Dear Martin,
My mistake. Thanks for taking the time for further writing on it. I
certainly concur on your points below.
best wishes,
Sean
On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote:
Hi Sean and All,
No, I thought he was saying that Bream was "wrong" (because too
"romantic" like Karajan) and more recent lute players were
"right" (because more HIP). I may be wrong about that, perhaps he can
enlighten us. What I objected to was the idea that our current crop
of excellent lute players were somehow superior to Bream in their
technical excellence and musicality (which in any case is a highly
subjective view, though one with which I might even agree in some
ways), and, even worse, that true Lutedom (salvation) was only to be
achieved by following their example and discarding all false prophets
like JB.
What I tried to say was that I didn't really buy into this idea of
Ultimate Truth because I don't buy into *any* idea of Ultimate Truth,
and along the way tried to point out some of the ways in which modern
lute playing falls short, if judged by criteria which are historically
based.
I also tried to say that if we are not interested in the historical
nature of the lute and its music, I couldn't see why we should play
the lute at all. None of this rules out composing new music for the
lute, or using the lute in ways which are unrelated to its history.
I seem to have been misunderstood on just about all of these points.
Martin
P.S. Just don't get me started on ukelele strings...
On 09/12/2013 18:41, Sean Smith wrote:
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
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
