i've been riding around on my tractor all morning mulling over what you say in your letter (since joining the list, "early music" and all its concerns have replaced dark, dead-end metaphysics as a prime topic of internal debate).
it occurs to me that formally trained musicians and composers like yourself have always been at odds with "musicians" like me who will gleefully murder a tune and disregard learned opinion if it "feels" ok to do so. this must be very irritating. the only consolation i can offer you is that this haughty disdain, on one part and "don't care" obstinacy, on the other, is probably very much in keeping with the hip ethos. your lot were probably slagging off my lot, centuries ago. this is only because the confines of hip seem to exclude the sort of music i'm interested in - music i would like to know more about if documentation on it existed - but which (apparently) doesn't. i understand that medieval music was more or less the same for all but that with the coming of the renaissance, music moved into the city and music of the country - european, "country" music - seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth - or so the absence of documentation would suggest. i don't think country people ceased to sing and play their instruments when their city slicker cousins began ignoring their efforts but speculation from the present - informed, intuitive intelligent or otherwise - does not appear to be a virtue with the advocates of hip. the delineation between baroque, renaissance and medieval music probably didn't even exist in the country. more than likely, for them it was just continuous, uninterrupted "music." so here i am, simply delighted to be amongst you as i strum my bolivian made vihuela de mano (nee: charango), sing "tempus est iocundum" with a slight - but discernible - american accent and put an ancient "two" together with a very modern "two" and arrive at what i hope is a timeless (and therefore extremely un-hip) "four." kindest regards - bill
