Thanks Mathias,
This subject is very interesting and you explained it very well.
2008/10/2 "Mathias Roesel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lemme try to clarify this. Split sound is when the sounds of
different
ensemble members do not blend, that's all. I think we can all agree
by
and large with the following:
The medieval hofkapelle at the Burgundian court consisted of single
musicians who would do their best to get heard distinctly (the lute
being played with quills therefore). That's split sound
(spaltklang).
As opposed to that, renaissance musicians preferred to play ensemble
music with families of instruments (flutes, viols, lutes) so as to
make
the music sound as though one big instrument was at work. That's not
split sound, it's merging sound (schmelzklang).
Musicians of broken consorts usually played as single members of
their
bands, trying to be heard as well as possible. Like in Burgundia,
that
is split sound. It's an integral part of baroque rhetorics of music
(klangrede).
Orchestras from the Twenty-Four Violins of the King onward started
another development, viz. merging the sounds of several instruments
of
the same type, and blending the sounds of groups of instruments
(wood
wind, strings, brass etc), resulting in 19th century orchestra
aesthetics (mischklang).
Surviving lute music dates from the renaissance through rococo
periods.
The HIP lute was a solo instrument, an ensemble instrument, but
never an
orchestra instrument.
So, one might argue that if lute players followed the general
aesthetics of their respective era, renaissance lute players
probably
tried not to stand out when playing in ensemble, whereas later
broken
consort lutenists would try to stand out as much as possible.
Which would explain why renaissance lutenists' propensity of
playing
near the rose, and the shift from 1600 onward to the bridge.
Mathias
--
References
1. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
