On 01/11/2011 17:30, Ron Andrico wrote: Stuart: While the choices and execution by (notice I didn't use the ambiguous 'of') a modern folk player might be different, I'm fairly certain that the process is conceptually the same. We have to assume that musicians in the 16th century were skilled enough to reduce the written music to its functional form and invent an arrangement.
Of course! I was wondering what they (in ordinary, humble, everyday performances) might actually have done. This is a pet peeve of mine: I don't think we can strip away the basic musicianship of historical players simply because of what was not written down. I never fail to point out that playing continuo is a laughably basic musical skill that any Nashville guitar player could do well without even trying. That's because Nashville guitarists get work based on their knowledge of how to respond tastefully to whatever - and do it right on the spot. I'm sure Nashville professionals are very good but would they be able to 'tastefully respond' to a complex line of Bach? Surely they get paid for responding to the kind of music that they get asked to play - a reasonably broad range of American popular music. If the guitarist for a performance of 'Le Marteau Sans Maitre' (Boulez) fell ill, I can't really envisage a Nashville guitarist tastefully vamping along. Though, I do remember a TV series on improvisation by the late Derek Bailey (the completely 'free' improvisor who never actually sounded notes on the guitar, only extracted sounds) and he was talking to some Nashville musicians who then played and the bass player, remaining within the popular tune that was being played, made all sorts of funny and ridiculous sounds too. It was a very clever send-up. I once had a conversation with a well-known but unnamed organist who lives in a particular but unnamed city. He told me he received a frantic call from the musicians union to accompany a popular touring vocal group for a performance because their pianist was suddenly taken ill. He was given the charts for their rep and all he saw were lyrics and chord symbols. He said he had to decline the job because that wasn't enough information, and he at least needed a bass line and figures. Real musicians don't need bass lines and figures, and compose their own bass lines with very nice accompaniments on the spot. That just takes music out of the hands of virtually everybody but a tiny handful of 'pros'. A rather dismal thought? What are you saying to all of us on this list? Why should a 'real' musician be able to play absolutely anything and on the spot? Do any exist? Anyway, the process of analyzing a piece, especially a dance piece, reveals the important points of rhythm and pulse, and one can create a nice accompaniment by finding the strong pulses, not over-harmonizing, and applying tasteful movement. I will add again that books like Chardavoine's Recueil de chansons en forme de voix de ville (1576) only needed to print the melodies because musicians knew how to harmonize them. Same thing with Playford's Dancing Master. It's the same thing as playing from a modern fake book. I don't get it. Why not over-harmonize if you want to? Berio's Folk songs. Vaughan Williams. Bartok etc. Can there be an over-arching concept of 'taste', anyway? In one of Peter Seeger's books he says not to use a maj6 because it's like too much fat in the gravy. How dreary. Are you wanting to mystify 'real' music? Stuart RA > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 09:22:31 +0000 > To: [1][email protected] > CC: [2][email protected] > From: [3][email protected] > Subject: [LUTE] Re: strumming Gervaise > > But that would be what a modern folk player might do, and I wonder what a chordal instrument player might have done then. > > > Stuart -- References 1. mailto:[email protected] 2. mailto:[email protected] 3. mailto:[email protected] To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
