments were saxophones)? You might find his viewpoint wrong
> or
> overly limited, and maybe you're right. But it isn't unethical for a
> critic to approach his work with his own ideas.
>>
>> The potential ethical problems stem from the small-world nature of
> the early music community, where the prominent performers and
> scholars
> all know each other, and cronyism, or the reverse, is always a
> problem.
> When I was review editor for the LSA quarterly, I told some folks
> (all
> of them on this list, I think) that there were ethical problems
> because
> they were performers writing about other performers or publishers
> writing about other publishers ("competition" in common parlance),
> making for inherent conflict of interest. I don't think anyone had
> ever
> brought it up before, and while the (soon-to-be former) reviewers
> themselves seemed to understand, or at least accepted, my insistence
> on
> avoiding systemic conflict of interest, the responses I got from the
> LSA officialdom was much the same response I would have gotten if I'd
> said only Martians coul
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
Makes me wonder if all these harps, vielles, symphonies, gitterns,
citoles, lutes, nakers and sundrie wind instruments weren't
photoshopped into the paintings in recent times by early instrument
manufacturers?
Bill
[Is this how conspiracy theories start?]
From: John Lenti
To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net"
Sent: Monday, 6 February 2012, 8:08
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
The way it's described here, it sounds like a vast conspiracy to
discredit instrumental medieval music. If so, let's be thankful it
was
one perpetrated by tweedy music critics for a very serious magazine
with a limited readership, which I suppose is why Sequentia, the
Boston
Camerata, Ensemble PAN, Ensemble Alcatraz, the Dufay Collective,
Ensemble Unicorn and many, many others have since done wonderful, if
sometimes a little weird, work and instrumental students at early
music
programs still spend at least a semester hawanging on musty old
hurdy-gurdies, vielles and gothic harps, struggling through Ars
Subtilior music while their singer friends mispronounce old French or
fail to get the rhythms of Landini ballate. To think it might all
have
been brought to nought, but thank goodness we mostly rely on critics
for nice quotes to put in our press packets, grouse a little bit when
they savage us, and otherwise view most of them as grumpy eunuchs.
Regarding the ethics of music criticism, I'd be interested to see if
we
could have a bit more conflict of interest and get more serious
musicians, hopefully better writers than I, to write criticism, and
if
it would make the field more vibrant. Nobody faults Schumann or
Berlioz, two of the most readable critics of the nineteenth century,
for their conflicts of interest, do they? Schumann had it right about
Chopin and Brahms, huh?
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:35:21 -0800
> To: [1]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> From: [2]howardpos...@ca.rr.com
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Ron Andrico wrote:
>
> > While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little
incensed
> > that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial
recordings
> > with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics?
>
> Would you be incensed by a reviewer who panned Herbert von
Karajan's
recordings of Bach because the critic's "one point of view" was that
Bach should be played with attention to historical performance
practice? Or a reviewer who admitted that in the 1970's he had
deliberately conveyed the message to buy the period-instrument
recordings of Bach's cantatas by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt and "leave
the rest" (modern-instrument performances by Richter and Rilling and
whoever)?
>
> Or, closer to home on this list, is it wrong for a critic to opine
that lute recordings on instruments built like modern guitars are not
the ones to buy?
>
> Critics are paid to convey information and make judgments. If a
critic writing for a publication about early music has reached a
conclusion that voices-only performance is "correct," and that any
instruments make it as wrong as Karajan's Brandenburgs, it isn't
unethical for that viewpoint to inform his writing--indeed, how could
he possibly put it aside and pretend he didn't think the performances
with instruments are historically wrong (just as you might conclude,
if
the instruments were saxophones)? You might find his viewpoint wrong
or
overly limited, and maybe you're right. But it isn't unethical for a
critic to approach his work with his own ideas.
>
> The potential ethical problems stem from the small-world nature of
the early music community, where the prominent performers and
scholars
all know each other, and cronyism, or the reverse, is always a
problem.
When I was review editor for the LSA quarterly, I told some folks
(all
of them on this list, I think) that there were ethical problems
because
they were performers writing about other performers or publishers
writing about other publishers ("competition" in common parlance),
making for inherent conflict of interest. I don't think anyone had
ever
brought it up before, and while the (soon-to-be former) reviewers
themselves seemed to understand, or at least accepted, my insistence
on
avoiding systemic conflict of interest, the responses I got from the
LSA officialdom was much the same response I would have gotten if I'd
said only Martians could write reviews for the Q. And maybe they were
right: perhaps if the community is small enough, you have to put up
with conflic!
> t of interest if you want a pool of reviewers.
> --
>
> To get
[LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
The way it's described here, it sounds like a vast conspiracy to
discredit instrumental medieval music. If so, let's be thankful it was
one perpetrated by tweedy music critics for a very serious magazine
with a limited readership, which I suppose is why Sequentia, the Boston
Camerata, Ensemble PAN, Ensemble Alcatraz, the Dufay Collective,
Ensemble Unicorn and many, many others have since done wonderful, if
sometimes a little weird, work and instrumental students at early music
programs still spend at least a semester hawanging on musty old
hurdy-gurdies, vielles and gothic harps, struggling through Ars
Subtilior music while their singer friends mispronounce old French or
fail to get the rhythms of Landini ballate. To think it might all have
been brought to nought, but thank goodness we mostly rely on critics
for nice quotes to put in our press packets, grouse a little bit when
they savage us, and otherwise view most of them as grumpy eunuchs.
Regarding the ethics of music criticism, I'd be interested to see if we
could have a bit more conflict of interest and get more serious
musicians, hopefully better writers than I, to write criticism, and if
it would make the field more vibrant. Nobody faults Schumann or
Berlioz, two of the most readable critics of the nineteenth century,
for their conflicts of interest, do they? Schumann had it right about
Chopin and Brahms, huh?
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:35:21 -0800
> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> From: howardpos...@ca.rr.com
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Ron Andrico wrote:
>
> > While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little
incensed
> > that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial
recordings
> > with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics?
>
> Would you be incensed by a reviewer who panned Herbert von Karajan's
recordings of Bach because the critic's "one point of view" was that
Bach should be played with attention to historical performance
practice? Or a reviewer who admitted that in the 1970's he had
deliberately conveyed the message to buy the period-instrument
recordings of Bach's cantatas by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt and "leave
the rest" (modern-instrument performances by Richter and Rilling and
whoever)?
>
> Or, closer to home on this list, is it wrong for a critic to opine
that lute recordings on instruments built like modern guitars are not
the ones to buy?
>
> Critics are paid to convey information and make judgments. If a
critic writing for a publication about early music has reached a
conclusion that voices-only performance is "correct," and that any
instruments make it as wrong as Karajan's Brandenburgs, it isn't
unethical for that viewpoint to inform his writing--indeed, how could
he possibly put it aside and pretend he didn't think the performances
with instruments are historically wrong (just as you might conclude, if
the instruments were saxophones)? You might find his viewpoint wrong or
overly limited, and maybe you're right. But it isn't unethical for a
critic to approach his work with his own ideas.
>
> The potential ethical problems stem from the small-world nature of
the early music community, where the prominent performers and scholars
all know each other, and cronyism, or the reverse, is always a problem.
When I was review editor for the LSA quarterly, I told some folks (all
of them on this list, I think) that there were ethical problems because
they were performers writing about other performers or publishers
writing about other publishers ("competition" in common parlance),
making for inherent conflict of interest. I don't think anyone had ever
brought it up before, and while the (soon-to-be former) reviewers
themselves seemed to understand, or at least accepted, my insistence on
avoiding systemic conflict of interest, the responses I got from the
LSA officialdom was much the same response I would have gotten if I'd
said only Martians could write reviews for the Q. And maybe they were
right: perhaps if the community is small enough, you have to put up
with conflic!
> t of interest if you want a pool of reviewers.
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
