Hello Stewart & All:
Since I initiated this discussion, I thought I might step into it,
figuratively, on this point. I have managed to remain silent while the
thread somehow became a tangled mess over the issue of comparing the
experience of performing on lute to performing on classical guitar
(like clavichord is to Steinway grand), and establishing the worth of a
lute concert based on the unformed opinions of guitar students (like
asking your two-year-old which is better, Michelangelo or Peter Max).
The thread predictably veered toward theorbo in baroque ensemble, a
pertinent discussion. But my initial point was to do with sharing the
relatively quiet experience of a lute (and voice) concert featuring
subtle music from the 16th century or earlier. It's not about getting
all New Age and mystical, it's about plugging into an aesthetic of
quiet and nuance, and attempting to convey that to an audience. It's
the reason I play old music.
Having played all kinds of music professionally for far too long, I
understand the 'nuts and bolts' attitude of just playing the gig. I
save that approach for the other kinds of music. For that reason, I
choose not to amplify the lute in a concert situation unless 1) I'm
getting paid lots of money, or 2) I'm getting paid lots of money. I've
got the pickup (Fishman CG soundboard transducer) and it works really
well. Aesthetically, it's just not the same, and I'd rather stay home
unless I'm getting paid lots of money.
I agree with Valery that, if you just want to be heard, there is a ton
of other music that is fun to play and doesn't take quite so much work
to learn. If you just want to show off your chops, just play a louder
instrument (see Dowland's remark about 'youngmen' who think their skill
lies only in their finger's ends). If you really love old music, slow
down and play polyphony.
Ron Andrico
www.mignarda.com
> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:59:23 +0100
> To: [email protected]
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: [LUTE] Lute volume
>
> Cher Valery,
>
> No, it's not HIP to play with amplification, but if you want people
to
> hear what you are playing, there are times when amplification has its
> uses. Better to be amplified than not heard at all.
>
> Amities,
>
> Stewart.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Sauvage Valery
> Sent: 19 October 2010 10:18
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute volume
>
> Is it an HIP position to play with amplification ? Not sure it is
> coherent
> with what was said about gut strings...
> If you want to search for the lost sound... gut strings, no amps.
Same
> conditions as yesteryears...
> No ?
> V ;-)
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De
la
> part
> de Peter Martin
> Envoye : mardi 19 octobre 2010 11:11
> A : Lute list
> Objet : [LUTE] Re: Lute volume
>
> 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]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
