Here, here!
I'm sure I and Roman almost got banned at one point (maybe a few
points). Roman has made a great contribution since then.
Rob
2008/11/18 gary digman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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, [2]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][5]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. [6]http://www.songoftherose.co.uk/
To get on or off this list see list information at
[7]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - [8]http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1795 - Release Date:
11/17/2008 5:24 PM
--
References
1. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. http://et.al/
3. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
4. mailto:[email protected]
5. http://www.songoftherose.co.uk/
6. http://www.songoftherose.co.uk/
7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
8. http://www.avg.com/
