Chris
Thank-you for taking the time to reply to my comments at length. I will
reply only briefly.
I did and still do think that the strumming was crude and was completely out
of character with the rest of the piece. In fact it distracted my attention
from the punteado variations, some of which you had improvised yourself and
which were very attractive. I listened to it twice with the music in front
of me and I know the piece quite well.
As far as the stringing was concerned it was impossible to tell what you had
chosen to do, but a high octave string does create this abrasive quality
which is why some people prefer it and which is why I thought it might be
the reason for coarseness of the strumming..
Divining the "composer's intentions" or anyone else's from the past is
certainly a risky business but I think we can form at least some idea about
what they thought was appropriate and the circumustances in which they would
have performed.
For example Murcia would (probably) never have performed in a gigantic
church to a sell out audience.
I suspect that quite a few upper class native Spaniards, not to mention
professional musicians, would have looked
down native "rustic"
performance practice rather than sought to imitate it. They are more likely
to have sanitised it.
For the rest of it I think that Martyn has said all there is to say very
clearly and
there is not much point in repeating it..
Best
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Wilke" <[email protected]>
To: "Monica Hall" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Lutelist" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 7:44 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Baroque Guitar Video
Monica,
Thank you for your thoughts. You clearly have strong ideas of how you
want this music to sound - as do I. I believe our differences are
primarily aesthetic rather than historical, however.
> Well - my two pennyworth. The piece does start off with three
strummed
> variations but I thought they sounded horribly abrasive and I would
question
> whether that is how Murcia would have played them himself.
I don't know how de Murcia may have played it himself, nor, of course
does anyone alive today. While I don't know if I would use the words
"horribly abrasive" to describe the opening chords, I was certainly
going for an emphatic, even jarring opening statement. Divining
"composer's intentions" is a very slippery occupation. I'm not even so
sure of its relevance to baroque music, where the active participation
of the performer in aspects of composition was expected.
> I couldn't tell what method of stringing was being used but if you
have a high octave > > > string on the 3rd course - well take it off
right now. There is no evidence that the baroque > guitar was ever
strung like that in the 17th and 18th centuries.
No high octave on the 3rd course. Quite the opposite: I have a low
bourdon on the 5th course because I mainly play guitar in continuo
situations when I'm not making solo noisy music. I agree with you that
there is no evidence for the high 3rd octave and I don't particularly
feel a need for it. However, if a modern player felt inspired by this
stringing, I certainly wouldn't tell him or her to remove it simply
based on the current state of abstract scholarly research.
> There were one or two places where (dare I say it) some of the lower
notes
> sounded twangy.......
Yes, that is a actually special type of ornament that I have mastered
it to perfection. I call it a "mistake." ;-) For what its worth, this
particular performance took place in a gigantic church that was
(believe it or not) filled to capacity. It was a mixed concert with
several soloists and ensembles each doing sets. The organizer of the
event of course chose to put me on after an organist, who naturally
ended his set with all the stops out. I played to the back of the hall.
Having said that, such things shouldn't happen and the fault is mine.
> In the introduction to "Cifras selectas" Murcia is scathing about the
"punchers or acorn > > pickers who try to stimulate the ears by
thumping the guitar" and says "God save us from > this summer hail
storm". A prayer that I would echo.
I know the quote. But this is not really helpful in creating an
informed performance because it is subjective commentary that we must
further interpret subjectively. (What does "acorn picker" even mean?)
If my father-in-law tells me a dish is "extremely spicy," I can expect
it to be completely bland. On the other hand, if I tell him in all
honesty that a dish is "not very spicy," I'll be sure to find him
curled up under a table in a fetal position with tears streaming down
his cheeks, choking on incoherent whimpers like a little girl who just
saw her beloved puppy get run over by a tour bus. But the two of us
know of these less than subtle distinctions only from past personal
interaction.
None of us knew de Murcia or what external circumstances may have
prompted his comments. Then as now, I suspect there were more than a
few amateur players who continually pounded away without concern for
nuance or contrast. Santiago does not say to _never_ embrace this mode
of performance where appropriate. Indeed, it is the inauthentic artist
who never investigates the full spectrum of his or her medium.
Needless to say, I am not a fundamentalist.
> It is not intended to be proto-type flamenco.
I see absolutely no reason why not. The influence of Spanish folk music
has been the subject of scholarly investigation in relation to
Scarlatti and Boccherini. (Boccherini even includes a section in which
he directs the cellist to improvise on castanets in his "Fandango"
Quintet.) Santiago's commentary notwithstanding, why would we expect a
native Spaniard to be totally aloof from his native "rustic"
performance practice?
Chris
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
