Hello Stephen, Edward and David, and everybody else, Ahh, digital edits. I work with Sound Forge on a regular basis, and the temptation is to remove all squeaks and splats, and copy/paste good notes over bad, so as to render a recording "perfect". Listen to a recording by somebody like Walther Gerwig, made before digital, and you will hear much more of a real performance. Of course, razor edits were possible, but very dangerous territory as they could not be undone. I read somewhere once that we get discouraged from playing and performing ourselves because we are constantly comparing our own playing to recordings of acknowledged masters - the top .0001% in the world. We are somehow led to believe that if we can't play like that we "ain't $#!+". It's a totally un-realistic expectation. While it's a noble goal to aspire to, we need to remember that there will always be somebody out there who can play circles around us (unless we happen to BE Paul, Nigel, Robert, or Ron). I just named 4 people. 4 people out of how many billions in the world? And these people have access to technology that can eliminate all of their fluffs and marginally played passages. So, I guess what I'm saying is that I think we shouldn't be overly hard on ourselves for the squeaks and splats that, really, are a natural part of playing a stringed instrument. They are actually a part of the overall sound. We tend to forgive them in performance and forget them quickly. On recordings they live forever, so that's why the pros do 2000 edits. One of the down-sides of modern recordings is that we are inadvertently led to feel that we should give it up and let the pros do it. But, think about people who played lutes in, say, 1630. They were mostly ordinary folks playing in their parlours for enjoyment. They had no CD players, etc. It was the only way to have music unless you were fabulously wealthy. And, while there may have been a high standard amongst performers and teachers of the time, most of that music was probably fraught with squeaks, splats, and worse. So, Stephen, take heart. There will always be a virtuoso that can make us look and feel puny (I feel like hanging up my guitar every time I see John Renbourn play), but we can still make a lot of beautiful sounds for our own enjoyment, and probably for the enjoyment of others as well. Tom
Tom Draughon Heartistry Music http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html 714 9th Avenue West Ashland, WI 54806 715-682-9362 > Hi Stephen, > > My ability to get through a lute piece without mistakes or "twangs, > splats, and squeaks" may be similar to yours. Very occasionally I do > question myself about the sense of continuing an uphill struggle, but > mostly not. As long as I sense any progress at all - and that may > not be daily, but rather like a plateau learning process where a week > can go by with no noticeable improvement and then suddenly you notice > that a passage in a piece that didn't come out before now does - I'm > encouraged to continue. And, beyond that, as with many endeavors, > there is satisfaction in the process - in the discipline involved. To > face a challenge and deal with it on a regular basis is reward in > itself. So I say, be not discouraged. Keep practicing - keep > playing! > > Best, Ned > On Nov 7, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Stephen Arndt wrote: > > > Dear David, > > > > I had a very mixed reaction to your post. I am in no way a > > professional musician, though I consider myself a serious, if not a > > very accomplished, amateur (at least in the etymological sense of > > the word). Often times I have listened to lute recordings and > > thought, "I might as well just quit. I'll never play like that." I > > can get through any given piece without an actual mistake (i.e., > > playing a wrong note) only one time in a hundred perhaps and never > > without "twangs, splats, and squeaks." So, I was consoled to learn > > that even professional musicians may have up to 2,200 edits per CD. > > Perhaps if I could edit myself "every 2 seconds," I wouldn't sound > > so bad after all. It could well be that commercial CDs set > > artificially and therefore unrealistically high standards of > > performance. On the other hand, your most recent video (I think), > > "It's a Wonder to See," has absolutely no "twangs, splats, and > > squeaks" or any other imperfections that could be edited out, so I > > am back to thin! > king, "I might as well just quit. I'll never play like that." > > > > I am not addressing myself now to the Paul O'Dettes, Nigel Norths, > > or Robert Bartos among us (or even to the highly accomplished Daniel > > Shoskes or Valéry Sauvages among us), but just to the average lute > > player, whoever you may be. Do you have similar thoughts and > > feelings? Do you alternate between "I love this more than anything" > > and "I'll never be any good at this"? Maybe we should form a support > > group. Please let me hear from you. > > > > Stephen Arndt > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "David Tayler" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 2:55 PM > > To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[email protected]> > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: OT: Baroque Guitar technique > > > >> Live music is great! > >> A typical classical music CD has 800 edits, a typical solo CD, such > >> as guitar, lute, harpsichord, etc, varies, but the high and low > >> numbers for the albums I hvae worked range from 450-2200 Now 2200 > >> edits is a a very large number, that's 2200 twangs splats and > >> squeeks that have been removed. Basically, a correction has been > >> applied every 2 seconds. So, live music is better. By going to a > >> real concert, you hear something that is real, and support > >> musicians directly. > >> > >> > >> > >> To get on or off this list see list information at > >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > Tom Draughon Heartistry Music http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html 714 9th Avenue West Ashland, WI 54806 715-682-9362
