Dear Roman,
Perhaps we should consider what John Dowland thought about people re-writing
his music. He made his view very clear in the introduction to his _First
Booke of Songs_ (London, 1597). He certainly wanted other people to play his
music, because he had four books of songs printed, and had plans to have
some of his lute lessons in print too. He even had in mind an introduction
to fingering to help less able lutenists. What troubled him, was when people
got the notes wrong:
"There have beene divers Lute-lessons of mine lately printed without my
knowledge, false and imperfect; but I purpose shortly my selfe to set forth
the choysest of all my lessons in Print, and also an introduction for
fingering, with other bookes of songs; whereof this is the first: and as
this findes favour with you, so shall I be affected to labour in the rest."
Can you honestly imagine Dowland hearing someone play a minor chord at the
end of Forlorn Hope, and saying, "How lovely! Avoiding ye Picardy 3rd
theology, demonstrates that hope is unattainable"? He would have regarded it
as a mistake, and might even have accused the player of being
"... meerely ignorant, even in the first elements of Musicke, and also in
the true order of the mutation of the _Hexachord_ in the _Systeme_, (which
hath ben approved by all the learned and skilfull men of Christendome, this
800 yeeres,) ..."
He might even have included the player along with
"young-men, professors of the Lute, who vaunt themselves, to the
disparagement of such as have beene before their time, (wherein I my selfe
am a party) that there never was the like of them."
I guess we shall have to disagree over this. You see Karamazov's minor chord
as a powerful statement; I see it more akin to a pair of glasses added to
the Mona Lisa with a felt-tip pen. There will be plenty of other things in
his playing, which I am sure we both admire.
Best wishes,
Stewart.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lute Net" <[email protected]>; "Stewart McCoy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Karamazov
From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It is an emphatic statement, and a fitting climax to an extraordinary
piece of music. To play a wrong note deliberately in the last chord, not
only discredits the composer, it also insults the listener. In terms of
musical logic, it is like a lawyer strongly arguing his case, and then
undermining his own argument by supporting the opposite point of view in
his final sentence. In artistic terms, it is like an artist painting a
wonderful landscape for you, and then throwing a bottle of ink at it just
before he hands it over. If the role of the musician is to create
cynicism and anarchy, it is fair game to destroy the work of others. If
not, he should show some humility and respect for the composer and for
the audience, and stick to the script.
Best wishes,
Stewart McCoy.
I disagree, emphatically. Karamazov, by avoiding the Picardy 3rd theology,
demontrates that the Hope is not attainable. A very powerful statement,
with which one doesn't have to agree, but it is powerful nonetheless. And
I am particularly impressed that he had guts and know-how to do that.
RT
==
http://polyhymnion.org
Feci quod potui. Faciant meliora potentes.
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
