I think you may be barking up the wrong tree. All music has a social function and the function varies from class to class and period to period. Although ballet grew out of Basque folk dance, the two serve quite different purposes. So it is with music. So-called 'classical' music (which should really be called art music) grew from folk traditions but was developed for a quite different audience: the dance movements are more complex, more elegant and more emotionally expressive. This is not to say that folk song is less expressive, but just that the style is different. So one cannot compare a performer of 'classical' music with folk, for that would be to compare a high-class Indian meal, for instance, with a French one - or any other. Our pleasure is conditioned by our custom and our appetite! Menuhin, Grappelli and the fiddler were aiming at quite different things. The music we play best is that we were brought up with and it is almost impossible to learn to play such different styles to perfection later in life. Folk music and dance can be amazingly subtle, with very few achieving the highest standards. The performers were drawn from different classes and degrees of ability and the standards were those of the region. But the styles of playing and dancing are never constant. In broad terms dance music serves a practical purpose; art music an emotional and intellectual one. But I am sure that some folk music was for listening to also, and the best stands comparison with any other music, though in certain quarters it is incorrect to say so. (Well, I happen not to like rock or pop, but I cannot deny that others take much pleasure from it.) It has taken at least 40 years of hard work and study to achieve the standards of baroque playing now common and I am sure the technical standards are higher than in the 18th century. But our understanding of the music is also higher and much more widespread than in the past. As for violin vibrato, it only came into full flower about 1910 with Kreisler. But our aim in all melodies is to draw a long line of music, and while some vibrato may enhance the line if used judiciously, it can also ruin the music when its function is not understood. And the difference in function and style between 18th and 19th century music is enormous.
We live in a society where classes like to distinguish themselves from others, and so snobbishness arises, and seemingly will not go away. It travels in both directions and is a curse on the arts and an integrated society. We require a broader outlook and more understanding of music and the arts as a whole. Michael Muskett -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colin Sent: 08 February 2008 15:46 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HG] on making simple hurdy gurdies This reminds me of something I once saw on the TV when Yehudi Menhuin met an aged traditional Shetland fiddler. The aged fiddler listened to Yehudi play the tune (as dictated by the dots) and then showed him how to play it. YM also said of his work with Stephan Grappelli that he envied his (GS's) feel for the violin and that, although he (YM) \could play the dots, he was unable to reach the depth of "feeling" that he (SG) put into his music. SG said much the same about the "perfection" of the performance by YM. I think that's the same thing that you are saying (I hope). Two masters of the violin but with totally different outlooks on their music and what a violin should sound like and be played. Both right of course. Colin Hill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arle Lommel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [HG] on making simple hurdy gurdies > Susan, what you say is certainly true to some extent, but it raises a > fundamental question: what does "perfect" mean? Knowing whether something > is "perfect" means knowing whether it's what was aimed for and whether > that aim was met. If we go in an apply a standard that was never intended > (a modern standard, or a standard from another tradition), we'll hear > something as imperfect in ways that are unfair and inappropriate to that > tradition. > > Think of it another way: find a truly great singer in a "folk" tradition > (Woody Guthrie for American, Marta Sebestyén for Hungarian, Kongar-ol > Ondar for Tuvan music, etc.) and ask that person to sing a Puccini aria. > What are you going to get? I'm willing to bet it won't sound right at > all. Now ask Placido Domingo to sing the songs that these singers are > known for. It won't sound right either. It's not that any of them are not > masters of their art, but rather that even at the heights of mastery > there are fundamental differences in what is aspired to. > > Or perhaps more directly analogous, in Bach's time vibrato was not > aspired to, while today most singers can't turn it off. In some cases > Bach has very fast notes for which modern singers used to fairly heavy > vibrato cannot define the pitch because there simply isn't time to get in > enough vibrato to define the pitch that was intended. So these singers, > considered masters today, would likely have sounded incredibly sloppy in > Bach's time. Similarly, for audiences who expect vibrato, performances > without it would sound somewhat dull. It's not that they are not aiming > for something other than perfection in either rase, it's that, in the old > phrase "other times, other fashions." Or, as another example, we no > longer know how the earliest operas (serial operas) were meant to sound, > and there is an open question about how to perform them now without them > sounding very strange. > > There have always been artists who placed a high value on "perfection" > within their framework and absolutely meant it to be perfect. Others may > not have cared at all. But the recordings I am talking about that sound > bad today are specifically ones played by folks recognized as great > masters in their own time, ones who are still held up today as models for > players. But we now use them as selective models, because, quite frankly, > some of what they thought of as perfection sounds like garbage to us, so > we take some elements (buzzing bridge style, ornamentation) and leave > others (tone, tuning). Similarly, if we could send our best recordings > back in time they would no doubt be appalled at some of the aesthetic > choices we make and wonder why we are doing what we are doing. > > So I don't know that we should assert that they were aiming for a "lower" > standard (one not so flattering and somewhat unfair way of reading your > statement) but rather that we often don't know what standard they were > aiming for so we are no longer able to accurately assess their playing. > We can no longer understand it as they did, so we can no longer recognize > perfection... > > Best, > > Arle > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:26 PM, Susan wrote: > >> I don't often weigh in on discussions, especially if they get technical, >> but I do have an opinion on this issue. I think it is all to easy, in >> this day and age of high fidelity musical perfection, to lose sight of >> the fact that music doesn't have to be, and isn't meant to be, perfect. >> It is meant to be personal, with all the interesting imperfection that >> entails. People can get awfully snobby about it, but for me it all >> comes down to playing your instrument (even if it is from a kit!) and >> having fun. Viva lo fi! Suze > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1265 - Release Date: 07/02/2008 11:17
