This is an interesting subject. I have to own up and say it was me who asked Martin why there were no twiddles in his performance. I didn't mention it on the list in case it came across as criticism, which of course it isn't. I thank Martin for bringing the subject to the list.
Please excuse me personalising this for one moment. There was an internet discussion many years ago (I can't recall if it was here or elsewhere) about ornamentation in early music, and one guy said 'you should here Rob MacKillop - he ornaments on every other note' - this came as a surprise because I didn't think I was adding ornaments at all. So I listened to the cd Flowers of the Forest, and yes, I was surprised by the amount of ornamentation - although not quite on every other note! The thing is, I never consciously added ornaments, and now see those twiddles as an outcome of phrasing. I added those notes because it helped make the phrase sing. Now, that was with Scottish lute music which is closely related to a living tradition of singing in Scotland, and I've often said that the biggest influence on my playing was the phrasing and, I guess, ornamentation of traditional singers. Of course, the singers would argue that they do not add ornaments, and would be just as surprised as I was to hear that they have been. It's all about phrasing. So, what might that have to do with more 'posh' music - Milano to Dowland? Well, I don't think they are so unrelated. I can't quote chapter and verse, but it is my understanding that the same pieces can be found in different manuscripts with ornament signs in different places. Therefore...it is not an exact science about where these things go or how often they can be used. Different strokes for different folks, so to speak. One of the reasons I have probably avoided the English 6c and 7c repertoire is that I feel uncomfortable playing it in what seems to be the accepted style, which has very few if any ornaments. When I play with the freedom I have with Scottish music, the English repertoire sounds strange! I put it down to my inability to 'play the music properly', but maybe players generally should be adding more twiddles - it changes the phrasing, though, and to many that might be unacceptable. To more practical matters: Ron, how do you know that clarity of line in polyphony was of prime importance to singers? With one voice to a part, each singer might have extensively decorated their own part. The clarity of the written score (especially in modern editions with all the parts standing to attention alongside each other) might not have been general practice. This also goes for imitative graces at points of imitation. It looks neat and tidy, but did singers really care about that? And was there always a Choral Director, one person dictating how all the others should sing? I'm not making any bold statements here. The bottom line is I don't know how much ornamentation was added or how it was sung/played. But I do think singable phrasing is of prime importance, and this very often implies adding twiddles where they feel natural for the phrase. Just a feeling. Rob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
