Dear Martin,
As I see Ernesto's argument, the lute and modern ears would be better
served by using it as some sort of tool or component in modern music.
21 century music is what gets his attention and holds it. Is that
right? Is there a new golden age for lute just around the corner if we
leave our books behind and move on?
Personally, I don't agree but that's just me. Now that I've spent a
few years trying to understand Renaissance theory in construction and
aesthetics I believe it is well suited to the repertories for which it
was designed, be they plectrum, Ren., Baroque, solo, ensemble, etc.
But I'm afraid that where we see ourselves as artists others see
curators of a less interesting musical museum. Why bother to record it
again and again?
I may be wrong or, better, both are possible. Maybe there is a modern
place for the lute. I would truly like to think there is. Just
spitballing here: Could Brian Eno or a related composer or assembler
exploit its potential boringness in wallpaper music? I confess to have
had a secret hope that Jacob Heringman, during his DGM days, would
colaborate with Robert Fripp.
I'm well-reminded of the sitar's place in the Trance genre of The
Thievory Corporation and thousands of others. Could this be what
Ernesto is looking for?
Or maybe some current rock star will find a place for it and make a
million. Your Miley age may vary.
Sean
Ps, In another curious curating genre, my father designs 19th century
(full-sized) clippers and other sailing craft and is considered one of
the most knowledgable of historic techniques. At 84, he's still got
many projects going and is in constant consultation for others but
persuades others to do the caulking. Here's a bit about the USS Niagara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Niagara_%281813%29
History...
On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote:
Dear Ernesto,
Apologies - I copied this to the list as well, I hope you don't mind.
I agree that the most important thing is for music to be "interesting
and captivating". Never mind Karajan, much of the playing of modern
lute players could be regarded as boring, too.
But we *do* care about "academic explanations" - in other words,
historical perspectives - otherwise we wouldn't be playing lutes at
all. I think most of us play the lute because we are really
interested in the music which survives from the past and we also
believe that to understand this music and present it in the best
possible way we need to study how lutes were made, which ornaments
were played, etc, etc. Whether or not what we do, as a result of all
this research, is convincing to a modern audience is always doubtful.
If we don't care about this historical research, why play the lute at
all? The electric guitar, in all its myriad forms, is the plucked
instrument of today, and it works very well indeed. Better than a
single-strung archlute with overspun nylon strings, anyway.
Best wishes,
Martin
On 09/12/2013 02:44, [email protected] wrote:
I totally agree, but some music is simply boring, even if well
recorded, marketed, etc. - take Karajan, or whatever.
Maybe in a few years we will hear Karajan and say it is really
jazzy, hip, subtle and interesting - but for the time being it is
rather boring.
Who cares about academic explanations for the way you play, it has
got to be interesting and captivating in the first place.
And may I beg your pardon, but many of our romantic heroes' music
does not sound interesting to me.
Ernesto Ett
11-99 242120 4
11-28376692
Em 07.12.2013, às 08:42, Martin Shepherd <[email protected]>
escreveu:
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
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
