At 08:00 PM 2/2/03 -0800, you wrote:
So I guess I'm agreeing with you here Cynthia, in that it's fine to
agree to disagree on something that we're all basically just guessing
about...just as long as it doesn't stop people from trying to create
their own unique take on the music.
Yes, I think we
The problem is folks who decide that because we can't agree on the
precise performance practices of the old music that we should *all*
ignore it as if it didn't happen and doesn't matter. (Instead of agree
to disagree, I'd far prefer live and let live).
Heh.. Of course it matters. I've
At 08:07 PM 1/31/03 +, you wrote:
'haven't really got a clue' 300 years old.
It's probably natural for us to think we can't know anything about ancient
music because there were no recordings. However, there are plenty of clues!
There are manuscripts, descriptions of players and music,
Sensible words from Cheyenne. I would only add by way of reinforcement that
historical authenticity is never a sound way to judge traditional music - you
could easily say that the violin is a new import from Italy which only came
into Scotland in the late 1600s, and traditional musicians should
It seems to me that practically all these groups who are doing
interesting things with Scottish music could be called fusions. They
are all bringing in influences and ideas from different places and
adding them to the tradition. Same as people did long ago. The
tradition is built up
As either Nigel or Derek alluded to a while back, the Hawaiian guitar
never quite made the grade. Mr Darwin sorts out *some* innovations.
The particular kind of fusion I was grumbling misanthropically about a
week or two back was Gaelic lounge-lizard jazz; I had a specific
performer in
