Another intelligent post from a thinking person Allan
www.guitarandlute.com > Martin, > > Well said. Bream worked largely by intuition based upon his 20th > century training. While HIP-sters consult a basic foundation of > empirical research, so much of what is done stylistically is pure > conjecture. There's a large element of the "Emperor's New Clothes." > On many subjects, the sources are either silent, obscure, or so > heavily filtered through our modern subconscious system of > preconceptions that we should rightfully admit that there is no > present answer to many important performance practice issues. But > "I'm not sure" never goes over well with colleagues, so something > is invented. Then we all agree to go on pretending that it works so > well that it must really be what was done. Eventually it becomes > dogma and the expected way early music should sound according to > listeners in late 2013. But the "Hoppy and ideological > alumni"-style is only one approach. Bream is another. Both are > music. > > Chris > > P.S. For several years I've been playing very close to the bridge. > Having lived with it for a while, I've been surprised to find that the > effect of this position is actually more drastic in the regions of > phrasing and articulation than tone color. > > > > > Dr. Christopher Wilke D.M.A. > Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer > www.christopherwilke.com > > -------------------------------------------- > On Sat, 12/7/13, Martin Shepherd <[email protected]> wrote: > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Bream Collection... I just noticed > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, December 7, 2013, 5:42 AM > > Hi All, > > I am a bit dismayed by a modern orthodoxy about lutes and > lute music > which is so dismissive of things which stand outside that > orthodoxy. > Whether or not you like Bream's lutes or his playing, he was > the first > to show that it *could* be done. > > But the main thing which troubles me is that the basis of > this current > orthodoxy is so shaky. Modern lutemakers base their > instruments on just > a few museum specimens which are not necessarily > representative of the > multiplicity of lutes of the past, and while we now make > lutes which are > much closer to historical instruments than those of 20 or 30 > years ago, > we still don't understand how strings were made in the past > and still > can't reproduce them. > > Despite much research, modern players have to guess at the > nature of > musical phrasing and mostly ignore the very important > dimension of > ornamentation, either playing no ornaments at all or taking > an "anything > goes" approach. We also mostly ignore the fact that > 17th and 18th > century lute players played very close to the bridge with > their fingers > plucking almost at right angles to the strings. This > has far-reaching > implications - playing more or less thumb-inside and over > the rose, > modern players need quite high string tensions, probably > much higher > than were used in the past. > > We may like what the best players do now, but it is foolish > to think > that it is historically plausible, let alone "correct". > > Martin > > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! > Antivirus protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >
