Dear David,
Again, no one has said that the standard of baroque playing has not
improved. The discussion is merely about the influence that a completely new
phenomenon has had on music making in the 20th century, namely recording.
These changes may have been ingrained in classical music before period
playing became prominent.
If people have always played (more?) carefully in recordings and now they
have changed their playing style due to the possibility to edit, then we
have 2 major influences on playing in a century. I see two unquestioned
assumptions, maybe there is something to learn looking at how this has
changed the way we perform, not only during recording but also live.
But this is only one of the many interesting things that Mr. Haynes book
discusses, there is a lot more to dig your teeth in teeth in, I would still
like to know what you find so distasteful?
Have you actually read the book?
All the best
Mark
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: David Tayler [mailto:[email protected]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2009 07:56
An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu
Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
People have always played carefully in recording, now they play LESS
carefully.
That's because there is editing, when there was
no editing, people played really carefully. They were petrified.
And when they messed up, they played the whole thing over.
It was all one take, or at best one or two edits
with a pair of demagnetized scissors.
As for most pros, well, most of the pros I know
are very different people. Plenty of them take risks in playing and
recording.
In fact, I've made several where we sight read
the music in the session, with no rehearsal. Everyone was winging it.
The really good players have superb recording
engineers and producers--why stick with an engineer if they can't let you
play?
There are a lot of really talented, creative
people in the business. I'm surprised to hear
that. Not my experience with the major labels--those jobs are competitive.
Tell 'em to get a new producer, heck, I'll do it.
I would really question why someone would work with a bad producer or
engineer.
As for playing better, not just cleaner, faster, I guess that is subjective.
But if you listen to Brandenburg recordings--we
have dozens of them going back Suzanne Lautenbacher in the 50s--
The old ones are awfull. Bad sound, bad
technique, out of tune, bad ensemble. Square phrasing, dreadful continuo
Over time, they got better. We all got better.
I'm better. I sure hope everyone else is, too.
dt
At 03:00 PM 2/3/2009, you wrote:
>David,
>
>--- David Tayler <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > And I don't think people play more carefully
> > either.
>
>Most pros would disagree. I've talked to lots of big
>names who say, "I would do this or this in concert but
>never on a recording because the engineer wouldn't let
>me get by with it since there'd be some extra noise."
>
>
> > They just play better.
>
>Cleaner, faster perhaps.
>
> > I don't think
> > recordings have had a big impact on the way people
> > play live music.
>
>Its had a huge influence. At the conservatory, no
>young student compares themselves with live
>performances. Many don't ever even go to concerts
>unless they're playing in them. These kids compare
>and copy recordings. In a sense, this is
>understandable: you can listen to a recording as many
>times as you like in the car, in your dorm room, on
>your iPod walking to and from class. "I want to
>listen to that bit again - I never noticed that
>bowing... Yeah, I want to hear it again." You can
>only listen to a live performance once and you'd
>better be paying attention the whole time! You're
>only going to see your teacher once a week. Under
>these circumstances, how can recordings or even a
>single recording NOT have a huge influence? The
>natural outcome for these kids, then, is that they're
>mimicing single performances and not attempting to
>integrate a style.
>
> > I record concerts all the time--most of the
> > professionals don't listen to them and say, wow,
> > I have to be more careful. And if they do
> > listen, they say, hey I played outta tune in bar 12,
> > gotta fix that.
>
>But these two things are really the same. "I played
>outta tune in bar 12, gotta fix that"=more careful.
>Someone should be able to think to themselves, "I
>played outta tune in bar 12, but in the context of
>everything, its only a slight imperfection in an
>otherwise effective performance, the overall quality
>of which I probably won't be able to re-create if I
>try to fix that small rough edge. All things
>considered, SHOULD I fix it?" No one who wants to be
>taken seriously even has this as an option.
>
> > The competition is higher, and will get higher
> > still. The winds players I work with set an
> > awesome standard, whether it is trumpet,
> > recorder, oboe or whatever.
>
>That's great. Technical proficiency is a laudable
>goal. The danger comes in when it becomes the
>standard for what constitutes a "good" musicians.
>I've heard way too many recordings (and live
>performances!) lately that are super clean and
>technically impressive - but so what? That's boring
>if there's no imagination behind it. Imagination is a
>difficult thing to hold on to if you're practicing
>scales and exercises all day because when you finally
>pick up a piece of music, all you see in front of you
>is a page of mixed up scales and exercises. It takes
>a cool head to sort it all out and most people don't
>have it.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>We didn't have
> > players like that in the 60s and 70s, I guarantee
> > you.
> > And they aren't overly careful, or safer, or
> > uniform, they're just darn good. And they have
> > artistic integrity of the highest professional
> > standard.
> >
> > dt
> >
> >
> >
> > >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:[email protected]]
> > >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:[email protected]]
> > > >Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009 07:20
> > > >An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
