======= 29-01-2009 01:14:46 =======
>I only mention the Monteclair because it is so
>readily available, and explains the key points.
>I think that for most of the basic things, that
>is fine. It is translated into English, and so on.
>Experts will always prefer the primary
>sources--mainly the music itself. Most people
>will not want to read twenty books when they can
>look at one eight page document.
>
I am sorry to disagree David. Too many musicians tend to consider written
information as secondary or boring wheareas I do think it is not. And your
encouragement to be happy with "one eight page document." instead of a
thorough, honest and valuable research into such a field as, say,
ornamentation, doesn't sound fair to me.
>Basically, when applying French ornamentation you
>are looking at the multiple sources for the
>theory, and then the multiple sources for the practice.
Doesn't it sound slightly contradictory with the previous argument ?
>For example, any ornamentation chart can be derived from the "doubles"
>The process is simple, you identify the interval,
>look in the double, paste it into the chart. The
>composers have left thousands of clear examples.
>If you don't want to use primary sources, you can
>rely on premixed recipes, such as the article in the Grove,
>In other words, the ornaments can be reverse
>engineered. The sources are easily reconciled.
>
>Brouderie ,
Sorry to insist, again, as a French native speaker I am more than pretty sure
that the correct word is "broderie", not "brouderie", please.
>is too big a topic to go into here. I
>don't think of it as colloquial, however. It is
>essential for playing lute music, and probably is
>related to earlier English and French styles.
>
>To say that the lute players differ from the
>mainstream is an interesting idea, but I look at it differently.
>Since most of the ornaments are written out in
>the doubles, using primary sources, one can see what the ornaments really are.
>We can then see if the music is different.
>And then you can say, well, there few examples of
>this kind of lute ornamnent in French music. The
>lute players were trying to be different.
>However, I don't see that. In fact, if you look
>at ornamentation charts they tend to be
>exhaustive--they cover almost all of the ways to get from note A to note B.
So you admit that you read more than eight pages about that, after all ;-) It
is indsipensable if you want to get a decent idea of waht can be done.
>Even the unmeasured preludes cover most of the ornamnents.
>But if you have looked at all the doubles, all
>the cadences, all the brouderie
<broderie>
>and say the lute
>ornaments are different, I would be very interested in the work.
>And then, we would know for sure--it would not be
>speculation. I've looked at thousands of these
>pieces--I'm always struck by the similarities.
>
>The real question revolves around the
>appogiatura: is everyone playing it backwards? Is
>it Sdrawkcab? And the answer is, yes. And here I
>cited Monteclair because most sources agree that
>the appogiatura is long--specifically 1/2 or 2/3 the note length.
>And in the performance of lute solos, lute
>players invariably perform these notes shorter
>than that--much shorter. In fact, 1/3 or less
>than the note length. And that is backwards, like
>a Scotch snap. Or a French snap, since they had it is well.
>
>I don't really care--I think people can play the
>solos however they want. If you have read all the
>primary sources,
Ah, ah, more than eight pages again ;-)))
> if you have looked at the
>doubles, cadences & brouderie,
<broderie>
>and you say, you know, I just prefer to play it backwards, fine.
>Play it backwards.
>But I don't really think that is the case. I
>think this is simply a modern tradition and no
>one wants to change it--it is harder on the lute
>to play the appogiaturas longer, and you have to
>study the voice leading as well. It is slightly more work.
>Few people will do it; the best players will
>solve the technical problems--they always will.
>
>Here is a clear, parallel example: if you look at
>modern lute performance, the trills are most of
>the time played on the "easy" positions.
>Is that historical? Of course not.
>
>If I look back at all the ornamnentation classes
>over the last thirty years I cannot cite a single
>example of anyone who had read in may classes:
>
>
>Singing style at the Opera in the Rameau period. (Paris:
>Champion; Geneve: Slatkine, 1986) Music. In French. See RILM
>1987-00887-bs. Collection: Jean-Philippe Rameau
How will you esthetically reconcile the Rameau period (c. 1730) and the
Mesangeau period, roughly one century earlier ???
What apllies to the latter may not (is not) applicable to the former, IMHO.
>
>and of the Monteclair--available in English--only
>two people in thirty years. And they read it in English, which is fine.
>And that is maybe 600-800 students on just that
>topic. So the info needs to be made easily
>accessible, and teachers of baroque lute need to
>at least tell their students about it even if they teach it differently.
>
>So I think it is, as far as the appogiatura--and
>that is only one point of many--we have recorded
>all the operas with the wrong ornaments and pronounciation--
>we have it backwards.
>
>Since we now have youtube, you can see exactly
>how these notes are now being played, but you can
>hear them on the hundreds of recordings of French
>music as well. Julianne Baird's old but great
>recording of French Cantatas demonstrates most of
>the main ornaments beautifully.
Do you seriuosly imagine Airs de Cour at the court or inthe bourgeois circles
at the time of Louis XIII were sung with this rather late baroque style ?
>
>We need a lute recording that does the same--a "goto" disk.
For which music of which period ? We already have quite a few in fact, don't we
?
>
>But let's be practical--you are suggesting that
>Monteclair is not on point because he is later,
>but is his description true and accurate for most 17th century music?
I honestly don't think so if you consider the first part of the 17th century.
>NB: it is the practice that we are interested in,
>and here I think, quite simply, that our modern
>practice plays the appogiatura backwards.
>I don't think anyone will admit to it, but it
>does create the opportunity to rerecord,
>reperform these ornaments in line with what many
>singers, keyboard players, winds players are now doing.
here again I recommend the book by David Ledbetter "Harpsichord and Lute Music
in Seventeenth Century France", Indiana University Press, 1987...because it's
in English ans readily available to all. I have no commision on it whatsoever,
promised ;-)
>A big opportunity.
>
>dt
Bien amicalement,
Jean-Marie Poirier
jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr
http://poirierjm.free.fr
29-01-2009
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
