Dear Martin:
Thank you very much for your very appropriate comments concerning lute songs,
and for sharing those of David Hill. We agree wholeheartedly that lute songs,
which are all about the balanced interplay of text, musical line and plucked
strings, communicate much more effectively at a gentler pitch. The idea that A
440, or even 415, as a pitch standard is historically justifiable is not
necessarily the question: The important point is that voices were placed where
they communicated best, and lutes of different sizes were tuned to accomodate
that end.
We take great pains to pitch lute songs where they communicate best, mostly
using lower pitched lutes but transposing when it works on continuo songs or
where otherwise appropriate. We also prefer a more intimate delivery,
performing in smaller venues when possible. New examples have been added this
week to our youtube page, including an arrangement of Marenzio's 'Dissi a
l'amata mia lucida stella' and a rendition of 'Like as the lute' performed by
our new manager, Earl.
www.youtube.com/lutesongs
We always try to let the text and the range of the voice determine where we
pitch a song, and guide us in historical performance considerations. We have
come to believe that Dowland's lutesong accompaniments were probably performed
to a lower pitched lute, the litmus test being the high notes in the vocal
part. If one hears the singer's personality and presence rather than the text,
the pitch is probably too high.
Thank you again, and we look forward to seeing more of this discussion if our
rural internet connection allows.
Best wishes,
Ron & Donna
www.mignarda.com
> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 20:46:02 +0100> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [LUTE] lute
> songs> > Dear All,> > I just realized that "forwarding" something to the list
> runs foul of the > "attachments forbidden" rule, so here is the whole thing -
> apologies for > any duplication:> > I'm forwarding this reply to my note from
> David Hill, sometime > countertenor and fellow alumnus of the Deller Academy
> and Bob Spencer > (see below for David's comments, which you should read
> first if you want > to make sense of any of this).> > I was unaware of the
> Wigthorp concordance, and also forgot to mention > some wrong notes which
> really jarred with one who has been familiar with > Dowland's original since
> the year dot....> > As for consort songs being for "treble" voices, I'm
> afraid this once > again raises the ugly head of the pitch monster. I have
> some reasons to > believe that Dowland would have expected to hear his songs!
about a tone > or perhaps even a minor third below modern pitch - if so, then
"treble" > often tails off into "alto" without too much difficulty. I'm not
saying > there was a "standard" pitch in Dowland's time, but at the same time
we > should resist the temptation to project our assumptions about pitch onto >
their music.> > The problem with the modern countertenor singing lute songs is
partly to > do with pitch and partly to do with voice production/timbre. As far
as > pitch is concerned, many songs are sufficiently low that a modern >
countertenor can manage them (at the top of their range) without >
transposition - but then we have problems which relate to any voice > being at
the top of its range, in a music which values speech-like > intelligibility.
The voice production/timbre issue is perhaps less > serious, but the "head
voice" of the modern c/t is not always conducive > to the kind of speech-like
expression which seems to be required for the > effective delivery !
of the poems.> > Just a thought about pitch - we tend to think!
in terms of a'=440, and > therefore in terms of most lute songs being "for"
tenor or soprano - but > if we allow a substantially lower pitch, these songs
could be sung by > almost anybody, whether they were (by modern classification)
a > "baritone" or a "tenor", a "mezzo" or a "soprano". Surely that fits > very
well with Dowland's publication strategy and also with the > realities of music
making in his time, where no-one got out a tuning > fork at the beginning of a
rehearsal.....> > Best to All,> > Martin> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------> >
Subject:> Re: Down, down, down I fall> From:> "David Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
Date:> Sat, 7 Jun 2008 19:19:40 +0100> > To:> "Martin Shepherd" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>> > > Dear Martin (please pass parts of this on to all and sundry if
you wish!),> I don't have the new Scholl disc, but I do know that> 'Sorrow
Come' is a 'sacred' contrafactum of 'Sorrow, Stay' by one > William Wigthorp, t!
itled 'Dowlands Sorrow 5'. It's in the British > Library Add. Mss17,786-17791.
It's also in Musica Britannica vol. 32.> The underlay (in the music) on
'wretched' is exactly as sung by the > wretched Herr Scholl, I'm afraid, but I
agree that he really should know > how to pronounce 'fall' and other words
properly.> Scholl's recording of A Musical Banquet, with the 'extraordinary'
Edin > Karamazov features some truly cringeworthy wrong notes, leading me to >
ask the same question - why did no-one at the sessions correct him? I > love
Scholl in later music such as Handel, but this sort of thing is > just wrong.
We all know that consort songs are for treble voices.> > This song appears (in
this Wigthorp consort song version) on the Consort > of Musick's Complete
Dowland box on CD 7, track 1, sung (in English) by > the divine Miss Kirkby.> >
All of the copious and VERY useful information that came with the > original LP
issues of these recordings, however, was omitted from the >!
1997 CD re-issue.> By the way - it would be most enterprising for the !
Lute Soc to scan in > all of this insert and cover text from the COM Dowland
LP covers, to > make available to members, since almost everyone in the lute
world will > have this CD box on their shelves for reference (whether they like
it or > not, of course), but not all will still have the LPs! Chris should have
> all these LPs as part of the Lute soc library collection, because I gave >
the whole set of mine to Bob Spencer in 1992 for his reference, and I > believe
that Jilly later passed them on to the Soc.> > As you know, I've seriously
turned against my own former species, and I > now find it very difficult to
tolerate countertenors singing lute songs > at all. There are too many things
wrong with it, not least of which is > the necessary transpositions, which
really make most lutenists have to > work hard, and as you say, it's difficult
enough to do it anyway, > without hurdles. I really don't think that
Countertenors/falsettists > EVER sang such songs before the early!
50s, or even that they existed AT > ALL outside of chapels. Even alto parts
to madrigals are no fun for > falsettists - the range is all wrong,
necessitating 'gear-shifts' into > chest register, then back again, sometimes
in mid-word! Once you strip > away at what C/Ts may have sung at this time, you
really have to query > their very existence outside of the choir stalls - at
least at this period.> > As you say, with the 'modern' countertenor, so much is
sacrificed on the > altar of making a lovely noise that the poor old music
itself often goes > out of the window. And I was as guilty of that as anyone
else. I now > recant my former sins of having sung lute songs (even though I'm
well > aware that sometimes it sounded lovely - I'm not that daft), and that I
> forced lutenists to perform against the grain of performance practice by >
sticking everything down a fourth, and will from henceforth try to do > all in
my power to help stamp out this (often) ugly piece of > 'mis-i!
nformation' that still continues to disfigure our general > perception !
of how lute songs were performed.> > A published article is needed, somewhere
influential, a proclamation, > drawing together any evidence (or lack of it)
for C/Ts doing Jacobean > lute song before 1950. I can't write it - I'm way out
of my depth, but > I'm certain that I'm right, and I'm more than happy to
discuss it with > anyone willing to commit to this manifesto!> > NB. Falsetto
C/Ts DID exist by Purcell's time, of course - I'm not > saying they didn't, and
besides we have ample evidence in the range of > the voice parts, e.g. the
'split' (for breath) in the two melismatic > phrases of the word 'sing' in
'Mark How the lark and linnet sing' by > Blow - exactly where the break between
head and chest voices occurs. But > there, as in the case of early 17th century
music, the evidence lies in > the vocal ranges. We just all need to look,
critically.> > At any rate, it's probably not as bad as 'By the Streams of
Afton Water'.> > Good to hear from you!> > > > > To get on or !
off this list see list information at>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
_________________________________________________________________
Instantly invite friends from Facebook and other social networks to join you on
Windows Live' Messenger.
https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_InviteFriends
--
