I have to say, I'm not sure I agree with this policy of banning people
from posting on the lutelist. I know that some people engage in ad hominem
arguing, name calling, insults etc., but it seems to me one can always use
the delete button to eliminate postings one finds objectionable. I regard
this as the price of freedom, and I value freedom.
The lutelist has become noticeably less dynamic and, for me, less
interesting since Danyel, Matanya, et.al have been eliminated from the list.
Some dissonance is essential to give the music life. Too much consonance and
things become watered down and static. When Charles Ives was writing his
string quartets, he reportedly wrote little dialogues between the
instruments in the margins of the manuscript, and, in one, he had one of the
violins say to the other, "What's the matter, are you one of those
white-livered weaklings who can't stand up and face a good dissonance like a
man?"
How many people have to be offended before someone gets banned from
the list? It seems to me only two or three. I'm always startled by posters
who refer to the lutelist as "my list" or "our list" as if this forum
belonged to a select group of insiders whose job it is to police the list
and make sure it conforms to the vision of this group of insiders. I think
the list is more vibrant and robust when it's treated as a public forum in
which "a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred thoughts contend." So I say
buck up, keep the lutelist open and free and use the delete button if
someone crosses the line.
Best to All,
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob MacKillop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lute List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:57 AM
Subject: [LUTE] The Online Lute Player
Sorry this is so long...
The recent Igor = The Devil thread has been gnawing away at me. He
might have been clumsy in the way he expressed himself, but he was
entitled to his view. However, he has highlighted the topic of the
Online Lute Player, and what one might expect that to be, and that is
what I would like to turn our attention to.
In the days before YouTube, one would have expected a degree of
professional standard from a recording artist (setting aside personal
preference for one artist over another). Professional reviewers
(rightly or wrongly) saw it as part of their job to inform their
readers of who was hot and who was not, and why they thought so.
YouTube has blown all that away. Someone who has just picked up his/her
first guitar and decides to pluck it with a banana (not you, Val!), can
reach an audience of thousands within days. You, the watcher-listener,
have to make up your own mind whether something is 'good' or not. You
can watch the video or not. I imagine Igor (and he is not alone) would
like to see a return to a situation where one would expect a
professional standard of performance and presentation. But that just
isn't going to happen - well, I can't see any signs of it at the
moment.
David Taylor has raised two interesting points: 1. These videos give an
insight into how the lute/guitar is actually played, and 2. the
professionals are waiting until they can completely control the
production process before submitting their 'performances' for public
scrutiny (they can already do this, of course, if they have enough
money or their record company are willing to pay for it).
It would be wonderful if we could hear how the average lute player
played in the 16th/17th centuries. We tend to assume that someone like
Mary Burwel or Logy or some other high-profile amateur, would play well
(within our present-day aesthetics). We have lute players today copying
right-hand positions from paintings of amateurs who, for all we know,
might have sounded terrible to their contemporaries. YT allows us to
hear how (dare I say?) 'ordinary' people at the start of the 21st
century played. That will be of use to future researchers, I'm sure.
I consider myself as a semi-professional player. I have CD recordings
and play concerts. Some years have been more busy than others, but I
have never been in a position to make a living exclusively from lute
playing. A few weeks ago the reality of who my audience is was brought
home to me. I recorded the video of me playing the so-called
archguitar. I did that early in the morning. I uploaded it, and then
left the house to play a lunchtime concert in the local church in
Edinburgh during the Edinburgh International Festival when the
population of the city almost doubles. Bearing in mind that I have had
three number one CDs in the Scottish classical charts, I might have
been expected to get a decent-sized audience. There were six people.
And that included my wife, daughter and the guy who opened the church
doors. Three people paid - all pensioners, and therefore paid the lower
rate - and two of them were blind. Why do I mention this? Well, their
companion spent the entire time talking them through what I looked
like, what the instrument looked like, what the church looked like,
etc, etc - while I was playing. The point of all this? By the time I
returned home, ninety minutes after leaving the house, the video had
over 200 plays.
Earlier this week, when I added up all my video plays from YT, Vimeo
and my own web pages, I was surprised to learn I had over 16,000 plays
in just a few months. How many concerts would I have to play to reach
so many people? These figures are not special - many of our lute-video
contributors could mention similar figures. There is no money in it, of
course, but at least there is the satisfaction that someone somewhere
is listening and hopefully enjoying the music.
The downside? Even though the concert I played that lunchtime was on
the face of it a negative experience, my wife and daughter stated that
they had never heard me play so well. Why? I think there were two
contributing factors - the acoustics were marvelous, and opened up for
me subtleties in the music I never imagined were there - I was
experiencing the music afresh, and that inspired me. And, there is a
HUGE difference between playing to an audience, no matter how small,
and playing to a camera.
So, I for one will continue making mp3 files and videos, because I know
there are people who get something positive out of it, and I will
continue to try to play concerts even though I live in a country which
has no interest whatsoever in Early Music.
And I hope that my lute-playing colleagues do so too, no matter what
their 'standard'. I am in their audience.
Rob MacKillop
[1]www.songoftherose.co.uk - free mp3 files and videos :-)
PS I've just remembered...it is interesting to note the difference
between my acoustic guitar audience and my Early Music audience: I have
a 'donations' button on various pages. The Acoustic guitar pages
(Scottish/Celtic stuff - some of it arrangements of Scottish lute
pieces) has had enough hits to allow me to purchase an instrument. The
Song of the Rose site - lute and baroque guitar - has raised only six
pounds. Enough to buy two first strings. Don't worry, this is not a
criticism, just a humorous observation :-)
--
References
1. http://www.songoftherose.co.uk/
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1795 - Release Date: 11/17/2008
5:24 PM
