> >> Art is a personal expression of universal value, > > > > That concept of the arts has developed in Western Europe in the wake > > of political emancipation during the 18th-19th centuries. Before that > > era, artists would usually not consider themselves autonomous so as to > > make use of their art in order to express themselves. Most lute music > > dates from times older than that. > > Point taken. But without the high-blown words I think it's fair to say that much > lute music is still very personal. Perhaps in older times more expressions of > craftsmanship than art, but still, personall expressions.
Sorry to blow high, but, hm . there is such a thing like personal style to compositions by, say, Handel, Emond or Vieux Gallot, to name a few. I'd like to consider them their distinguishing marks. You will recognize some of Handel's music by his pet final formula, some of Emond's allemandes by his particular shifted rhythms, and some of Vieux Gallot's pieces by his use of upper positions on the fret board. You could call that their unique selling propositions, if you will. But I'd have difficulties in taking these features as personal. Music as a way of personal expression is a notion that didn't develop until the 19th century. Music to _raise_ fear, joy, anger, sadness, tranquility etc. has been composed since the invention of monody. But not music that expresses fear, joy, anger, sadness, tranquility etc. of its composer (like e. g. van Beethoven's Pleasant Emotions at the Arrival in the Woods, 6th Symphony, 2nd movement). Everybody must choose their ways of performing for an audience present (even if it's no more than yourself). But taking pieces of lute music as expressing personal emotions of their composers IMO is a case of intentional fallacy, more often than not. -- I for one would base the interpretation on settings that the music probably was performed in (like royal festivities with dances, civic parties etc.) rather than on possible personal expressions of the composers. > >> I believe that for a player it helps to understand the coding to play > >> the music more convincingly. > > > > A pivotal point IMO: Convincingly for whom? > > For me, remember: lute playing is just for me, that was the whole point of doing > pointless things. Sorry I misunderstood. So, if it's only myself I have to convince ... -- what's the difference? Finding something convincing or plausible, presupposes other people's opinions in my mind (teachers, writers, performers). If I don't have a clue, how can I be convincing even to myself? I even imagine that if I were a prof performer, I'd have in mind a generic audience as well. > I do know. But I might not be what they expect a real minstrel to be anyway. I > don't (usually) sing to my lute playing either, nor do I wear a feather in my cap. ;) Oh, yes, the feather, an important accessory. Well, you and me and some others know that it isn't really important in itself, do we. But we also know that we're sometimes expected to wear it. And if we don't, it's still there as a minus on the list. Coloured feather standing for artistic expression, rubato, some dynamics etc. Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
