Ron Andrico
Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:51:30 -0700
Dear Martin: Thank you very much for your very appropriate comments concerning lute songs, and for sharing those of David Hill. We agree wholeheartedly that lute songs, which are all about the balanced interplay of text, musical line and plucked strings, communicate much more effectively at a gentler pitch. The idea that A 440, or even 415, as a pitch standard is historically justifiable is not necessarily the question: The important point is that voices were placed where they communicated best, and lutes of different sizes were tuned to accomodate that end. We take great pains to pitch lute songs where they communicate best, mostly using lower pitched lutes but transposing when it works on continuo songs or where otherwise appropriate. We also prefer a more intimate delivery, performing in smaller venues when possible. New examples have been added this week to our youtube page, including an arrangement of Marenzio's 'Dissi a l'amata mia lucida stella' and a rendition of 'Like as the lute' performed by our new manager, Earl. www.youtube.com/lutesongs We always try to let the text and the range of the voice determine where we pitch a song, and guide us in historical performance considerations. We have come to believe that Dowland's lutesong accompaniments were probably performed to a lower pitched lute, the litmus test being the high notes in the vocal part. If one hears the singer's personality and presence rather than the text, the pitch is probably too high. Thank you again, and we look forward to seeing more of this discussion if our rural internet connection allows. Best wishes, Ron & Donna www.mignarda.com > Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 20:46:02 +0100> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL > PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [LUTE] lute > songs> > Dear All,> > I just realized that "forwarding" something to the list > runs foul of the > "attachments forbidden" rule, so here is the whole thing - > apologies for > any duplication:> > I'm forwarding this reply to my note from > David Hill, sometime > countertenor and fellow alumnus of the Deller Academy > and Bob Spencer > (see below for David's comments, which you should read > first if you want > to make sense of any of this).> > I was unaware of the > Wigthorp concordance, and also forgot to mention > some wrong notes which > really jarred with one who has been familiar with > Dowland's original since > the year dot....> > As for consort songs being for "treble" voices, I'm > afraid this once > again raises the ugly head of the pitch monster. I have > some reasons to > believe that Dowland would have expected to hear his songs! about a tone > or perhaps even a minor third below modern pitch - if so, then "treble" > often tails off into "alto" without too much difficulty. I'm not saying > there was a "standard" pitch in Dowland's time, but at the same time we > should resist the temptation to project our assumptions about pitch onto > their music.> > The problem with the modern countertenor singing lute songs is partly to > do with pitch and partly to do with voice production/timbre. As far as > pitch is concerned, many songs are sufficiently low that a modern > countertenor can manage them (at the top of their range) without > transposition - but then we have problems which relate to any voice > being at the top of its range, in a music which values speech-like > intelligibility. The voice production/timbre issue is perhaps less > serious, but the "head voice" of the modern c/t is not always conducive > to the kind of speech-like expression which seems to be required for the > effective delivery ! of the poems.> > Just a thought about pitch - we tend to think! in terms of a'=440, and > therefore in terms of most lute songs being "for" tenor or soprano - but > if we allow a substantially lower pitch, these songs could be sung by > almost anybody, whether they were (by modern classification) a > "baritone" or a "tenor", a "mezzo" or a "soprano". Surely that fits > very well with Dowland's publication strategy and also with the > realities of music making in his time, where no-one got out a tuning > fork at the beginning of a rehearsal.....> > Best to All,> > Martin> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Subject:> Re: Down, down, down I fall> From:> "David Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Date:> Sat, 7 Jun 2008 19:19:40 +0100> > To:> "Martin Shepherd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > Dear Martin (please pass parts of this on to all and sundry if you wish!),> I don't have the new Scholl disc, but I do know that> 'Sorrow Come' is a 'sacred' contrafactum of 'Sorrow, Stay' by one > William Wigthorp, t! itled 'Dowlands Sorrow 5'. It's in the British > Library Add. Mss17,786-17791. It's also in Musica Britannica vol. 32.> The underlay (in the music) on 'wretched' is exactly as sung by the > wretched Herr Scholl, I'm afraid, but I agree that he really should know > how to pronounce 'fall' and other words properly.> Scholl's recording of A Musical Banquet, with the 'extraordinary' Edin > Karamazov features some truly cringeworthy wrong notes, leading me to > ask the same question - why did no-one at the sessions correct him? I > love Scholl in later music such as Handel, but this sort of thing is > just wrong. We all know that consort songs are for treble voices.> > This song appears (in this Wigthorp consort song version) on the Consort > of Musick's Complete Dowland box on CD 7, track 1, sung (in English) by > the divine Miss Kirkby.> > All of the copious and VERY useful information that came with the > original LP issues of these recordings, however, was omitted from the >! 1997 CD re-issue.> By the way - it would be most enterprising for the ! Lute Soc to scan in > all of this insert and cover text from the COM Dowland LP covers, to > make available to members, since almost everyone in the lute world will > have this CD box on their shelves for reference (whether they like it or > not, of course), but not all will still have the LPs! Chris should have > all these LPs as part of the Lute soc library collection, because I gave > the whole set of mine to Bob Spencer in 1992 for his reference, and I > believe that Jilly later passed them on to the Soc.> > As you know, I've seriously turned against my own former species, and I > now find it very difficult to tolerate countertenors singing lute songs > at all. There are too many things wrong with it, not least of which is > the necessary transpositions, which really make most lutenists have to > work hard, and as you say, it's difficult enough to do it anyway, > without hurdles. I really don't think that Countertenors/falsettists > EVER sang such songs before the early! 50s, or even that they existed AT > ALL outside of chapels. Even alto parts to madrigals are no fun for > falsettists - the range is all wrong, necessitating 'gear-shifts' into > chest register, then back again, sometimes in mid-word! Once you strip > away at what C/Ts may have sung at this time, you really have to query > their very existence outside of the choir stalls - at least at this period.> > As you say, with the 'modern' countertenor, so much is sacrificed on the > altar of making a lovely noise that the poor old music itself often goes > out of the window. And I was as guilty of that as anyone else. I now > recant my former sins of having sung lute songs (even though I'm well > aware that sometimes it sounded lovely - I'm not that daft), and that I > forced lutenists to perform against the grain of performance practice by > sticking everything down a fourth, and will from henceforth try to do > all in my power to help stamp out this (often) ugly piece of > 'mis-i! nformation' that still continues to disfigure our general > perception ! of how lute songs were performed.> > A published article is needed, somewhere influential, a proclamation, > drawing together any evidence (or lack of it) for C/Ts doing Jacobean > lute song before 1950. I can't write it - I'm way out of my depth, but > I'm certain that I'm right, and I'm more than happy to discuss it with > anyone willing to commit to this manifesto!> > NB. Falsetto C/Ts DID exist by Purcell's time, of course - I'm not > saying they didn't, and besides we have ample evidence in the range of > the voice parts, e.g. the 'split' (for breath) in the two melismatic > phrases of the word 'sing' in 'Mark How the lark and linnet sing' by > Blow - exactly where the break between head and chest voices occurs. But > there, as in the case of early 17th century music, the evidence lies in > the vocal ranges. We just all need to look, critically.> > At any rate, it's probably not as bad as 'By the Streams of Afton Water'.> > Good to hear from you!> > > > > To get on or ! off this list see list information at> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html _________________________________________________________________ Instantly invite friends from Facebook and other social networks to join you on Windows Live' Messenger. https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_InviteFriends --