Arle - Nice arguments and presented in a very logical fashion, and germane to so many discussion of other facets of past cultures outside of the music field. I concur and applaud you. I will save a copy of your letter, and will, no doubt, have many occasions to bring it out in future discussions with my music acquaintances, who do not share my passion for music played on period instruments (ie.med/ren instruments), thinking them so limited and unworthy to play music on today. Their mantra seems to be "That is why they evolved - because they were so primitive and horrible sounding to begin with" . - Paul #########
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 06:55:29 -0500 Arle Lommel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 > >
