Oh dear, I suddenly realized, maybe in ye oulde times they were painted into the paintings. Perhaps fraude is a thing of the past too!
Lex Op 6 feb 2012, om 09:40 heeft William Samson het volgende geschreven: > Makes me wonder if all these harps, vielles, symphonies, gitterns, > citoles, lutes, nakers and sundrie wind instruments weren't > photoshopped into the paintings in recent times by early instrument > manufacturers? > > Bill > > [Is this how conspiracy theories start?] > From: John Lenti <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected] Net" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, 6 February 2012, 8:08 > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes > The way it's described here, it sounds like a vast conspiracy to > discredit instrumental medieval music. If so, let's be thankful it > was > one perpetrated by tweedy music critics for a very serious magazine > with a limited readership, which I suppose is why Sequentia, the > Boston > Camerata, Ensemble PAN, Ensemble Alcatraz, the Dufay Collective, > Ensemble Unicorn and many, many others have since done wonderful, if > sometimes a little weird, work and instrumental students at early > music > programs still spend at least a semester hawanging on musty old > hurdy-gurdies, vielles and gothic harps, struggling through Ars > Subtilior music while their singer friends mispronounce old French or > fail to get the rhythms of Landini ballate. To think it might all > have > been brought to nought, but thank goodness we mostly rely on critics > for nice quotes to put in our press packets, grouse a little bit when > they savage us, and otherwise view most of them as grumpy eunuchs. > Regarding the ethics of music criticism, I'd be interested to see if > we > could have a bit more conflict of interest and get more serious > musicians, hopefully better writers than I, to write criticism, and > if > it would make the field more vibrant. Nobody faults Schumann or > Berlioz, two of the most readable critics of the nineteenth century, > for their conflicts of interest, do they? Schumann had it right about > Chopin and Brahms, huh? >> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:35:21 -0800 >> To: [1][email protected] >> From: [2][email protected] >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes >> >> >> On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Ron Andrico wrote: >> >>> While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little > incensed >>> that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial > recordings >>> with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics? >> >> Would you be incensed by a reviewer who panned Herbert von > Karajan's > recordings of Bach because the critic's "one point of view" was that > Bach should be played with attention to historical performance > practice? Or a reviewer who admitted that in the 1970's he had > deliberately conveyed the message to buy the period-instrument > recordings of Bach's cantatas by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt and "leave > the rest" (modern-instrument performances by Richter and Rilling and > whoever)? >> >> Or, closer to home on this list, is it wrong for a critic to opine > that lute recordings on instruments built like modern guitars are not > the ones to buy? >> >> Critics are paid to convey information and make judgments. If a > critic writing for a publication about early music has reached a > conclusion that voices-only performance is "correct," and that any > instruments make it as wrong as Karajan's Brandenburgs, it isn't > unethical for that viewpoint to inform his writing--indeed, how could > he possibly put it aside and pretend he didn't think the performances > with instruments are historically wrong (just as you might conclude, > if > the instruments were saxophones)? You might find his viewpoint wrong > or > overly limited, and maybe you're right. But it isn't unethical for a > critic to approach his work with his own ideas. >> >> The potential ethical problems stem from the small-world nature of > the early music community, where the prominent performers and > scholars > all know each other, and cronyism, or the reverse, is always a > problem. > When I was review editor for the LSA quarterly, I told some folks > (all > of them on this list, I think) that there were ethical problems > because > they were performers writing about other performers or publishers > writing about other publishers ("competition" in common parlance), > making for inherent conflict of interest. I don't think anyone had > ever > brought it up before, and while the (soon-to-be former) reviewers > themselves seemed to understand, or at least accepted, my insistence > on > avoiding systemic conflict of interest, the responses I got from the > LSA officialdom was much the same response I would have gotten if I'd > said only Martians could write reviews for the Q. And maybe they were > right: perhaps if the community is small enough, you have to put up > with conflic! >> t of interest if you want a pool of reviewers. >> -- >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- > > -- > > References > > 1. mailto:[email protected] > 2. mailto:[email protected] > 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
