Benny, David:
I have to say the repeat is very important in terms of the
architectural proportion of the piece. It's a pavan, and I think too
many people miss the intent of the essential 'winding-down' effect in
the third section of pavans.
The first time we attempted to record 'Flow my tears' we had an
interesting artifact in the second half of the middle section.
Directly on the tail of the word, 'pain' I had a wound string squeak
incident that added a 'k' sound to the word resulting in what sounds
like 'pink' in the resonant natural acoustic. I now do it on purpose
whenever we do the song just to keep Donna on her toes.
Best wishes,
Ron Andrico
> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:24:50 -0700
> To: [email protected]
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Flow my tears
>
> An interesting question and one that can be answered in a number of
> different ways.
>
> Basically, your answer is "as you please". Any other answer will have
> problems, since in this time period repeats were basically optional.
> Morley's comment about ficta here is on point, where the right of the
> performer trumps the composer even as far as the notes.
>
> Now, if you want to try to determine the composer's intent, there
> basically is no way, since there are so many versions and sources.
> Maybe someone has the green light from the boss, maybe not.
> Obviously there is only one verse for the third section, but you
> could write another verse.
>
> What would I do? Take the repeat and then you have patch material for
> the recording if a dog barks on "hark"
>
> dt
>
> At 05:00 PM 4/29/2011, you wrote:
> >Hi, everyone! I may be taking my life in my hands (in the sense of
> >inviting a deluge of emails), but what the heck. What are people's
> >opinions regarding a repeat in performance of the third section of
> >Dowland's "Flow My Tears"; yes, no, and why?
> >
> >
> >
> >To get on or off this list see list information at
> >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
--
