Ray Nurse gave an invited lecture on Dowland at the LSA in Vancouver last summer. One of his comments that I found particularly striking was that he found it unfortunate that the modern early music scene evolved largely from classical music. He argued, based on his considerable scholarly knowledge, that the conventional classical approach with it's heavy focus on ur-texts and the intent of the composer, was not well suited to the music of the Renaissance. They simply didn't think of composition as we do today, where the composer effectively dictates in considerable detail just how they expect the piece to be played, and the musician has only limited latitude for expression.
Many Ren lute pieces are not even written out by the composer. They are preserved in manuscripts written out by a variety of individuals (e.g., a significant chunk of what we have of English Ren lute music was written down by Matthew Holmes, not the actual composers). There are commonly multiple variants of the same piece in different manuscripts that often differ substantially in length, frequency and complexity of divisions, and so on. Each basically represents one individuals take on a piece, and likely reflect variations in how the performer played the piece at different times, or perhaps just the skill of the individual who wrote the manuscript version. Further, we know that improvisation was normal; composers of that period simply didn't expect musicians to stick to the literal notes on the page and nothing else. They expected musicians to improvise to a greater or lesser extent. Even for something as explicitly written out as the later Dowland Fantasias, you still must improvise the graces, and perhaps even the odd division. Listen to PODs Dowland CD set, for example, with the music in front of you. At the other extreme, consider manuscripts like the Rowallen or Straloch. They have a number of pieces that are only a few measures in length (i.e., a few seconds of playing time). As a literal prescription for a performance, they simply don't make any sense. OTOH, as a starting point for something like an improvised set of divisions, many of them work quite nicely. You can find some examples in Ronn McFarlane's solo albums, and in some of the Baltimore Consort albums. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin McDermott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Andrew Hartig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "cittern" <cittern@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:02 AM Subject: [CITTERN] Re: Memorization... > Dear Andrew (and Kevin) > Good point(s). To me, at least, a performer (who is, as I said > previously, a re-creative artist, not a creative one, if he/she is > playing someone else's composition) is presented with a fait accompli: > the score_as it stands_. > > But, if the piece as written always represented the last word, there > would be no such things as pentimenti, revised compositions, or > revoked/recalled opus numbers: and, of course, there are. So even > composers don't necessarily consider the published version the only > possible version--and we know from the reports or recordings of > composers playing their own compositions that they changed them "on > the fly" as well. This is their right, of course: but not ours (as you > so rightly point out in Dowland). It would be a brave soul who would > ornament a Bach aria (where, very exceptionally for the period, it > seems everything is written out just as Bach wanted to hear it) and a > very pusillanimous one who would NOT ornament a Handel slow movement > (where, from everything we can know, neither Handel nor anyone else in > period would think much of the performance without it). There's so > much that goes into making the decision about what's right for a given > piece: conventions of the era, who the piece was written for, what > circumstances, et c., et c. > > Faced with that fait accompli, (again, it seems to me) a performer > must make it his or her own; let's take it as a given that, at least > at the moment it was presented to the publisher or written down for > the last time in autograph, it represented a finished task to the > composer. But that moment, and (usually) that composer are long gone: > the audience is sitting there, and so are you. It's your task as a > performer to reanimate that long-gone moment....and make it yours, as > a living, breathing experience. The latter is all the ears of the > audience can appreciate or that can move their souls. As Edith > Borroff, a very wise musicologist I once had the privilege of studying > under back in the nascent days of the early music boom, used to say: > there is NO excuse for boring an audience. Yes, this stuff is > intellectually interesting....to you; but it has to be more than that > to be performed music. > > The thing which makes this possible is that it is clearly true that > pieces of music can be performed very effectively in ways very > different from whatever expression marks the composer might have left > on the score, and without doing violence to the conventions of the > period, either: Russell Sherman, a remarkable Boston pianist, has > made a long career of his extremely idiosyncratic and extremely moving > performances of the standard solo piano repertoire (they work because > they're not idiosycratic to BE idiosyncratic; they express what > Russell Sherman feels, and feels deeply). > > In OUR world of very few marks of expression, if any....we are thrown > on our own resources even more. While I can't play the Dowland > fantasies, it's clear they are music of extreme depth, and I believe > capable of being played successfully many, many different ways. > > Perhaps things are different for me as a singer, because....my body IS > my instrument: if I feel sad, or tired, or happy, or sick on a certain > day, there's almost no way that won't show up in my performance--the > physiology makes that a given, above and beyond any exercise of will I > might expend to counteract the fact. But, honestly, I don't try to > fight it....but rather go with it. This may make me a hard singer to > accompany, because the only way to judge what will come next is to > build on what's gone before--and I've been blessed with a long-time > pianist who can read me like a book. The important thing to me, and to > my audiences, is that the noises I'm making with my mouth convey my > soul, if you will, authentically and immanently. The vehicle for that > soul is....the composer's attempt at writing down what HE or SHE was > having as an authentic experience when THAT was immanent. It's the > picture vs. the portrait sitter thing again..... > > Or so a true, yet unprofficient schollar of the Citheren thinks. > Kevin > > > On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Andrew Hartig wrote: > > > > > > > At 02:42 AM 4/8/2008, Kevin Lawton wrote: > >> [...]However, if the musical notation > >> has been written well then I feel that a purely > >> 'mechanical' rendering of all the information which > >> has been written is still a valid performance. > >> This, I think, is quite different from improvisation > >> (or 'extemporisation') where the performer actually > >> departs from exactly what has been written in an > >> attempt to interpret some of the original musical > >> ideas. > >> I guess in some ways it could be likened to the > >> performance of a play or reciting of some poetry. [...] I > >> think it is pretty unusual for orators or actors to > >> improvise their own replacements for some of the > >> written words (ad libbing) unless particularly called > >> for in the script. > > > > > > Kevin, Kevin, et al, > > > > This really begs the question of intent. Is the music analagous to a > > poem or piece of composed prose that is to be considered "finished" > > from the author's perspective and intended to be delivered "as is"? > > Or is it more akin to a topic of discussion? While I would hesitate > > to improvise upon a Dowland fantasia (I would consider his work > > "composed," "intended," and "finished" or "complete"), I would be > > rather wary of "sticking to the script" in repeating a telephone > > conversation to someone else. > > > > I think that at least for the Renaissance cittern repertoire (which > > is the one I am mainly concerned with at this point), very few of the > > compositions might be considered "finished" (there are probably fewer > > than a dozen fantasias in the entire literature); rather, many more > > of them I would view as "an" interpretation on a given topic/theme. > > > > When improvisation is an expectation for the performance of a given > > music (as it is with most jazz), it is difficult to talk about a > > "definitive" version of a piece. One must consider both original > > intent (was this music intended to be performed "as is" or was it the > > framework for further musical interpretation) as well as our own (do > > I want to play jazz with my own ideas and inspiration, or am I trying > > to master one of Coltrane's solos?). > > > > -A: > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >
