Ah, amplification...
I remember that David T and others made some recommendations a couple
of years ago about contact mikes suitable for lutes. Any fresh
updates?
I fear my lute and saxophone combo won't ever get started without a
little electronic help.
Peter
On 19 October 2010 09:44, Stewart McCoy <[1][email protected]> wrote:
Dear Howard,
I think you are right to say that it is the overall sound which
counts
with an ensemble. When choosing voices for a choir, a conductor may
choose not to invite a soloist with a strong, distinct voice,
because it
will stick out like a sore thumb. So it is with instruments. There
has
to be a balance, and it is up to the conductor (if there is one) to
get
it right.
One of the strengths of the theorbo is that it enhances the other
instruments of the group, as a catalyst may do in a mixing of
chemicals.
For example, it covers up mechanical clatter from a harpsichord,
reinforcing the bass, and letting the audience hear the sweet,
silvery
tones of the harpsichord's treble notes. It is often the case that
people in the audience do not recognise the sound of the theorbo in
a
group, because they are unfamiliar with it, but they would notice
the
difference if it wasn't there.
There are times when a conductor may want the audience to hear the
theorbo clearly, in which case he asks players of other continuo
instruments to sit out.
I sympathise with Chris's frustration at playing an instrument which
cannot be heard, or at least cannot easily be distinguished. That is
one
reason why I gave up playing the double bass in orchestras years ago
-
why bother turning up, if there are five other bass players playing
the
same notes? The trouble is, if everyone thought that, there would be
no
orchestra.
However, there are circumstances (playing background music while
people
talk, playing outside in the open air or in too big a room, playing
alongside six trombones in a large, modern orchestra) when plucked
instruments, particularly lutes, simply cannot be heard at all, and
it
is futile trying to thrash the instrument into audibility. If that
is
the case, there is little point playing without amplification. It is
sad
if one is reduced to contributing only to the visual aspect of a
performance, merely for the sake of the cheque afterwards.
Best wishes,
Stewart McCoy.
-----Original Message-----
From: [2][email protected]
[mailto:[3][email protected]] On
Behalf Of howard posner
Sent: 19 October 2010 05:15
To: Lute List
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute volume
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Christopher Wilke wrote:
> Howard,
Huh? Wait, that's me!
> Alright, so next time I'll should ask people if they did not
hear me
as a discrete component, but rather as a subconsciously perceivable
part
of the composite tonal aggregate?
Subconscious, no; part of the tonal aggregate, yes. There's no
reason
to think the concept was any stranger in 1700 than it was in 1850 or
is
now. Lots of instruments have the job of combining with other
instruments to form a homogenized sound. Listen to a Schumann
symphony
for an extreme example in its time.
BTW, if the violinist sharing the stand with the concertmaster at
your
concert had asked someone in the audience "Could you hear me?" the
answer would have been, "Never. I couldn't distinguish your sound
from
the other first violinists'". The same is true of the organist in
most
ensembles, including rock bands, or the rhythm guitarist in a jazz
big
band (or lots of rock bands, for that matter). The issue in these
cases
is not whether you can hear the instrument, but how much better the
group sounds with it than without it. 35 years ago Rick Kemp, then
the
Steeleye Span bass player, told me how fascinated he was watching
Neil
Young's bass player staring at the drummer's foot so he'd play
together
with the bass drum, making one percussive bass instrument. "I don't
know whether it's good or bad," Kemp said.
> Frankly, I'm not a believer in this way of thinking for baroque
music.
There's no evidence that baroque composers thought of blending tone
colors into "new sonorities" or Klangfarbenmelodie in the manner of
Ravel or Schoenberg.
But as you point out in your very next sentence, they very
conventionally blended tone colors into familiar combinations of
sonorities.
> Yes, bassoons double cellos and basses and oboes and violins
play
the same line in tuttis, but his rather goes to show how little
regard
baroque composers had for the actual colors of the instruments:
I'd be inclined to disagree with this characterization of their
regard,
but since it pretty much proves my point, there's a limit to how
hard
I'll protest. In his operas, Handel typically expected one treble
sound
composed of oboe/violin, and a bass sound composed of
cello/bassoon/harpsichord/theorbo/violone. He was obviously
unconcerned
with whether the bassoons were heard as bassoons: he just wanted a
good,
strong sound.
> "If the part fits your register, play it for all I care."
I'd be inclined to disagree with this characterization even more
than I
was inclined to agree with the characterization above (with which
was I
inclined to disagree, as noted above in the sentence that started
"I'd
be inclined to disagree...") but since it pretty much proves etc.
...
> If Bach didn't have an oboist on a particular day for an obligato
part, he had no qualms about re-writing it for traverso or violin,
transposing if needed.
I know of no instance in which Bach is known to have rewritten a
part
because someone wasn't available on a particular day. Do you?
> How many times must this sort of thing have happened on the fly,
with
nothing being written down?
Twelve. Thirteen, if you include that time in Frankfurt in 1752.
Not a
lot, really...
> ("We've got a great virtuoso guest chalumeau player with us today,
Herr Bach." "Well, I ain't got nothin' fer chalumeau, but tell him
to
take the traverso obligato on the third aria.") I don't think Handel
or
Telemann or either one of the Grauns ever thought, "This harpsichord
is
doing the job fine on its own, but it is a little thin sounding.
Let's
get a theorbo in here to warm it up, stat!
They didn't have to think about it. They assumed the theorbo and
harpsichord were both available, for the same reason they assumed
the
violins and oboes were both available: because they were available.
> And tell the guy, even though it really goes without saying, that
although the theorbo player CAN play to be heard, he needs to be a
part
of the musical texture without actually being noticed as a discrete
sound.
This is a very theorbocentric view of the whole matter. It's more
accurate to say that how the audience hears the theorbo, as such, is
less important to the director (who needs to worry about the overall
sound and overall balance) than it is to the theorbo player. If the
continuo sounds good and supports the singers, the director may not
care
at all if anyone can make out the theorbo separately. And in a lot
of
venues where the acoustics are imperfect, the subtlety of different
continuo colors might be an unaffordable luxury.
It could be that your directors are bozos who don't know what
theorbos
are for. It could also be that they have a much better notion of
how
things sound than the theorbo player in the middle of the mix does.
But
worrying about the theorbo player's desire to be heard isn't in
their
job description.
To get on or off this list see list information at
[4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
Peter Martin
24 The Mount St Georges
Second Avenue
Newcastle under Lyme
ST5 8RB
tel: 0044 (0)1782 662089
mob: 0044 (0)7971 232614
[5][email protected]
--
References
1. mailto:[email protected]
2. mailto:[email protected]
3. mailto:[email protected]
4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
5. mailto:[email protected]
