On Feb 21, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Sam Chapman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Isn't cutting a note short "articulating" by definition, regardless of what
> one does with all the other notes?
No.
Articulation means lots of things, but none of those things is "cutting a note
short" for no particular reason. Here are some definitions offered by that
great authority, the Mac OS X dictionary:
"articulation |ärËtikyÉËlÄSHÉn|
noun
1 the action of putting into words an idea or feeling of a specified type: it
would involve the articulation of a theory of the just war.
⢠the formation of clear and distinct sounds in speech: the articulation of
vowels and consonants.
⢠(Music) clarity in the production of successive notes: beautifully polished
articulation from the violins.
⢠(Phonetics) the act or manner of uttering a speech sound, esp. a consonant.
2 the state of being jointed: the area of articulation of the lower jaw.
⢠[ with modifier ] a specified joint: the leg articulation."
In the Harvard Dictionary of Music, Willi Appel defines articulation as: "In
singing, the clear and distinct rendering of the tones, especially in
coloraturas without text" which is done without stopping the sound, unless
you're Nella Anfuso.
In wind and bowed string playing, to articulate a note means not to slur it.
In music generally, it means the equivalent of enunciation in speech:
"articulation" is often used in the sense of something like "general approach
toward starting and stopping notes." It does not mean shortening a note as
such.
> Most authors write about holding down the fingers for as long as possible,
> that is, sustaining the notes for as long as possible.
> This is not the same as avoiding "stopping notes prematurely".
Well no, those two things are more or less opposite.
> Whether the rule relates to establishing good technique or creating a certain
> kind of sound world (or both) is up for debate.
It's up for debate only if you think any serious musician, trained in singing
and rhetoric, would ignore everything he learned and play so as never to
shorten a note. I can't think of a surer recipe for dullness. All right, I
can think of a few, but let's not go there.
A musician of the 17th or 18th century would scarcely need to be told what the
ideal of articulation (see my last definition) was: you emulate speech and
singing, with their consonants and vowels, strong and weak syllables, pauses
and exclamations. Your left hand fingers staying put is just a technical norm
to allow you to a) play smoothly (legato is too loaded a word here) and b) make
the sound fuller and richer.
> If we see it as refering to an aesthetic preference and take it literally
> then yes, it is evidence against stopping notes for whatever purpose.
No, it's evidence for a default setting--it's the basic way to play, to be
varied for expressive purposes or polyphonic clarity.
Evidence against stopping notes for whatever purpose would be a statement like
"Never stop a note for whatever purpose."
The people who created the music we go to great trouble to recreate were not
robots. They didn't slavishly follow rules any more than we do, and they
didn't spend their time reading someone else's instructions to middle-class
duffers anyway.
On one page of source readings about keyboard playing I find this comment from
Guillame Nivers, a composer of organ music, in 1667:
"A sign of good breeding in your performance is a distinct demarcation of all
the notes and subtle slurring of some."
He then describes the techniques for playing detached and legato, and concludes
"For all these matters consult the method of singing, for the organ should
imitate the voice in such things."
And CPE Bach, a century later, writes that "detached" notes "are always held
for a little less than half their notated length. In general, detached notes
appear mostly in leaping passages and rapid tempos.
"There are many who play stickily, as if they had glue between their
fingers. Their touch is lethargic; they hold notes too long. Others, in an
attempt to correct this, leave the keys too soon, as if they burned. Both are
wrong. I speak in general, for every kind of touch has its use."
> When articulated playing is regarded as a "period performance practice
> technique" and "historically informed", whereas legato is called "totally
> modern", I take issue.
I guess I'll worry about it if I ever hear anyone say such a thing. I've been
involved in early music 30 years and haven't heard it yet. Except from you, of
course.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
