To All:
Without getting too tedious or serious about this subject, it seems people are
missing a major point: Everyone who was educated in the 16th century was
educated in music. It was one of the seven liberal arts (among the quadrivium
of sciences), and the practice of music was _not_ just a pastime, but rather an
integral part of daily life. Private devotional practices, before and after
Luther's theses, were integrated into daily routine and, again, this was not so
much a matter of personal choice but as normal as logging onto the internet
today. This is why there were so many intabulations of sacred polyphony and,
later, psalm collections. Honest, I'm not making this up.
The audience for printed lute music was predominantly the rising merchant
class, who wished to emulate the noble houses in their cultural trappings. I
think the published 'rules for singing' in the Petrucci prints and elsewhere
was aimed at this audience.
We think of music today as an 'extra' but, in 16th-century practice, it was a
necessity. One only needs to omit all recorded or broadcast music from their
lives for a while to become aware of its ubiquitous presence at home and in
public places today. Music was even more important 500 years ago, only it was
played by real people as a part of daily life.
Best wishes,
Ron Andrico
www.mignarda.com
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:33:02 -0500> CC: [email protected]> From: [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> Subject: [LUTE] Re: new piece of the month> > On Wed, 2008-04-30
> at 19:22 +0100, Ron Fletcher wrote:> > Zarlino, in _Istitutioni harmoniche_,
> 1558, wrote: "Matters for the singer> > to observe are these: First of all he
> must aim diligently to perform what> > the composer has written. He must not
> be like those who, wishing to be> > thought worthier and wiser than their
> colleagues, indulge in certain rapid> > improvisations that are so savage and
> so inappropriate that they not only> > annoy the hearer but are riddled with
> thousands of errors, such as many> > dissonances, consecutive unisons,
> octaves, fifths, and other similar> > progressions absolutely intolerable in
> composition. Then there are singers> > who substitute higher or lower tones
> for those intended by the composer,> > singing for instance a whole tone
> instead of a semitone, or vice versa,> > leading to countless errors as we!
ll as offense to the ear. Singers should> > aim to render faithfully what is
written to express the composer's intent,> > intoning the correct steps in the
right places." > > > > [Gioseffo Zarlino, _The Art of Counterpoint_, translated
by Guy A. Marco and> > Claude V. Palisca, (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1968) ppg 110-111.]> > > > I wish the modern-day R&B singers would take this to
heart. They never hold> > a note and sing every possible note around it
instead! My friends say it is> > merely interpretation and ornamentation. I beg
to differ...The twiddly-bits> > are for the instruments, not the voice!> > What
ever happened for the quest to sing/play the "one" perfect note?> > Or maybe
that's a modern quest. Just musing...> "The Other" Stephen Stubbs> > > > To get
on or off this list see list information at>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself wherever you are. Mobilize!
http://www.gowindowslive.com/Mobile/Landing/Messenger/Default.aspx?Locale=en-US?ocid=TAG_APRIL
--
