[LUTE] Re: Rolled chords

[Martyn Hodgson]

   Indeed, I had thought this position was pretty much generally accepted
   - the only issue being where to strike chords simultaneously and where
   to roll.

   I gathered there was a view that there was excessive rolling by some
   modern players (on almost every chord - making it easier for them to
   articulate each note equally) which disrupted the musical line and ran
   counter to the musical rhetoric.

   MH
   --- On Fri, 30/11/12, Ron Andrico <praelu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

     From: Ron Andrico <praelu...@hotmail.com>
     Subject: [LUTE] Re: Rolled chords
     To: stephan.olbe...@web.de, "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
     <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
     Date: Friday, 30 November, 2012, 12:26

      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: [1]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
      > From: [2]stephan.olbe...@web.de
      > 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
      <[3]vidan...@sbcglobal.net>:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > 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
   [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   2. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stephan.olbe...@web.de
   3. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vidan...@sbcglobal.net
   4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html