I wonder whether English lute songs were ever performed in Romanesque churches in the Elizabethen era. Monica
----Original Message---- From: dail...@club-internet.fr Date: 23/04/2017 22:06 To: "Ron Andrico"<praelu...@hotmail.com> Cc: "lutelist Net"<Lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Subj: [LUTE] Re: Vivat Eliza It would be interesting to know when Robert Spencer made his comment. Some years ago now, I suspect, and many aspects of early music performance have probably evolved positively since. If a good quality lute in the right hands is played in an appropriate acoustic (here in France we are lucky to have numerous Romanesque churches which certainly fit the bill), it is anything but 'nearly inaudible'. As to the music being 'strange', I have very often noted how immediately many even neophyte audiences take to renaissance music. What is this 'inward' looking you suggest Ron? What ulterior motives should I be looking for?? Here is a link to an introduction by David Crystal of original pronunciation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s I think he makes a very convincing case for the use and intelligibility of an early accent. Obviously there was not just one Elizabethan accent but that is hardly a reason for downing tools and systematically adopting R.P., which itself is an obvious instance of your McDonald's 'predictable French fries' (and I am definitely not a consumer of the latter). In my opinion, pronunciation is every bit as important as many other aspects of early music performance for conveying aesthetics, meaning and emotion and is anything but 'so much window dressing'. Best, Matthew On 23/04/2017 23:28, Ron Andrico wrote: > While there is a case to be made for singers studying early > pronunciation, I have to say I agree with Robert Spencer that the > primary objective in performing lute songs to modern audiences is to > communicate the aesthetic to that audience. It's really enough to ask > of a modern audience just to sit and listen to strange music sung to > the accompaniment of a nearly inaudible instrument, let alone making an > otherwise familiar language obscure. I think those who strongly > advocate performing with a (very questionable) "authentic" English > pronunciation to a modern audience should look inward and ask > themselves what their real motives might be. > > I, too, am a little tired of singers who learn and perform with a > "one-size-fits-all" technique - singing Morley today, Monteverdi > tomorrow, Machaut next week and Mahler next month. While it can be > done, it can't be done well and up to the standard we should expect. > Most importantly, specializing in lute songs means learning to sing > with a natural voice. Lute songs were nearly always performed in an > intimate, domestic environment, and singing with a modern projected > voice severely distorts the aesthetic of the music, which I happen to > think is much worse than trivial issues to do with pronunciation. > > I don't recall who remarked that, when dealing with "authentic" > pronunciation, one must decide which pronunciation. Regional dialects > abound in every country and from every period. Deciding on one > approved historical pronunciation is following the path of McDonalds, > who used modern production techniques to produce a very predictable > french fry. I don't think this is a good thing. > > Much to consider, but the most important aspect of performing early > music to modern audiences is to convey the aesthetic of the music. All > else is so much window dressing. > > RA To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
