G.'s post brings to mind my experience playing string quartets with friends (cello is my main instrument). As amateurs, we successfully, though hardly perfectly, convey the music of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. But when we play Boccherini, we utterly fail to convey this music. Why? It's a different language foreign to our schooled 'classical/romantic' language. We would need to go back to school to learn this baroque language. So too, I believe, with the lute. If one simply wants to play the renaissance or baroque literature, fine. But if one wants to play it convincingly, knowledge of the language is essential. And along with that, knowledge of the techniques suitable for articulating this language. So, I think ones commitment to researching HIP is going to be dependent upon his/her desire to convincingly convey any music from a period not already covered in his/her musical education. -Ned On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:45 PM, G. Crona wrote:
> Hi people > > This whole discussion begins to approach the (almost ZEN) question of: "What > is the "pure" lute sound?" > > And: "What did the lute sound like yesteryear?" > > As for myself, I have to say that I admire the quest for finding the > "perfect" lute sound of the ancients. Those persuing it today are the present > sound scientists. The creme-de-la-creme of exquisite sound epicurees, who > wish to replicate the old sound of the "LUTE". All kudos to you, and I admire > your work, effort and almost religious dedication to the "cause". (At the > same time, I wonder how many you actually are :) > > As a lover of multiple plucked string instruments, I have to wonder though, > if this is a quest that will ever be achievable. After all, the human ear > endears itself to all kinds of sounds. > > Look at how a lute will sound in different environments. Out in the open > nature (bird song and all), or confined within larger or smaller spaces (warm > tapestried wooden rooms versus cathedrals). The sound will vary immensely. > The stringing may vary, the construction of the lute may vary, etc. etc. > > This means that there are a quantum of factors that will affect the final > sound of any lute (or plucked instrument) in a different setting. > > So should we persue this quest for the "perfect" lute sound, and can we? > > IMO Yes! By all means, if you are so inclined. But more important is to make > the music come alive. In that respect, I don't believe the actual "sound" is > paramount, but the quality of the "music". The musicianship. (And I'm > extremely ambiguous about the 1001 editings to CD's to make them "perfect > sounding" cf. Glenn Gould). Perhaps CD's should have a "live" label, or > specify that they've been variously edited. (If only for honesty). But let's > face it, surely, any CD or album, has since time immemorial been edited and > most mistakes weeded out. (I have a live recording I consentingly made of > Paul'O at a concert in 1985 though, and the faults are impressively minimal! > And the musicianship optimal already then!) > > A piece may sound wonderful (and touch the listener) on any instrument or in > any combination of instruments. But, there must also be a reason to why f.ex. > guitarists wish to alter the sound of their playing so much with all kinds of > wave manipulation and distortion. (There must be 1001 or more ways to alter > the sound of any note on a guitar string with the help of todays > electronics), (I know, I know, another point for the fundamentalists...) > > But as I see it, human ears just love diversity. A piece by f. ex. Bach or > Weiss, played on multiple instruments or if plucked on: an authentic gut > strung 13 course German baroque lute, a harp, an 11-14 string alto guitar, a > lautenwerck etc. may be equally moving as well as equally JUSTIFIED. > > I for one, greatly admire the fundamentalists, but also heartily applaud the > innovating "modernists" (for need of a better word). > > If this rambling sounds self-evident, its because it is. I just had to put it > down... > > TXS and Best > > G. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Mast" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:22 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: What's the point to 'historical sound' > > >> Good points, Tom. I recently listened to (on FM radio) a Spanish lute piece >> played by Hopkinson Smith. Had I not been familiar with the instrument, I >> would have guessed that it was about the size of a grand piano. I can >> understand recording engineers wanting to 'enhance' a sound that to their >> ears may appear too 'small', but I would hope that players would have some >> say in the ultimate sound of the recording. Very positive examples of >> players having input into the recorded sound are the recordings done by Ron >> Andrico and Donna Stewart. >> -Ned >> On Jul 11, 2011, at 4:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Playing in churches or stone-built castles is fine, and I can see >>> why people like the reverberative acoustics. Lots of different kinds >>> of music sound very good in these spaces. >>> BUT - are we talking about HIP Renaissance lute, Baroque lute, or >>> Medeival music? Stone-built castles were largely a medieval thing, >>> and the residents heavily draped walls, etc. with tapestries and the >>> like to make the spaces warmer and more habitable. This would have >>> deadened the acoustics of those spaces. When we go to a place like >>> Warkworth we're not seeing the space as it was when it was lived in, >>> but a mere skeleton of that. >>> If we look at Jan Vermeer's "A lady at the virginals with a gentleman (`The >>> Music Lesson´)" >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Vermeer_van_Delft_014.jpg >>> we see a typical upper middle class room environment from the mid 1660s. >>> I think a lot of lute music was heard in spaces like this. >>> Note the heavily draped table. The smaller dimensions of the room, >>> the beamed ceiling, plus the addition of furniture, paintings on the walls, >>> drapery, and even the way the walls were constructed (not stone), would >>> all have contributed to moderating the reverberation (echo) in the room, >>> with the end result being much less reverb than a church or castle. >>> Hence the point of my earlier comment: I'd like to hear some HIP recordings >>> done in a less-echoy, warmer setting ; ) >>> Tom >>>> Mathias wrote... >>>> Don't know why so many of us like to play in churches, but I for >>>> one won't hesitate to accept speakers if I'm offered. >>>> For my 2 pence, I suggest that the acoustics are better (more >>>> authentic) in a stone built church being the closest resemblance of >>>> castles and the homes of nobility. Churches fulfill this role, >>>> with the bonus of seating for an audience. Almost every town and >>>> village in the UK has one, so venues are common enough to set up >>>> for a recital. Castles are fewer and far between and, historic >>>> houses may not always be so accommodating for a recital with seated >>>> audience. >>>> >>>> >>>> Why historic sound? >>>> >>>> >>>> This is what every listener who enjoys the lute or simply wants to >>>> experience, comes to expect. If we `evolve' from this, as other >>>> more modern instruments seem to be doing, it will become `lost' >>>> again. >>>> >>>> >>>> Will some future generation research and try to recreate the >>>> `historic sound' as much as we have been trying to do, if we move >>>> on from tradition? >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> >>>> >>>> Ron (UK) > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
