On what points do you not agree with Mr. Haynes?
He doesn't say that people play worse, but that they they play safer and in
a more uniform style, since the rise of recordings. This is a general
classical music thing and not about lute playing in particular.
If that is the case then this change in style could have a huge impact on
the way that we think about performing pre-20th century music.
As to if what we are doing is modern or new, I think that is mere wordplay,
ask someone outside our little world and they will probably burst out into
laughter at the mere question :) I do not know of any HIP performer who has
ever claimed to be able to perfectly reconstruct a period style or be
completely authentic...
Wait.... one person is claiming that (name removed to avoid flame war) his
latest promo text....
"XXX treats the lute as the real forerunner to the modern guitar, playing
with a style at once completely authentic and thoroughly revolutionary.
Newly signed to XXXX Records in London, he will record his first album this
year, and it will be released in 2008"
So maybe we are all wrong, it is possible to be "completely authentic"....
I just wanted to recommend a good book, I think it is worth a read.
Anyway I am off to watch the latest episode of Battlestar Gallactica, now
that is new and modern.......
All the best
Mark
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: David Tayler [mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009 10:04
An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu
Betreff: [LUTE] Re: French trill?
I don't agree with Mr Haynes, but it doesn't
matter, I use primary sources. Why use a secondary source?
As for recording changing the way people play,
that simply can't be true, because the players
are getting better--if they were just learning
three notes at a time to squeeze through a
recording, they would be getting worse.
Even the youtube videos are getting better in the
short amount of time they have been around.
Of course there will always be players like that
use a thousand edits, and have been so for nearly
thirty years, and there are more of them, alas,
in the lute world, but the best players are much better than those players.
And we are really talking about a reasonably small number.
As long as we have live concerts, there is a big reality check.
dt
At 12:42 AM 2/3/2009, you wrote:
>The question is what do you mean by "old fashioned"?
>I am sure that most mainstream classical players would see their playing as
>old fashioned in a sense, going back to Beethoven maybe in spirit back to
>Bach, but as Haynes points out probably the biggest change in the classical
>musical playing style came with the advent of recording. It is not HIP vs.
>romantic performance, romantic players probably played closer to what HIP
>players would condone, the big change came with the rise of recording.
>
>Personally I don't see much point in your one note out of context, but in
>the classical recording world it probably fits, as most recordings are
>edited together from thousands of takes.
>
>As far as deconstruction goes, I think we can learn a lot from it.
>I read yesterday in "Deconstructions - A User's Guide by Nicholas Royle",
>something that is food for thought - "We must remain open to the scrutiny
of
>the improper". There are things in Bruce Haynes book that I am sure will be
>uncomfortable for some people in the early music world, they may even think
>them improper, such as the subtitles - "mainstream style - chops, but no
>soul" or "HIP is anti-classical". But his book does that what
deconstruction
>also aims to do "A strategy of critical analysis of language and texts
which
>emphasizes features exposing unquestioned assumptions and inconsistencies"
>(The new Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).
>
>At the start of the 21st century, I find words such as "modern" or "old
>fashioned" almost meaningless. Often what is termed modern is just what a
>small number of people would like to be seen as important in the world they
>live in. A small percentage of the world is interested in "high culture"
and
>it often sounds so funny to hear music that was written 50 years ago and
has
>a very small audience be described as "Modern" or "Neue Musik". Also I am
>sure that a large percentage of the classical audience see what they
support
>in "mainstream classical music" as part of a tradition that goes back
>through time, but we know that only 100 years ago, music making in
>orchestras was very different.
>
>Modern or old fashioned are often used as quality standards or moral
>positions, something that is one of the main criticisms of HIP.
>But HIP is just as Haynes says is a "statement of intent" and not a claim
to
>be modern or upholding the thousand year tradition of the prophets.
>
>All the best
>Mark
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: David Tayler [mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009 07:20
>An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu
>Betreff: [LUTE] Re: French trill?
>
>I'm old fashioned, I guess; I think the old ways are better.
>I've no objection to musical freedom, I just advocate "try then decide".
>I also think one learns more form one note of a great player than a
>whole book of deconstructionist.
>dt
>
>At 04:40 AM 2/2/2009, you wrote:
> >As you might expect - I advocate the same thing as Haynes, sans
> >balking. I'd rather deal with the last Tuesday's trills, than
> >anything by, say, Matteis.
> >RT
> >
> >
> >
> >From: "David Rastall" <dlu...@verizon.net>
> >>On Feb 1, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Mark Wheeler wrote:
> >>
> >>>You should check out Bruce Haynes book "The end of early music"
> >>
> >>I couldn't agree more. It's a very good read. Although Haynes is a
> >>strong advocate for the writing of "new" music in the Baroque style,
> >>which makes me balk a little bit. I'd rather go to original 17th- or
> >>18th-Century sources than try to deal with French trills in something
> >>written last Tuesday.
> >>
> >>DR
> >>dlu...@verizon.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>To get on or off this list see list information at
> >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
> >
