> I think it's a fair question, because towns and villages have been > around for many centuries, as have the rich and the poor. It is > reasonable to suppose that music has not always been the same for > all strata of society. However, it is difficult to give a thorough > answer through lack of evidence. The music of illiterate musicians > tends not to get written down and recorded for posterity. Some things can be deduced.
> As far as I can ascertain, art music before c.1500 was largely the > preserve of the professional musician. The 16th century saw the > flourishing of amateur music-making, which happens to coincide with > the use of tablature for the lute. Henry VIII was no doubt an > important influence on amateur music-making in England, having all > his children study music and learn the lute. Yet instruments were > expensive, so they remained the preserve of wealthy people. There is considerable iconography of proletarian music-making, especially Dutch. > To answer Bill's question, I would suggest that people out in the > country would probably not have heard as much music as townfolk, True. In quantity, but not in kind. > they would have sung, and a few might have played instruments such > as the bagpipe or hurdy-gurdy. Breughel's painting of a meal with a > bagpiper is the sort of image I have for country music: simple tunes > with no more than a drone for accompaniment. Polyphony would have > been for the church or sophisticated musical circles. That I absolutely refuse to believe. There is plenty of improvised folk polyphony across Southern Europe, with some notable examples in Italy, Sardinia and Corsica, with prominent traces of renaissance art music (the franciscans are to thank for this it seems...). Lutes and > viols were played by professionals or wealthy amateurs, but would > have been too expensive for most people. The latter played gitterns, citterns, rebecs and other low end things. > In many ways I agree with what you say about the separation of mass > culture and elite culture. It is too simplistic to say that country > folk had their music, wealthy folk had theirs, and never the twain > should meet. No doubt there was an overlap between the two. A large overlap, in fact, wherever the use of renaissance bass patterns is concerned, i.e. most instrumental music. > Much the same goes for lute music. When Bill writes about > historically informed performances as "music in aspic", it's the > fossilisation which bothers him. Somehow I doubt that. Maybe he just lacks the courage to take the plunge. Old music can be like a dead > creature preserved in a bottle of formaldehyde. I believe that, if > we want to understand music which was played many years ago, we > should study it as much as possible, but when we come to perform it, > our primary aim should be to do what we can to bring it back to > life. That is a tall order and the prerogative of a few. Don't make me name names, 'cause you know I could.... RT
