Stephan makes a very good point, alluding to the fact that plucking strings with the fingers is a very 'human' function. I don't think players who lived 500 years ago cared about whether the mechanics of their playing style was going to satisfy 21st-century ideas that ultimately have more to do with reading rhythms from notation on a page than with making good music. Here's an proposal: How about rolling when it's appropriate and not rolling when it's not? RA > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:55:46 +0100 > To: [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Rolled chords > > What hasn't been mentioned so far is the fact that people use rolling because it is simpler to get all notes evenly strong and to hear or discriminate them better, which seems to be the reason why it is used even in polyphonic pieces. But I'm sure there were enough teachers in the Renaissance who told their students constantly " Don't arpeggiate every chord, PLEASE!" > > Regards > Stephan > > > > Am 30.11.2012, 06:16 Uhr, schrieb David Tayler <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > I would frame the question like this: > > "Where did the idea of simultaneous plucking originate from? Is it a > > purely modern concept, or is there some historical basis?" > > Let's answer that question first. After all, if it is a modern idea, we > > need go no further. If it is drawn from a streamlined, modern > > aesthetic, let's figure that out. > > For my own "rolled" evidence I list the treatises, dictionaries, the > > iconography, and all the surviving instruments, as well as the quill > > strokes and the specific instructions in the lute tutors which actually > > say how to pluck the strings. Add on pieces of music that notate > > "ruffled" rhythms, and of course there are hundreds of these. > > If you can provide me with a specific definition for evidence, I can > > try to provide it, but I feel that the evidence should be interpreted, > > not defined. To merely state that the evidence doesn't exist, or > > redefine it as "non-evidence" is tough--that means we have to throw out > > all iconography, treatises, dictionaries, original music and so on. We > > can't just use them in certain situations--they are either in or out. I > > hope you aren't suggesting that they are out, but let's make it clear > > what counts as evidence.
-- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
