Right on, Tom! I've made this same point myself in earlier posts. Ned On Jul 2, 2011, at 1:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Something that has had me perplexed for some time: > "Historical" sound on recordings. > It seems to me that most available recordings of lute music, > historical or not, are very heavy on reverberation. It has been > an old ploy in the recording industry for decades - take any recording, > add reverb to it, and viola! It sounds magically better to our modern ears. > Human hearing is geared to the presence of ambient reverberation in > space, but I feel that on most lute recordings - indeed in most "early > music" recordings, it tends to be overdone. Some time ago on this very > list I remember reading an email that said something like "Use this kind > of microphone, add 'church', and you're there." Yes, lutes were certainly > played in churches, but I think the majority of lute music, at least in the > Renaissance, would have been played in small warm spaces in the average > middle-class home. Nevertheless, the majority of lute recordings that I > have listened to have the "cavernous stone church" reverberation setting. > Totally "dry" (i.e. NO reverb) would be just as bad. But I'd like to hear > some recordings of good HIP lute playing without all that echo, but with a > reverb that would conjure up a small, intimate listening environment. > Tom > Tom Draughon > Heartistry Music > http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html > 714 9th Avenue West > Ashland, WI 54806 > 715-682-9362 > >>>>> 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 > > > Tom Draughon > Heartistry Music > http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html > 714 9th Avenue West > Ashland, WI 54806 > 715-682-9362 > >
