[LUTE] Re: another day at the office take two
Hi, all. No specific counterexamples here, but in general having something banned by the Church is not (IMHO) a reliable indicator that it was not done. I'll quote as best I can from a 16th century French writer (sorry, can't remember the name, I'm sure someone here knows) reporting what he saw when present at the reading of a papal bull in Rome: "...(and it was announced) that anyone wrongly appropriating Church funds would fall under threat of excommunication, at which the Cardinals Sforza and deMedici laughed heartily." And to quote my old Ren. dance teacher: "A good way to find out what was popular is to see what the church banned." Best to all, Chris. >>> "Mathias Roesel" 12/21/2009 2:12 PM >>> What can this debate be about? In Italy during the 17th century, the guitar was never played at sacred occasions because the Church had banned the guitar from service (one counterexample will do to prove wrong)? In Italy during the 17th century, composers would strictly exclude the guitar from their sacred compositions (one counterexample will do to prove wrong)? In Italy during the 17th century, the guitar would more often than not evoke secular sweets and was therefore rather rarely to be found performing, or as accompaniment of, sacred music (no counterexample possible, matter of more or less)? Mathias "howard posner" schrieb: > > On Dec 21, 2009, at 6:48 AM, Monica Hall wrote: > > > But surely the prohibition applied only to playing musical > > instruments in worship on the Sabbath not other days of the week. > > As a practical matter, it did, probably because of the lost-Temple > business. > > > I seem to remember when doing some study of Judaism that people > > mustn't play them > > or listen > > > during their official period of mourning either unless they need to > > to earn their living. > > > This may seem irrelvant to the Monteverdi Vespers but I think the > > point is that all religions have quite precise rules concerning the > > way prayers and ritual is conducted which in the case of the > > Catholic Church in Italy in 1610 probably excluded using the > > baroque guitar during the liturgy and offices.Anything doesn't go. > > Tosh and nonsense, my dear (or perhaps nonsense and tosh; I always > forget which comes first). How is it possible that the Catholic > Church could have had a precise rule excluding the guitar at Vespers, > and such an eminent scholar as yourself not be aware of it and be > reduced to speculation? > > The point is that every instrument, including the organ, was at some > point considered improper for services, but rather a lot of them > sneaked into church somehow. We can't say categorically that any > instrument wouldn't have been used in Mantua in 1610, or Venice in > 1640. Nor can we exclude "secular" sounds in the Dominus ad > adjuvandum, which uses a secular fanfare over the super-falsobordone > intonation of the text, and breaks it up with interludes that are > obviously galliards. To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute
[LUTE] Re: another day at the office take two
What can this debate be about? In Italy during the 17th century, the guitar was never played at sacred occasions because the Church had banned the guitar from service (one counterexample will do to prove wrong)? In Italy during the 17th century, composers would strictly exclude the guitar from their sacred compositions (one counterexample will do to prove wrong)? In Italy during the 17th century, the guitar would more often than not evoke secular sweets and was therefore rather rarely to be found performing, or as accompaniment of, sacred music (no counterexample possible, matter of more or less)? Mathias "howard posner" schrieb: > > On Dec 21, 2009, at 6:48 AM, Monica Hall wrote: > > > But surely the prohibition applied only to playing musical > > instruments in worship on the Sabbath not other days of the week. > > As a practical matter, it did, probably because of the lost-Temple > business. > > > I seem to remember when doing some study of Judaism that people > > mustn't play them > > or listen > > > during their official period of mourning either unless they need to > > to earn their living. > > > This may seem irrelvant to the Monteverdi Vespers but I think the > > point is that all religions have quite precise rules concerning the > > way prayers and ritual is conducted which in the case of the > > Catholic Church in Italy in 1610 probably excluded using the > > baroque guitar during the liturgy and offices.Anything doesn't go. > > Tosh and nonsense, my dear (or perhaps nonsense and tosh; I always > forget which comes first). How is it possible that the Catholic > Church could have had a precise rule excluding the guitar at Vespers, > and such an eminent scholar as yourself not be aware of it and be > reduced to speculation? > > The point is that every instrument, including the organ, was at some > point considered improper for services, but rather a lot of them > sneaked into church somehow. We can't say categorically that any > instrument wouldn't have been used in Mantua in 1610, or Venice in > 1640. Nor can we exclude "secular" sounds in the Dominus ad > adjuvandum, which uses a secular fanfare over the super-falsobordone > intonation of the text, and breaks it up with interludes that are > obviously galliards. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: another day at the office take two
On Dec 21, 2009, at 6:48 AM, Monica Hall wrote: > But surely the prohibition applied only to playing musical > instruments in worship on the Sabbath not other days of the week. As a practical matter, it did, probably because of the lost-Temple business. > I seem to remember when doing some study of Judaism that people > mustn't play them or listen > during their official period of mourning either unless they need to > to earn their living. > This may seem irrelvant to the Monteverdi Vespers but I think the > point is that all religions have quite precise rules concerning the > way prayers and ritual is conducted which in the case of the > Catholic Church in Italy in 1610 probably excluded using the > baroque guitar during the liturgy and offices.Anything doesn't go. Tosh and nonsense, my dear (or perhaps nonsense and tosh; I always forget which comes first). How is it possible that the Catholic Church could have had a precise rule excluding the guitar at Vespers, and such an eminent scholar as yourself not be aware of it and be reduced to speculation? The point is that every instrument, including the organ, was at some point considered improper for services, but rather a lot of them sneaked into church somehow. We can't say categorically that any instrument wouldn't have been used in Mantua in 1610, or Venice in 1640. Nor can we exclude "secular" sounds in the Dominus ad adjuvandum, which uses a secular fanfare over the super-falsobordone intonation of the text, and breaks it up with interludes that are obviously galliards. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: another day at the office take two
Interesting - especially to one who is not Jewish. But surely the prohibition applied only to playing musical instruments in worship on the Sabbath not other days of the week. I seem to remember when doing some study of Judaism that people mustn't play them during their official period of mourning either unless they need to to earn their living. As for carrying them - well in my neck of the woods orthodox Jews apparently consider it unacceptable to carry an umbrella on the Sabbath or push an infant in a pram. For that reason we were going to have an Eruv although I don't know if it ever got passed the planning laws. Haven't noticed it if it did. This may seem irrelvant to the Monteverdi Vespers but I think the point is that all religions have quite precise rules concerning the way prayers and ritual is conducted which in the case of the Catholic Church in Italy in 1610 probably excluded using the baroque guitar during the liturgy and offices.Anything doesn't go. Monica - Original Message - From: ""Mathias Rösel"" To: "Lutelist list" Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 10:00 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: another day at the office take two Well, there's Jewish tradition in between. Rich musical temple services are described in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Arakhin. Levites playing all kinds of kinnorim (lyres), nevalim (harps), khatzotzerot (trumpets), khalilim (flutes), tuppim (drum) and many others. The reason why these instruments aren't allowed in orthodox congregations today is that that kind of service belonged to the temple which was destroyed in 70 CE and had no double. I haven't heard about the carrying an instrument violates the Sabbath argument, but it may be so. Quite a bit of Jewish musical tradition was preserved in the early Christian congregation of Rome, which had sprung out of the Jewish congregation. A core group of the new Christian group was formed by Levites. Mathias "howard posner" schrieb: Sorry, left out a sentence, rendering the message rather obscure. On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:32 AM, howard posner wrote: > Christian practice derives in large part from post-Temple Jewish > practice, in which, traditionally, instruments are forbidden in > services. Alexander points out that there are Biblical references to > instruments in the Temple, and indeed, Psalm 150, with its references > to instruments (including nevel and kinnor, both of which are > sometimes translated as "lyre" or "lute"), is a common part of modern > Sabbath morning services. Left out: But in traditional congregations, the psalm, like everything else, is sung without instruments. > The reasons given for it vary: some say > it's because we're still in mourning over the destruction of the > Temple, others that playing (or tuning, or carrying) instruments > violates the Sabbath. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: another day at the office take two
Well, there's Jewish tradition in between. Rich musical temple services are described in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Arakhin. Levites playing all kinds of kinnorim (lyres), nevalim (harps), khatzotzerot (trumpets), khalilim (flutes), tuppim (drum) and many others. The reason why these instruments aren't allowed in orthodox congregations today is that that kind of service belonged to the temple which was destroyed in 70 CE and had no double. I haven't heard about the carrying an instrument violates the Sabbath argument, but it may be so. Quite a bit of Jewish musical tradition was preserved in the early Christian congregation of Rome, which had sprung out of the Jewish congregation. A core group of the new Christian group was formed by Levites. Mathias "howard posner" schrieb: > Sorry, left out a sentence, rendering the message rather obscure. > > On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:32 AM, howard posner wrote: > > > Christian practice derives in large part from post-Temple Jewish > > practice, in which, traditionally, instruments are forbidden in > > services. Alexander points out that there are Biblical references to > > instruments in the Temple, and indeed, Psalm 150, with its references > > to instruments (including nevel and kinnor, both of which are > > sometimes translated as "lyre" or "lute"), is a common part of modern > > Sabbath morning services. > > Left out: But in traditional congregations, the psalm, like > everything else, is sung without instruments. > > > The reasons given for it vary: some say > > it's because we're still in mourning over the destruction of the > > Temple, others that playing (or tuning, or carrying) instruments > > violates the Sabbath. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: another day at the office take two
Sorry, left out a sentence, rendering the message rather obscure. On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:32 AM, howard posner wrote: > Christian practice derives in large part from post-Temple Jewish > practice, in which, traditionally, instruments are forbidden in > services. Alexander points out that there are Biblical references to > instruments in the Temple, and indeed, Psalm 150, with its references > to instruments (including nevel and kinnor, both of which are > sometimes translated as "lyre" or "lute"), is a common part of modern > Sabbath morning services. Left out: But in traditional congregations, the psalm, like everything else, is sung without instruments. > The reasons given for it vary: some say > it's because we're still in mourning over the destruction of the > Temple, others that playing (or tuning, or carrying) instruments > violates the Sabbath. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
