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.
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
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
