On the flip side, I occasionally play in a Ren dance band (cittern or serpent, depending on the piece). Sometimes we don't even get all the music until the afternoon before the event and we get one quick playthrough before we perform. I'd be toast without music in front of me plus good sight-reading skills. The continuo band that I play in is another case in point. To play that sort of music from memory, I'd have to memorize the bass line, the figures, the singer(s) music and all the lyrics. Not practical.
Memorization is fine in some circumstances, but there are plenty of scenarios where playing from the page is your only practical option, and the ability to sight read well is essential. Guy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin McDermott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "cittern list" <cittern@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 8:27 AM Subject: [CITTERN] Memorization... > Professionally, I'm a solo singer (i.e., me and a piano); because > direct contact with the audience by sight and body language is so > important in what I do, I always work by memory. The way I memorize? > Just keep doing the song over and over in rehearsal: by the end, it's > memorized. In strophic song, right at the end, I'll frequently just > speak the verses (usually in my mind) to make sure I've got them all > in the right order, and PARTICULARLY to make sure that at the end of > one verse (i.e., the end of the music) I know very well > indeed....which verse comes next! But, in this regard, words are what > make my profession different from that of an instrumentalist: they > provide a second skeleton of meaning on which to hang the thing being > memorized. > > I couldn't agree more with Andrew's suggestion of visualization: years > ago, I played in a turn of the 20th century plucked string ensemble > (BMG) club, The Boston "Excelsior" Mandolin Orchestra. I started as > the vocalist, but they needed a second banjoist. I'm decidedly left- > handed when it comes to string instruments: the first I tried, in high > school, was a tenor banjo: for that I just played it "backwards." But > that was not going to work with a 5-string. While my fellow band > member looked for a nice, affordable original instrument for me, I > went to bed every night--just like Andrew--imagining playing > "backwards" (i.e., the right way for the rest of the world: backwards > for me!). By the time Clarke had found the instrument, I picked it up > and started playing with never a backwards glance. But, if I'm not > thinking, I'll still pick up the cittern the wrong way round! > > This visualization method has also served me well in two other, non- > musical, fields: learning to shoot a shotgun and learning golf, both > from dead zero. Both involve full-body movement incorporating a host > of individual details which need to be so ingrained that they > eventually become one, dance-like, gesture: in this I think there's a > parallel to the playing of a piece of music on an instrument. Yes, at > the beginning, you have to think about all those little bits: and > therefore it's really_impossible_to have them coalesce. But, once the > bits are understood independently, one can join them together in the > mind to imagine doing the whole thing seamlessly. For me (at least > with shooting) it's made me into a quite good shot with a noticeably > graceful swing. Golf: well, we'll see! > > But the most important thing to remember, I think, is that music is > not AT ALL the little dots on the page (or the letters, for that > matter); those are at best a crude representation of what music is: > the conveyance of emotion mediated by the ears and the brain to which > they're attached. The Quiddity of music is the shape it produces on > the brain and soul: and the more one is attuned to this invisible but > powerful force, the better one can mold it to produce the desired > effect. This is why, as Andrew says, he plays so much better off the > page: he's actually_playing music,_not "the music." And that's why I > agree so much with what he says about hearing the piece he's learning > in his head when he's not actually playing it: he's imprinting the > shape, the internal logic, of the piece on his mind and heart--and > undoubtedly finding different ways to squeeze here and expand there to > put the stamp of his own consciousness on it. > > There's another point: all of us playing early music are not creative > artists, really: we're re-creative artists. All the creative ones are > dead: they wrote their music and we won't be seeing them again. In the > early days of the early music movement--which I remember all too well-- > the mantra was, well, that that's all there was--this was to be > consciously non-emotional, consciously uninflected music. Well, those > days are gone, thank goodness, and we now have several generations of > players who have delved deeply enough in the cultures that produced > those composers and their music to understand them as close to the way > a contemporary would have as is perhaps possible. This allows them to > bring their own personality--mediated by that understanding--to the > piece at hand. No, we'll never know how close we get to what really > would have been heard in 1435, or 1540, or 1690, or 1750 (although > IMHO we've now gotten quite close in most cases)--but, whether that's > true or not, nowadays most players of early music are, in fact, making > music: not making "early music." > > And that's a very good thing..... > > And that's also just one man's opinion. Thanks for listening. > > Kevin > An unprofficient, yet true Loover of the Citharen > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
