Dear Jaroslaw, Thanks for Mace's description of the Prelude. He has such a wonderful way with words, doesn't he, combining erudition with dry humour. I think we are agreed that preludes and pieces of a similar nature require more rhythmic flexibility than others.
You give two extremes of performance: using rubato to cover technical difficulties; playing in strict time without any regard to phrasing and such like. Neither are desirable, but it's where you stand inbetween which counts. Playing in strict time doesn't have to be boring. You can still observe phrasing, louds and softs, and so on, while playing in time, and as Donington points out, a slow piece played well in time, may have more poignancy than one where the rhythm is dragged out. -o-O-o- As in so many matters concerning the lute, Thomas Mace gives valuable advice. Preludes are to be played freely, but you have to capture the spirit of each piece according to its particular properties. Dlugaraj's Finale is not a prelude; it is a rollicking final piece. That is why the interpretation on the Polish website is, in my view, hopelessly wide of the mark. Dowland's Melancholy Galliard may have an oxymoronic title, but however sad you want the piece to be, however slow you want to play it, it must still be a galliard, and not lose sight of the characteristic galliard rhythm. It is true that Mace describes galliards as slow dances, but he doesn't tell us to play them out of time. -o-O-o- You refer to Donington's distinction between pulse and accent. It is true that the two do not always coincide, confirmed in all periods of music, not least by Scott Joplin. However, that is no justification for getting rid of pulse altogether. We are talking about all music in mensural notation which has a pulse, not only dance music. Rhythms in 16th-century polyphonic compositions are often quite complex, and they need a steady pulse and accurate realisation of the rhythm for them to be successful. That means singing and playing in time. Some contend that fantasies, such as those of Francesco da Milano, should be played freely, as if they were some kind of unmeasured prelude. Some of those pieces have contreparties added by Matelart. Does that mean that the free, arrhythmic performance suddenly goes out of the window when a second lute part is added? You cannot reasonably add a second lute part to a piece which does not have a regular pulse, and which was intended to be per! formed out of time. -o-O-o- Your reference to Geminiani comes from his Example XXIV, where he cautions against using the bow to keep time, i.e. by playing the first note of each bar with a down bow. He says that bowing should be used to accent certain notes which may, or may not, occur on the first beat of each bar. That doesn't really concern the present discussion. In Example XVIII, Geminiani maintains that to play with good taste is to play what the composer intended. In this context he says one should avoid adding "passages" (i.e. divisions): "... playing in good Taste doth not consist of frequent Passages, but in expressing with Strength and Delicacy the Intention of the Composer." Geminiani then lists 14 ways of making music expressive, including louds and softs and adding various ornaments. For example, the "Beat" (i.e. a sequence of lower mordents, as notated on p. 26), is an ornament which can be added to express various emotions: "... if it be perform'd with Strength, and continued long, it expresses Fury, Anger, Resolution, &c. If it be play'd less strong and shorter, it expresses Mirth, Satisfaction, &c. But if you play it quite soft, and swell the Note, it may then denote Horror, Fear, Grief, Lamentation, &c. By making it short and swelling the Note gently, it may express Affection and Pleasure." There may be freedom and variety in the way Geminiani performs his added ornaments, but nowhere in all this does he suggest playing out of time what the composer wrote. Best wishes, Stewart. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaroslaw Lipski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Lute'" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:59 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Playing in time Dear Stewart, Sorry for changing the title but I don't think being Polish has anything to do with playing in time. Thank you very much for your analysis. Yes, obviously Robert Donington "The interpretation of early music" is a great source of knowledge for all of us. It's very handy for me, because I don't need to search originals even if they stand next to Donnigton on my book shelve in order to write short email for a mailing list. Anyway, back to the subject. What gave you an impulse to write was playing with "sloppy rubato all over the place" as you say, by the lute player from Contrabellum ensemble. I have to stress, this is not a defence of this type of playing. We can see two extremes in modern lute playing: 1/covering technical problems with ritardandos, rubatos etc. 2/keeping rigid, metronomic time no matter phrasing, style, mood or whatever. Unfortunately we can hear more and more boring performances of the second type not only by some lute players of the first rank, but few early music ensembles as well which remind me of Midi samples so popular in the internet. People listen to machine-made music and their senses respond. They start to like some mechanical qualities. Now, I have to say I wasn't pointing at you Stewart, so I can't see any problem of accepting both versions of time perception. This is the problem of terminology rather. So what does it mean to play in time? Well, it depends. I think we should avoid generalization. Playing in time ricercare, fantasia, toccata or prelude would be something absolutely different from playing in time Courante, Menuet, Boure or Gige for instance. If you dislike Donnington I will cite straight from facsimile edition of Musick's Monument which I have on my desk at the moment: (page 128) "The Prelude is commonly a Piece of Confused-wild-shapeless-kind of Intricate-Play, (as most use it) in which no perfect Form, Shape, or Uniformity can be perceived; but a Random-Business, Pottering, and Grooping, up and down, from one Stop, or Key to another; And generally, so performed, to make Tryal, whether the instrument be well in tune, or not." (Sorry for lengthy citing but I can see you don't like shortening them). Anyway, no problem with free forms. Now, if we talk of more strict or dance like forms, we can not discuss time without mentioning the PULSE. Many people think - pulse means accent. And they like regular accents because they can tap their feet. This is what Donnington writes about pulse and accent (I have to cite him :(( He is just so good): (page 420)"Pulse is not the same as accent, though the two may often coincide. In renaissance polyphony, the accentuation follows only the natural shape of the phrase, not the underlying pulse. The accents in the different parts seldom come together, and there is no such thing as a regular accented beat. Follow the rhythm of the words, not the barring - is usually good practical advice."......."In baroque music, the accentuation is likely to coincide with the pulse much more frequently; yet there are a great many passages in which this appears to be the case, but is not. The accentuation still goes by the phrase and not merely by the bar." Then he cites Francesco Geminiani (1751) from Art of playing on the violin: "If by your manner of bowing you lay a particular Stress on the Note at the Beginning of every Bar, so as to render it predominant over the rest, you alter and spoil the true Air of the Piece, and except where the Composer intended it, and where it is always marked, there are very few instances in which it is not very disagreeable." Donington tries to show the likeness of the music and the poetry. This is not a new concept however. Mace talks about " a Comparison betwixt Musick, and Language" - (page 152 Music's Monument): I speak thus much for This End, and Purpose, that it may be more Generally Noted, that there is in Musick, even such a Signification to the Intelligible, and Understanding Faculty of Man; and such a wonderfull-varios-way of Expression, even as in Language, Unbounded, and Unlimited.......;and show as much Wit, and Variety, as can the Best Orator, in the way of Oratory." The earlier music the smaller correlation between the accent and the pulse. This is why some people think polyphony music is boring because they can't tap foot. Now, what about variations of tempo? This is a very wide topic, not for a mailing list, but reading Donington chapter XL page 425 is absolute must. "Having decided on basic tempo, we have to apply it with the necessary flexibility."......."One of our most harmful reactions against over-romanticising early music has been the sewing-machine rhythm! No music, not even music based mainly on sequences, will stand a completely rigid tempo. Most baroque music needs considerable flexibility." etc,etc..... He talks latter about ways of doing it: by borrowing time and by stealing it. Absolutely indispensable chapter. How about some dance tempos? If you criticize Nigel North playing Melancholy Galliard you would have done better to look at page 129 in Music's Monument concerning the most popular types of pieces. Nr 6 is Galliard: "Galliards, are Lessons of 2, or 3 Strains, but are perform'd in a Slow and Large Triple-Time; and (commonly) Grave, and Sober." Best wishes Jaroslaw -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
