Hi Ron, Interesting questions, reproduced here for clarity, my comments beneath:
1. Is superimposing a new harmonic language on a historical instrument worth the bother, when the reason most people are interested in the lute is its connection with music of the past? In historical lute music, there are already several different "harmonic languages", or at least compositional styles, though they are all what we might call "tonal" music of one kind or another. "Atonal" music may not be so suitable - see under question 2. People who play the lute typically do so because they are interested in music of the past, but people who listen may be just as interested in the lute per se, as an instrument with a particular voice. 2. Does the new harmonic language really capture and convey the special qualities of the old instrument to good advantage? This is important. With any new composition for the lute, I tend to ask, why was it written for a lute rather than any other instrument? The characteristics which make the lute so special are things like gut strings, octaves on some of the bass courses, perhaps unequal temperaments - it is therefore much more than a note-making machine which can play notes in a particular range. Not all notes sound the same. Not all lutes sound the same, in fact one of the challenges for a composer is surely to write for a specific type of lute and exploit its particular characteristics. Many years ago a composer friend wrote some very difficult and essentially atonal music for me and at the time I suppose I took the view that "modern" music had to be like that. Now I think I'm much more inclined to the view that a tuning in fourths and lots of use of open strings are characteristics which push one very much in the direction of "tonal" music, though of course that still leaves plenty of scope for innovation without having to write pastiche. 3. Does the use of an ancient instrument to produce modern sounds merely serve as a means to draw attention to the composer, whose compositional voice would otherwise be more conventional with a modern instrument, such as the guitar? I suppose composers compose in order to draw attention to themselves. If writing for a lute makes them think differently than if they were writing for the guitar, that surely is just part of the process of being inspired to write for a particular instrument, and to be welcomed. Perhaps you meant that a second-rate composer might gain more of an audience by writing for an unusual instrument - if so, it seems a pretty desperate strategy. 4. Are we subjecting the lute to the Pygmalion effect, hoping its sound will live up to what we imagine it is capable of, rather than allowing it to live comfortably in the sound world that suits it best? I'm all for comfort (e.g. don't go above the 8th fret on renaissance lute!) and I personally feel no need to try to make the lute sound like something else. I think we should accept the instruments, strings, techniques, as they are, and make music. There's plenty of scope without resorting to novelties like plucking the strings inside the pegbox (prepared lute, anyone?). Just a few thoughts - no criticism of anyone or anything intended. Best wishes, Martin On 05/05/2011 13:06, Ron Andrico wrote: To All: We have a new blog post raising a few questions about modern music on the lute - not against the idea, by the way. [1][1]http://mignarda.wordpress.com Ron & Donna -- References 1. [2]http://mignarda.wordpress.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://mignarda.wordpress.com/ 2. http://mignarda.wordpress.com/ 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
