I think if we don't have any real historical evidence we are just retouching the color of the past. There are plenty of paintings showing lutes and shawms, trumpets, drums and so on. A motley crew. And what sounds louder close up does not necessarily carry, so room size becomes a factor, and so on.. Playing loud is not any better than playing full at a distance, and a full sound may even be better. As far as rhythm medieval lute, I can't imagine that they didn't try it, who wouldn't? I don't think there's anything wrong with coining phrases--there have been some famous ones like the "X chord" and "doublet", not to mention terms in sonata form and so on. But they are modern terms. And one of the most common of these in HP was "klangideal", which you don't really see anymore in musicology, though I kinda liked it. These things go in waves. The idea that some sort of uniformity of style existed may well just be a product of the industrial revolution. One of the nice things about renaissance furniture is that the hardware is all different: hinges, screws, clasps, nails, and so. Maybe that's the way everything was. Maybe the LHC in Cern will show that no two particles can ever be alike at the same time. dt
At 03:28 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote: >Maybe we're talking nonsense because we haven't defined our terms. >Or maybe you assume a clear dichotomy between blending and not >blending; the world is a more complicated place than that. > >Indeed, I think the whole notion of a single sound ideal for all of >Europe for a century or more is inherently incredible, but that's >another discussion. > >>Pictures show single instruments >>(harps, fiddles, lutes, flutes), playing together with singers. >>Surviving ars nova music, when executed with instruments so distinct, >>leaves no chance to merge or blend. > >Saying this does not make it so. We don't even know what the >instruments were playing. Likely they were doubling the singers, in >which case the dominant sound on each line would be the voice, >colored by the doubling instrument; the question of whether a harp >could "blend" with a lute would be unimportant. > >>>If other instruments are producing a treble-heavy sound, a lute >>>player playing with a quill might just as well be trying to blend >>>with them. >> >>How can he / she, playing his / her own part? > >1) We don't know what part the lute played; >2) If you had a lute in your hand and wanted to match, as much as >possible, the the tone of a rebec or a bray harp, would you play >with fingers over the rose or with a quill back toward the bridge? > >>>Rhythm guitar players play with plectra today, but they >>>rarely want to focus attention on their individual instrument. >> >>No such thing like rhythm lutes in medieval ensemble music, > >How do you know? Have you been listening to those non-existent >recordings? You don't think any 14th-century lutenist in a dance >band ever strummed a bunch of fifths? > >>or baroque >>for that matter, as far as I can see. > >It's called continuo. In broken consorts, and some lute songs, its >called "the tab parts that don't have divisions." > >>>A viol player in a >>>polyphonic consort needs to have his instrument and his line heard >>>distinctly. The cittern player in a broken consort wants to blend >>>with the pandora (and lute, if the lute isn't playing divisions). >> >>Again, how can he / she (cittern), playing his / her own part? > >By DOING IT. It's what musicians do. I'm listening at the moment to >a recording of Swanne Alley; the bass viol, bandora and cittern blend >very nicely in the sense that unless I'm trying to deconstruct it as >I hear it, it sounds like one big instrument most of the time. > >About once a year, this list embarks on a discussion of whether the >lute/archlute/theorbo is audible in continuo sections with >harpsichords, and I always make the point that the object isn't to be >heard as discrete voice, but rather to combine into whatever continuo >sound you're trying to achieve. > > >>But let's omit orchestras, the lute not being an orchestra instrument. > >The archlute is. I assume you meant to exclude gallichons and >theorbos, and I won't argue that point with you, but the archlute is >just a lute with extra bass strings. > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
