Gentlemen, I kindly advise you to read the following book : "Musiques savantes, musiques populaires : les symboliques du sonore en FRance , 1200 - 1750" by an excellent ethnolmusicologist Luc Charles-Dominique. It published by the CNRS Editions (available there : http://www.cnrseditions.fr/ouvrage/5746.html ). I am not comissionned in any way ;-) It helps to understand better the problem you have been debating lately on this forum.
I know, it's in French, but, well, it is well worth the little effort...! Best, Jean-Marie ======= 02-10-2008 23:45:00 ======= > >"howard posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >> 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. > >I'm too simple a listener, probably. IMHO it's a dichotomy, yes. You're >certainy right, though, the world is a more complicated place than that, >as the old Chinese saying has it >,) > >> 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. > >It is so, indeed. I have not the faintest idea how people in northern >Danmark or other people in southern Italy perceived those notions. What >I try to discuss are changes of lute playing techniques in context of >modern explanations of different sound aesthetics during the medieval, >renaissance, and baroque eras. > >> > 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. > >That's not my. I wasn't born then, so I don't know as a witness. (And >you don't know either. So why do you object?) >But there are pictures surviving, depicting medieval musicians who play >together with singers. If you agree that things like that aren't >impossible to have happened, then maybe you'll concede that those >instrumentalists will either have played from the singers' parts or they >played something which didn't survive in written form. >You may say, all instrumentalists playing from parts, would join in one >part to form an instrumental party. All I can say, then, is that it >wouldn't make much sense IMHO. What would make sense on the other hand >is that different instruments would go along with different parts to >form a colourful band. It's just more probably, lacking evidence >notwithstanding. > >> 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. > >Yepp, that's certainly so. But there are pictures of purely instrumental >bands, too. > >> 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? > >I for one would play close-to-rose so as to match. Quill stands out, >that much is for sure. > >> >> 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? > >In the way rock band rhythm guitarists do? No, I don't think so. Matter >of restricted imagination, probably. > >> > or baroque >> > for that matter, as far as I can see. >> >> It's called continuo. > >That's a bit sweeping, don't you think? At least, it's not the way I'm >used to playing continuo when accompanying singers. First thing is to >distinctly provide the bass line. Guitarists may approach this >differently. > >> 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. > >Okay, I'm not a musician. I'm a lute player, occasionally, in a broken >consort. And I don't try to blend with other instruments but to be heard >as distinctly as possible. > >I'm sorry I can't continue this, as I'm heading for the players' meeting >in Cottbus. >-- >Mathias > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. >Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 03-10-2008
