Hi all, Personally, I see HIP as a step in the direction of the revival of the lute as a modern instrument. What we are learning now from the old sources cannot be a complete goal in itself - for one thing, the place for improvisation in the music of the time was unquestionably crucial (look at all the passomezzo variations, the treatises on ornamentation and diminutions, continuo, etc.). Another point is that the sources are sketchy in many important ways, and it was not until music publishing greatly improved in the 19th cent. that following the "intention" of the composer became an all-encompassing concern of interpreters. There are no precise indications of tempo, dynamics, accents, etc. so the interpreter was expected to supply to those on the basis of experience and personal taste, rather than learned articles in musicological journals. So HIP can take us only so far - although it was a major factor in the improvement of sound in early music recording: HIP includes not only a rediscovery of the texts, but also a definite effort on the part of instrument makers. And there too, I think, the same rule applies: surviving written sources can take you part of the way, but the lute makers of today have to included quite a bit of personal experimentation to come up with the right product. In that sense, they reproduce the experience of their predecessors, but because of new materials, tools, etc. they reproduce it differently in a definitely modern way. So, willy nilly, the experimentation that takes place today is bound to its own time: now. early music takes place in the context of contemporary music publishing and performance: with concert tours, digital recording technology (perhaps the main factor in early music revival because the CD-ROM restores the intimacy of the small audience shows in which the lute flourished - but you could add to that also the University auditoriums and centres de la culture with their depleted public). This is not to say that lutenists will not fail to understand their avant-garde status, so that the lute will remain a museum curiosity and probably bore the next generation to tears with the 20th recording of Dowland's complete works, but this is to say that unless HIP progresses and pushes in the direction of modern creation, it cannot be totally faithful to its own logic, and it will die from the simple fact that there won't be much else to dig out in terms of "new" sources.
This is the paradox: we love HIP and the lute in part because they are new and therefore exciting. The big question is: how will we keep it exciting, for ourselves and those who will come after us? Alain At 01:18 PM 8/27/2004, Eugene C. Braig IV wrote: >You make a good point here, Stewart, one I feel I'd like to elaborate >upon. One reason a performance of early music can never be "authentic" is >that all performances will lack an authentic audience. When Bakfark's or >Piccinini's music was new and exciting, nothing like it had been heard by >players or performers. All that has accumulated on our collective ears in >the centuries since has altered our perception of music. I think early >music is best enjoyed when not given under an arrogant pretense of >"authenticity," but simply enjoyed. I think HIP is an interesting >conceptual step in the right direction. > >Here's a bit of fluffy, tight-wearin', pseudo-early-music cheese...but hey, >I still enjoy it. I once brought my family to a big "renaissance" (i.e. >fantasy) faire. Owain Phyfe of New World Renaissance Band fame was >playing. For any who have not seen this spectacle, Mr. Phyfe plays on a >modern steel-string guitar with six single strings...but crafted to ape the >aesthetics of the old Guadalupe vihuela. Afterwards, I engaged Mr. Phyfe >in conversation specifically to discuss his instrument, which I thought was >very amusing for what it was. Rather than discuss the true nature of the >piece, Mr. Phyfe went into a great long pseudo-historic spiel to try to >legitimize the thing as authentic by giving it the name "chitarra >battente!" This spiel is probably very amusing to ren-faire fans, but I >regarded it as a blatant effort at deception. I really enjoyed the >performance as folksy and non-HIP. I was a bit soured by the effort to >convince me it was all somehow authentic. > >Sorry for the rant, >Eugene > > >At 03:46 PM 8/27/2004, Stewart McCoy wrote: > >Some years ago people used the word "authentic" to describe > >performances of early music. The word implied that a performance was > >exactly how it would have been years ago. Yet no modern performance > >can be truly authentic, which is why it is now fashionable to talk > >of HIP (historically informed performance). I think it is an > >important distinction to make. > > > >The Beatles performed their music in the 1960s. It was a new, > >exciting sound, created by a group of young, long-haired musicians. > >John Lennon and George Harrison are now dead, yet even if they were > >still alive, and even if the four members of the group wanted to > >play together again, they would never be able to recreate those > >earlier performances. It could never be the same. > > > >There is a group called the Bootleg Beatles, who give concerts of > >Beatles music, copying as closely as possible what the Beatles once > >did. Their attention to detail is impressive, yet they cannot be > >truly authentic, because they are not the real Beatles. All they can > >hope to offer is a historically informed performance. I have been > >told that they are extremely entertaining. To some extent that's > >what we do with our lutes, although mercifully, even within the > >confines of a historically informed performance, there is much scope > >for improvisation and individual input. > > > >Best wishes, > > > >Stewart.
