Hello Christopher,
I agree with your point of view and for me it is explained with nice
clarity. Regarding the lutenists'lack of basic or advanced training
wich has been mentioned, I would like to point out that in Spain, even
if we have early music departments inside a few conservatoires, most of
the main subjects are common to the curriculum of the rest of classical
instruments though. In low and intermediate levels you can practise
continuo playing or consort when studying chamber music, but stuff like
harmony, counterpoint, score analysis or music history aren't oriented
and taught specifically for early music students. Before moving to
Germany to attend a master degree, I have studied lute and related
instruments in Spain for almost eight years and, for example, it was
possible to study a kind of historical informed improvisation (hii?)
subject only for two academic years. It happens many times that you can
have good teachers but you will have to face a bad curriculum for early
music instruments in the conservatoires. In my opinion, there is no
point in requiring a lute player to sight-read a ritornello from
L'Orfeo with the piano whilst he has not had the chance to study in
depth during his academic formative years the "Seconda prattica" or how
to perform a continuo by Monteverdi according to his contemporary
sources. Now that I'm teaching lute at a conservatoire in Spain, I'm
always trying to add specific subjects like continuo, ornamentation,
ensemble or early music analysis to the curriculum of early music
instruments in order to focus on the real necessities and try to
overcome since the beginning this lack of basic training to wich David
has referred to.
Another related and interesting discussion would be: is good for early
music learning to be a part of the conservatoires? how can a teaching
system which was established in the early nineteenth century be
suitable for early music teaching?
best wishes,
Rafael
__________________________________________________________________
De: Christopher Wilke <[email protected]>
Para: David Tayler <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Enviado: Viernes 9 de agosto de 2013 6:36
Asunto: [LUTE] Re: general public Lute awareness
Having taken these keyboard classes, and speaking as someone with a
doctoral degree in historical plucked instruments, (ya know, lute,
theorbo, baroque guitar and all that jazz) I can say that the
considerable keyboard requirements were practically useless in
helping
with things like continuo realization or improvisation on plucked
instruments. The media are just too different. I think the
pedagogical
goal in requiring piano for all majors is primarily so that
non-harmonic (i.e. single-line) instrumentalists and singers will
have
some practical exposure to harmony. For lutenists or guitarists, this
is less important, since we are of course already a harmonic
instrument.
Historically, pluckers avoided the type of highly abstracted
contrapuntal approach to keyboard musicianship, which places a heavy
emphasis on strict part writing in a predetermined number of voices,
that is so prevalent in piano classes today. Perhaps because
maintaining a totally strict contrapuntal conceit is so technically
difficult on plucked instruments, lute/theorbo/guitar players were
compelled to be far more inventive in their theoretical thinking.
Surviving tabs show that pluckers understood and used the fundamental
bass theory many decades before Rameau popularized it. This certainly
opens the door for more inventive, satisfying - and audible!!! -
continuo playing for us today. (I wrote an article about this which
hopefully will come out soon in the LSA Quarterly when they get
around
to publishing it.)
Chris
Dr. Christopher Wilke D.M.A.
Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer
www.christopherwilke.com
__________________________________________________________________
From: David Tayler <[1][email protected]>
To: "[2][email protected]" <[3][email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 7:57 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: general public Lute awareness
I think this is an interesting question, and I will risk posting an
honest answer. The answer depends on who is "The General Public". I
divide the groups as: the 200 countries of YouTube distribution,
Academics, other lute players, people in the Early Music scene, and
modern musicians, as these are the groups frequently mentioned
here.
First off, however, I must note that at a good conservatory or
college
offering a real music major, you are expected to play the piano,
read
figured bass and pass a score reading exam using multiple staves of
an
orchestra work and transposing clefs.
I mention this because of the puzzling stories about people who can
play the keyboard and transpose and so on. That is an entry level
skill, and a requirement. I had to take two years of piano to pass
the
exam, along with all the other students, and that was to get just a
basic BA in music. Hours of piano lab, hours of practice, and
everyone
had to do it, no exceptions. I had to take an even harder exam to
be
admitted for the MA, which included a test in Fugue writing and
counterpoint. Basic training, basic training for just the BA.
However,
in many European systems, the requirements are more strict.
So although I think it is cool that there are these stories, I
think
the very fact that we tell these stories sends the message to the
General Public that, unfortunately, we didn't finish basic
training.
And what kind of a message is that? Most professional musicians on
the
violin, cello, piano, harpsichord, and so on, had to work to get
these
skills just to get into the Conservatory. They expect everyone to
do
these things fluently. This explains some of the "attitude" from
modern
players. Rightly or wrongly, they look at the basic training. And
they
had teachers who said, in a unified voice "no shortcuts."
And that in no way means that the people in the lute stories are
not
good musicians, because they often are, but think for a moment if
you
played in any original, historical French baroque opera what you
would
have to do. You would have to read multiple clefs, including double
figured (figures on both sides of the staff) baritone clef with the
F
on the middle line, and short score the other parts, none of which
line
up with anything familiar.
Way harder than playing the piano. Most harpsichordists and
organists
who play opera can do this, most lute players cannot do this. Yes,
it
is harder on the lute. But the musical skills are the same and no
harder.
As far as the General Population of the Planet, the vast majority
have
no idea what a lute is, and lute players would be regarded as an
historical oddity from movies and TV shows, e.g., cameo appearances
of
"Game of Thrones" or "House." Followers of Sting would have a very
hazy idea that it is the funny looking instrument from Sting's
foray
into Early Music, but not much more. Certainly the YouTube boom has
marginally improved awareness, however, most of the YouTube videos
are
not intended to be recordings in the sense of a produced recording.
There's no one playing the lute on YouTube who can even remotely
approach the chops of say for example the 14 year old girl who
plays
the Vivaldi Four Seasons on the guitar. The GPOTP may not know
much,
but they know raw talent.
[1][4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIGfO2Dgc9Y
As far as other lute players, lute players are highly regarded.
This
means we live in a bubble.
As far as other Early Music musicians, sadly, but undeniably, lute
players are regarded as the worst musicians. Bottom of the Barrel.
That
is, there is no other instrument that has a lower reputation, with
the
possible exception of the Krummhorn. The reason for this is
complicated, but basically has to do with anecdotal stories that
circulate about lute players in ensembles, basic sight reading,
rhythm,
score reading, ensemble skills and so on. The situation has changed
slightly in the last few years, as more continuo players enter the
pool. However, recorder players, cornetto, harpsichord, organ, oboe
and
viol players nowadays have advanced training, especially in
notation
and ornamentation, but also in ensemble playing and rhythmic
training,
that lute players just don't have. Their bar is higher.
Other Early Music musicians make constant and disparaging jokes
about
the quality of the lute YouTube videos. They circulate them in
groups
as joke emails, especially where two continuo players are playing
the
same piece but playing different chords. Like major and minor at
the
same time. It is one of the most common comments I hear in the pub
after an orchestra rehearsal. "Did you see this. OMG how could they
not
know?" What they are saying is not only did they play the mistake,
but
they are unaware that a mistake has been played. Of course, these
same
commentators are not making their own solo videos, but still, it is
a
litany.
I think the videos are a great thing, and of course many of them
are
meant to be sharing, rather than comparing, but there is a PR
downside.
As far as modern players, when I play with a modern orchestra like
the,
the reception is normally warm and inviting. I don't get the
reaction
I
got thirty years ago. Orchestra players often have worked with
crossover conductors who are active in both worlds.
As far as academia, most people in a university environment will
have
some idea of what a lute is, but not much more than "Game of
Thrones".
Lute players are smart, talented people. There's no reason that
they
can't have the same skill sets as the top musicians in the world,
just
as they did in the renaissance.
dt
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
[2][5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. [6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIGfO2Dgc9Y
2. [7]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:[email protected]
2. mailto:[email protected]
3. mailto:[email protected]
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIGfO2Dgc9Y
5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIGfO2Dgc9Y
7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
