Re: Woodworking precision.
I think you may be under a misapprehension - the soundboard is glued on Yeah, I was. I saw trim around the soundboard and thought it was part of the bowl.
Out of tune horns
(An edited version of a message I sent privately to some who were kind enough to take my question on intonation seriously.) -- - Dear all. As regards the horn questions, many thanks for your most interesting and instructive answers. As you will have gathered, the amount I know about these matters would fit onto the back of a postage stamp, with room to spare. But, while I naturally accept all you say, I am still puzzled by two things. Firstly: recently I heard Roger Norrington do the Bach B-minor twice, wonderful performances, but when it came to the 'Quoniam' the horn chappies got up clutching something with two or three curls to it, one after the other and that looked like a mediaeval instrument of torture, and, sadly, sounded like one. Had I not known the score, I would have imagined Bach had written at the start of the horn solo 'Ad lib. Play any notes you like and in any key that takes your fancy.' And when the poor chaps had finished, they didn't look any too happy with what they had inflicted on us (both were top blokes in their sphere). Now why on earth would Bach have written that marvellous part if he had not, at least in an ideal, if future world, wanted it to be played much as it stands in the score? I put it crudely, but dressing it up to make it sound clever-clever would only obscure the point. I really can't imagine the great man having gone to all that trouble, hearing the two 'quoniams' that I suffered, throwing up his hands and uttering a joyful 'Wunderbar!!' Secondly: If composers of the time were so happy with the natural horn, why (a) was the valve version invented and (b) why did any composer bother to use it? I had always assumed that chromatic (horn) music was only possible with a valve horn, and I dimly remember Berlioz in his treatise on instrumentation (which I last read n years ago) raving about the possibilities of the new inventions. I suppose what I am saying is this. In spite of all the protestations that even valve horns are never properly in tune, etc., they certainly sound a lot more so than the things I was asking about. And hearing Bach and Mozart murdered might be historically correct, but is it really necessary? Is not the gain of the in-tuneness greater than the pain of what is dished up as being, allegedly, as what Bach would have wanted? I can't imagine any composer not wanting to hear his music played as he wrote it, but perhaps that's because I have spent so much of my academic life trying to convince people that it actually does actually matter whether or not you play what Webern et al wrote in their scores. Tom PS I'm sorry that some react so allergically to my love of music post circa 1325. I regard all music as different ways on meaningfully organising sound (we'll leave out what 'meaningfully' means). If there's a tune to the music, so be it, it really doesn't bother me. If there ain't, well, that's also fine by me. I find it sad that even now there are those who regard the 20th century as an artistic aberration. After all, if I from the serial world, can enjoy having a go at the lute, then why not the other way round? Why not even make the attempt to recognise what most of the serious musical world has accepted long ago, that the 20th century produced some of the most marvellous and varied music of any age, tune or not? No one but died-in-the wool fossil (is there such a thing?) seriously believes 12-tone music is rubbish. They may not like it, my wife of 34 years could happily live without it, but they don't react like a dog that had its tail trodden on, any more than I do to Sinatra, Abba or the Beatles. I, too, could live without them, but to pretend that it's all rubbish because it doesn't sound like someone who's been dead for 3000 years does seem a bit extreme. Cheers, happy new year to all Tom --
Re: Out of tune horns
Dear Tom: I too know little of the horn issue but I do know a little of instruments and how some of them were made. First of all I think the issue here is not that the ancient instruments were inherently bad and out of tune but that the musicians that played them had techniques, now not known, that allowed them to play reasonably in tune. I, like you, find it impossible to believe that Bach or Mozart wrote music for such terrible instruments. I think to some extent the arrogance of modern musicians kind of shows through in this post, we assume that if the best of us cannot play these instruments well it means that no one can or ever has. I remember when I first got into Lute making a good friend of mine, who is a veritable sponge when it comes to doing research, discovered some studies made on early recorders. Some X-rays were taken of these instruments. It was discovered that they did not have geometrically consistent interiors to the bore, they were out of round and lopsided in places. It was assumed that this was due to the poor quality of tools used to bore them out. Latter it was discovered that these uneven bores allowed the instruments to play in tune when the holes were drilled in the proper locations. Please do not ask me the source it is unknown to me. The point is, the replica instruments may not mimic some of the abstract details of the original instruments and the musicians may not be aware of some of the fine techniques used at the time, especially if they only recently had the instruments foisted on them and they were expected to play them well with little or no practice. In short I don't believe that the fault is with the instruments (totally) or the composers (partially for writing for them) but is with our generation of musicians who cannot play them, or our generation of builders who cannot make them properly, they are missing some critical if miniscule detail that makes all the difference. Thank you for you post the response has been interesting. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 3:58 PM Subject: Out of tune horns (An edited version of a message I sent privately to some who were kind enough to take my question on intonation seriously.) -- - Dear all. As regards the horn questions, many thanks for your most interesting and instructive answers. As you will have gathered, the amount I know about these matters would fit onto the back of a postage stamp, with room to spare. But, while I naturally accept all you say, I am still puzzled by two things. Firstly: recently I heard Roger Norrington do the Bach B-minor twice, wonderful performances, but when it came to the 'Quoniam' the horn chappies got up clutching something with two or three curls to it, one after the other and that looked like a mediaeval instrument of torture, and, sadly, sounded like one. Had I not known the score, I would have imagined Bach had written at the start of the horn solo 'Ad lib. Play any notes you like and in any key that takes your fancy.' And when the poor chaps had finished, they didn't look any too happy with what they had inflicted on us (both were top blokes in their sphere). Now why on earth would Bach have written that marvellous part if he had not, at least in an ideal, if future world, wanted it to be played much as it stands in the score? I put it crudely, but dressing it up to make it sound clever-clever would only obscure the point. I really can't imagine the great man having gone to all that trouble, hearing the two 'quoniams' that I suffered, throwing up his hands and uttering a joyful 'Wunderbar!!' Secondly: If composers of the time were so happy with the natural horn, why (a) was the valve version invented and (b) why did any composer bother to use it? I had always assumed that chromatic (horn) music was only possible with a valve horn, and I dimly remember Berlioz in his treatise on instrumentation (which I last read n years ago) raving about the possibilities of the new inventions. I suppose what I am saying is this. In spite of all the protestations that even valve horns are never properly in tune, etc., they certainly sound a lot more so than the things I was asking about. And hearing Bach and Mozart murdered might be historically correct, but is it really necessary? Is not the gain of the in-tuneness greater than the pain of what is dished up as being, allegedly, as what Bach would have wanted? I can't imagine any composer not wanting to hear his music played as he wrote it, but perhaps that's because I have spent so much of my academic life trying to convince people that it actually does actually matter whether or not you play what Webern et al wrote in their scores. Tom PS I'm sorry that some react so allergically to my love of music post circa 1325. I
Re: Out of tune horns
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 06:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...I find it sad that even now there are those who regard the 20th century as an artistic aberration. After all, if I from the serial world, can enjoy having a go at the lute, then why not the other way round? Why not indeed? I went down to Tower Records last night and bought a CD of Pierre Boulez, just to refresh my memory on his music in the light of these discussions. I enjoyed listning to it vey much. It was refreshing after all the historical music I listen to. ...to pretend that it's all rubbish because it doesn't sound like someone who's been dead for 3000 years does seem a bit extreme. As I see it, a lot of the early-music devotees are involved with the music of history because they have no faith in the music of the modern world. They think it lacks substance, cuture, elegance and refinement, and they believe that the only places that such things can be found are the eras of music before Mozart. And they get very pompous and arrogant in defense of what they believe in. On the other hand, there are lutenists who are interested in developing a 20th/21st-century repertoire for the lute. I like early music very much, but I don't feel that we as lutenists are necessarily locked into historical forms and philosophies, except by our own choice. I believe it is definite NOT a matter of taste. There are many lutenists who evaluate everything they hear, no mattter when or where it come from, by the standards they use to evaluate historical lute music. IMO it's a mistake to do this. OTOH there are many others who are capable of going beyond the tyranny of history, to the point of applying standards of modern and postmodern art to all the musical endeavours of this age, including their own. It's like everything else, we have to choose which people, and which music, we want to listen to. Regards, David Rastall
