[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
On 2009-02-04, at 21:30, David Tayler wrote: BTW, the tremolo is more interesting than the vibrato in early recordings. People stopped using it. And it sure sounds better without it. I'd trade vibrato for tremolo any day. Nobody talks about that, but it is the biggest single change in performance in the 20th century. Conchita Supervia- Spanish singer, 1895- 1936. Did some very interesting things with her voice. Also had the ability to refrain from doing them. What is tremolo in singing or on melody instrument? J -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
Excuse me, but are we talking about some rare forgotten curiosity of someones articulation or a term on par with vibrato, considering modern termonology. Until now I thought 'tremolo' is a fast repetition of one or two notes, as in scoring (orchestration/ instrumentation) for bowed strings, but also known as a 'guitar tremolo'. I think, David shoud reply what he means. Regards, J _ On 2009-02-05, at 09:23, Daniel Winheld wrote: On 2009-02-04, at 21:30, David Tayler wrote: BTW, the tremolo is more interesting than the vibrato in early recordings. People stopped using it. And it sure sounds better without it. I'd trade vibrato for tremolo any day. Nobody talks about that, but it is the biggest single change in performance in the 20th century. Conchita Supervia- Spanish singer, 1895- 1936. Did some very interesting things with her voice. Also had the ability to refrain from doing them. What is tremolo in singing or on melody instrument? J To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill? [Scanned]
Must admit I find this confusing too. According to the great encyclopedia of the cyber world wikipedia: The tremolo was invented by late 16th century composer Claudio Monteverdi, as described by Weiss and Taruskin in the book Music in the western world: A history of documents page 146 Perhaps the definition can be better understood from that source. As a guitarist ( and a lutenist ) tremolo vibrato are two different things. Tremolo being achieved either with a stomp box or with a tremolo arm, oft known as a 'wang bar' vibrato on the other hand is the rapid movement of the fingers on a note, either by short pulls and releases of the strings or by rapid rocking motion of the string on the fretted note. Neil -Original Message- From: Jerzy Zak [mailto:jurek...@gmail.com] Sent: 05 February 2009 10:13 To: Lute Net Subject: [LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill? Excuse me, but are we talking about some rare forgotten curiosity of someones articulation or a term on par with vibrato, considering modern termonology. Until now I thought 'tremolo' is a fast repetition of one or two notes, as in scoring (orchestration/ instrumentation) for bowed strings, but also known as a 'guitar tremolo'. I think, David shoud reply what he means. Regards, J _ On 2009-02-05, at 09:23, Daniel Winheld wrote: On 2009-02-04, at 21:30, David Tayler wrote: BTW, the tremolo is more interesting than the vibrato in early recordings. People stopped using it. And it sure sounds better without it. I'd trade vibrato for tremolo any day. Nobody talks about that, but it is the biggest single change in performance in the 20th century. Conchita Supervia- Spanish singer, 1895- 1936. Did some very interesting things with her voice. Also had the ability to refrain from doing them. What is tremolo in singing or on melody instrument? J To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
-Original Message- From: Jerzy Zak [mailto:jurek...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 4:57 PM To: Lute Net Subject: [LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill? On 2009-02-04, at 21:30, David Tayler wrote: BTW, the tremolo is more interesting than the vibrato in early recordings. People stopped using it. And it sure sounds better without it. I'd trade vibrato for tremolo any day. Nobody talks about that, but it is the biggest single change in performance in the 20th century. What is tremolo in singing or on melody instrument? J Epitomized in typical mandolin technique. However, I'm not certain what tremolo to which you refer, David. In classical guitar music, tremolo ordinarily wouldn't be used unless specifically composed. I'm not aware of early lute recordings to feature ad lib, ornamental tremolo. Are there many? Best, Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
Dear David, Dear David, Again, no one has said that the standard of baroque playing has not improved. The discussion is merely about the influence that a completely new phenomenon has had on music making in the 20th century, namely recording. These changes may have been ingrained in classical music before period playing became prominent. If people have always played (more?) carefully in recordings and now they have changed their playing style due to the possibility to edit, then we have 2 major influences on playing in a century. I see two unquestioned assumptions, maybe there is something to learn looking at how this has changed the way we perform, not only during recording but also live. But this is only one of the many interesting things that Mr. Haynes book discusses, there is a lot more to dig your teeth in teeth in, I would still like to know what you find so distasteful? Have you actually read the book? All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: David Tayler [mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2009 07:56 An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill? People have always played carefully in recording, now they play LESS carefully. That's because there is editing, when there was no editing, people played really carefully. They were petrified. And when they messed up, they played the whole thing over. It was all one take, or at best one or two edits with a pair of demagnetized scissors. As for most pros, well, most of the pros I know are very different people. Plenty of them take risks in playing and recording. In fact, I've made several where we sight read the music in the session, with no rehearsal. Everyone was winging it. The really good players have superb recording engineers and producers--why stick with an engineer if they can't let you play? There are a lot of really talented, creative people in the business. I'm surprised to hear that. Not my experience with the major labels--those jobs are competitive. Tell 'em to get a new producer, heck, I'll do it. I would really question why someone would work with a bad producer or engineer. As for playing better, not just cleaner, faster, I guess that is subjective. But if you listen to Brandenburg recordings--we have dozens of them going back Suzanne Lautenbacher in the 50s-- The old ones are awfull. Bad sound, bad technique, out of tune, bad ensemble. Square phrasing, dreadful continuo Over time, they got better. We all got better. I'm better. I sure hope everyone else is, too. dt At 03:00 PM 2/3/2009, you wrote: David, --- David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net wrote: And I don't think people play more carefully either. Most pros would disagree. I've talked to lots of big names who say, I would do this or this in concert but never on a recording because the engineer wouldn't let me get by with it since there'd be some extra noise. They just play better. Cleaner, faster perhaps. I don't think recordings have had a big impact on the way people play live music. Its had a huge influence. At the conservatory, no young student compares themselves with live performances. Many don't ever even go to concerts unless they're playing in them. These kids compare and copy recordings. In a sense, this is understandable: you can listen to a recording as many times as you like in the car, in your dorm room, on your iPod walking to and from class. I want to listen to that bit again - I never noticed that bowing... Yeah, I want to hear it again. You can only listen to a live performance once and you'd better be paying attention the whole time! You're only going to see your teacher once a week. Under these circumstances, how can recordings or even a single recording NOT have a huge influence? The natural outcome for these kids, then, is that they're mimicing single performances and not attempting to integrate a style. I record concerts all the time--most of the professionals don't listen to them and say, wow, I have to be more careful. And if they do listen, they say, hey I played outta tune in bar 12, gotta fix that. But these two things are really the same. I played outta tune in bar 12, gotta fix that=more careful. Someone should be able to think to themselves, I played outta tune in bar 12, but in the context of everything, its only a slight imperfection in an otherwise effective performance, the overall quality of which I probably won't be able to re-create if I try to fix that small rough edge. All things considered, SHOULD I fix it? No one who wants to be taken seriously even has this as an option. The competition is higher, and will get higher still. The winds players I work with set an awesome standard, whether it is trumpet, recorder, oboe or whatever. That's great. Technical proficiency is a laudable goal. The danger comes in when it becomes the standard for what constitutes a good musicians. I've
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
I'm sorry, I don't feel this is an appropriate venue to review the book. If people want to raise questions about vibrato in the early 20th centrury, or how recordings have changed performance and so on, I feel at ease to comment because I feel I have direct experience. For example, we know that Kreisler had a huge, persistent vibrato as a violinist. So if we were to compare his early recordings to Heifetz, we could draw exactly the opposite conclusion about vibrato. But here's the point: if people went and listened to the original source material, they would see a different picture. And I can tell you for sure the originals sound very different than the digitized ones. But the digitized one can tell you a lot. And it is of course more complicated than that. Some vibratos which are very narrow, subtle and fast are not even captured by early microphones. So you can have people with this older style vibrato that sound on these early recordings as if they have no vibrato. If the book encourages people to go look and listen, then that is good. I'm allowed to disagree with some of the points, and I do. I've listened to a lot of early recordings. I have even heard them on the original instrument: a top of the line RCA Victor machine with the original Caruso 78. Lots of vibrato. And there are many more. Is there absoutely anything in these early perfomances that is helpful to me playing early music? I can honestly say, very little or nothing. I just can't think of a thing. I remember thinking, wow, tons of vibrato. Vibrato and tremolo.They do sound very, very different on the original player. That was a surprise. Even the recording of of the last castrato, which, by the way, is loaded with wobbles, shrieks, vibrato, tremolo, sobs, scoops--anything but straight--I was really curious, but there is nothing there that is interesting for early music. Some instruments which have no vibrato--the piano--appear to have some vibrato or wobble on the recordings. BTW, the tremolo is more interesting than the vibrato in early recordings. People stopped using it. And it sure sounds better without it. I'd trade vibrato for tremolo any day. Nobody talks about that, but it is the biggest single change in performance in the 20th century. So I just disagree about the vibrato thing and the recording thing. My experience is different. You could take all of the early recordings, and make a chart of which ones had vibrato and which did not--most of them do--and then you can say, hey, they used vibrato back then. And it changes--but it always changes. It is changing now. Well, we know that--it goes back to the middle ages. And you could analyze each vibrato and look for a clues. That is a bit more interesting, but you still don't get the narrow vibrato which is the one that is the most interesting. The recordings do not have that level of detail--it is like trying to identify a paramecium from an old photograph. It starts to become more apparent when recording technology gets better--no surprise. And separating out the vibato from the tremolo, the wobble, and the bleat--all of which are present in early recordings--oversimplifies the performances. Lastly, I would say that if you are a recording professional and you don't do your own paper edits, then you might be disappointed by the result. But then, that is the choice of the player. If a player playes really square in the session because they are worried about the competences of the recording engineer and producer, that's not the place to be artistically, and there is absolutely no reason to be in that position. That's like asking someone else to play the sessions for you. dt Dear David, Again, no one has said that the standard of baroque playing has not improved. The discussion is merely about the influence that a completely new phenomenon has had on music making in the 20th century, namely recording. These changes may have been ingrained in classical music before period playing became prominent. If people have always played (more?) carefully in recordings and now they have changed their playing style due to the possibility to edit, then we have 2 major influences on playing in a century. I see two unquestioned assumptions, maybe there is something to learn looking at how this has changed the way we perform, not only during recording but also live. But this is only one of the many interesting things that Mr. Haynes book discusses, there is a lot more to dig your teeth in teeth in, I would still like to know what you find so distasteful? Have you actually read the book? All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: David Tayler [mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2009 07:56 An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill? People have always played carefully in recording, now they play LESS carefully. That's because there is editing, when
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
On 2009-02-04, at 21:30, David Tayler wrote: BTW, the tremolo is more interesting than the vibrato in early recordings. People stopped using it. And it sure sounds better without it. I'd trade vibrato for tremolo any day. Nobody talks about that, but it is the biggest single change in performance in the 20th century. What is tremolo in singing or on melody instrument? J _ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
David, --- David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net wrote: And I don't think people play more carefully either. Most pros would disagree. I've talked to lots of big names who say, I would do this or this in concert but never on a recording because the engineer wouldn't let me get by with it since there'd be some extra noise. They just play better. Cleaner, faster perhaps. I don't think recordings have had a big impact on the way people play live music. Its had a huge influence. At the conservatory, no young student compares themselves with live performances. Many don't ever even go to concerts unless they're playing in them. These kids compare and copy recordings. In a sense, this is understandable: you can listen to a recording as many times as you like in the car, in your dorm room, on your iPod walking to and from class. I want to listen to that bit again - I never noticed that bowing... Yeah, I want to hear it again. You can only listen to a live performance once and you'd better be paying attention the whole time! You're only going to see your teacher once a week. Under these circumstances, how can recordings or even a single recording NOT have a huge influence? The natural outcome for these kids, then, is that they're mimicing single performances and not attempting to integrate a style. I record concerts all the time--most of the professionals don't listen to them and say, wow, I have to be more careful. And if they do listen, they say, hey I played outta tune in bar 12, gotta fix that. But these two things are really the same. I played outta tune in bar 12, gotta fix that=more careful. Someone should be able to think to themselves, I played outta tune in bar 12, but in the context of everything, its only a slight imperfection in an otherwise effective performance, the overall quality of which I probably won't be able to re-create if I try to fix that small rough edge. All things considered, SHOULD I fix it? No one who wants to be taken seriously even has this as an option. The competition is higher, and will get higher still. The winds players I work with set an awesome standard, whether it is trumpet, recorder, oboe or whatever. That's great. Technical proficiency is a laudable goal. The danger comes in when it becomes the standard for what constitutes a good musicians. I've heard way too many recordings (and live performances!) lately that are super clean and technically impressive - but so what? That's boring if there's no imagination behind it. Imagination is a difficult thing to hold on to if you're practicing scales and exercises all day because when you finally pick up a piece of music, all you see in front of you is a page of mixed up scales and exercises. It takes a cool head to sort it all out and most people don't have it. Chris We didn't have players like that in the 60s and 70s, I guarantee you. And they aren't overly careful, or safer, or uniform, they're just darn good. And they have artistic integrity of the highest professional standard. dt On what points do you not agree with Mr. Haynes? He doesn't say that people play worse, but that they they play safer and in a more uniform style, since the rise of recordings. This is a general classical music thing and not about lute playing in particular. If that is the case then this change in style could have a huge impact on the way that we think about performing pre-20th century music. As to if what we are doing is modern or new, I think that is mere wordplay, ask someone outside our little world and they will probably burst out into laughter at the mere question :) I do not know of any HIP performer who has ever claimed to be able to perfectly reconstruct a period style or be completely authentic... Wait one person is claiming that (name removed to avoid flame war) his latest promo text XXX treats the lute as the real forerunner to the modern guitar, playing with a style at once completely authentic and thoroughly revolutionary. Newly signed to Records in London, he will record his first album this year, and it will be released in 2008 So maybe we are all wrong, it is possible to be completely authentic I just wanted to recommend a good book, I think it is worth a read. Anyway I am off to watch the latest episode of Battlestar Gallactica, now that is new and modern... All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: David Tayler [mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009 10:04 An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu Betreff: [LUTE] Re: French trill? I don't agree with Mr Haynes, but it doesn't matter, I use primary sources. Why use a secondary source? As for recording changing the way people play, that simply can't be true, because the players are getting better--if they were just learning three notes at a time to squeeze through a recording,
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
From: chriswi...@yahoo.com That's great. Technical proficiency is a laudable goal. The danger comes in when it becomes the standard for what constitutes a good musician. I've heard way too many recordings (and live performances!) lately that are super clean and technically impressive - but so what? That's boring if there's no imagination behind it. I don't know whether this would serve as a rationale for composing, per Haynes, but this is exactly my rationale for it. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
Dear David, A pity, I would have liked to find out what you disagree with. It is indeed a secondary source, but it contains a great deal of original source material and the online access to audio files of the various recordings that are mentioned in the text is a great feature. Listening to Joseph Joachim's performance of Bach in 1903, without any noticeable vibrato and then a performance of the same piece by Menuhin 32 years later with continuous vibrato is amazing. Something happened in those 32 years. If Joachim was typical of 19th century playing then the extreme vibrato is a fairly short fashion in the grand scale of things. I think it is an amazing book that dares to raise some interesting questions and I am surprised it is not standard reading for any early music performer. But maybe it is just too spicy All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: David Tayler [mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009 23:11 An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill? Well, I don't really want to go into a critique of a book or books in a public forum. I just have a different opinion. And I don't think people play more carefully either. They just play better. I don't think recordings have had a big impact on the way people play live music. I record concerts all the time--most of the professionals don't listen to them and say, wow, I have to be more careful. And if they do listen, they say, hey I played outta tune in bar 12, gotta fix that. I don't call that being careful, exactly, because that is exactly the kind of thing we say in rehearsal. Possibly, some people are objecting to the modern baroque orchestra standard which is sort of a crack a note and you are out mindset. I can relate to that. I live with that every day, because I'm play these gigs every day. But I can also imagine that it was the same back then. The competition is higher, and will get higher still. The winds players I work with set an awesome standard, whether it is trumpet, recorder, oboe or whatever. We didn't have players like that in the 60s and 70s, I guarantee you. And they aren't overly careful, or safer, or uniform, they're just darn good. And they have artistic integrity of the highest professional standard. dt On what points do you not agree with Mr. Haynes? He doesn't say that people play worse, but that they they play safer and in a more uniform style, since the rise of recordings. This is a general classical music thing and not about lute playing in particular. If that is the case then this change in style could have a huge impact on the way that we think about performing pre-20th century music. As to if what we are doing is modern or new, I think that is mere wordplay, ask someone outside our little world and they will probably burst out into laughter at the mere question :) I do not know of any HIP performer who has ever claimed to be able to perfectly reconstruct a period style or be completely authentic... Wait one person is claiming that (name removed to avoid flame war) his latest promo text XXX treats the lute as the real forerunner to the modern guitar, playing with a style at once completely authentic and thoroughly revolutionary. Newly signed to Records in London, he will record his first album this year, and it will be released in 2008 So maybe we are all wrong, it is possible to be completely authentic I just wanted to recommend a good book, I think it is worth a read. Anyway I am off to watch the latest episode of Battlestar Gallactica, now that is new and modern... All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: David Tayler [mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009 10:04 An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu Betreff: [LUTE] Re: French trill? I don't agree with Mr Haynes, but it doesn't matter, I use primary sources. Why use a secondary source? As for recording changing the way people play, that simply can't be true, because the players are getting better--if they were just learning three notes at a time to squeeze through a recording, they would be getting worse. Even the youtube videos are getting better in the short amount of time they have been around. Of course there will always be players like that use a thousand edits, and have been so for nearly thirty years, and there are more of them, alas, in the lute world, but the best players are much better than those players. And we are really talking about a reasonably small number. As long as we have live concerts, there is a big reality check. dt At 12:42 AM 2/3/2009, you wrote: The question is what do you mean by old fashioned? I am sure that most mainstream classical players would see their playing as old fashioned in a sense, going back to Beethoven maybe in spirit back to Bach, but as Haynes points out probably the biggest change in the classical musical playing style came with the advent
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
People have always played carefully in recording, now they play LESS carefully. That's because there is editing, when there was no editing, people played really carefully. They were petrified. And when they messed up, they played the whole thing over. It was all one take, or at best one or two edits with a pair of demagnetized scissors. As for most pros, well, most of the pros I know are very different people. Plenty of them take risks in playing and recording. In fact, I've made several where we sight read the music in the session, with no rehearsal. Everyone was winging it. The really good players have superb recording engineers and producers--why stick with an engineer if they can't let you play? There are a lot of really talented, creative people in the business. I'm surprised to hear that. Not my experience with the major labels--those jobs are competitive. Tell 'em to get a new producer, heck, I'll do it. I would really question why someone would work with a bad producer or engineer. As for playing better, not just cleaner, faster, I guess that is subjective. But if you listen to Brandenburg recordings--we have dozens of them going back Suzanne Lautenbacher in the 50s-- The old ones are awfull. Bad sound, bad technique, out of tune, bad ensemble. Square phrasing, dreadful continuo Over time, they got better. We all got better. I'm better. I sure hope everyone else is, too. dt At 03:00 PM 2/3/2009, you wrote: David, --- David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net wrote: And I don't think people play more carefully either. Most pros would disagree. I've talked to lots of big names who say, I would do this or this in concert but never on a recording because the engineer wouldn't let me get by with it since there'd be some extra noise. They just play better. Cleaner, faster perhaps. I don't think recordings have had a big impact on the way people play live music. Its had a huge influence. At the conservatory, no young student compares themselves with live performances. Many don't ever even go to concerts unless they're playing in them. These kids compare and copy recordings. In a sense, this is understandable: you can listen to a recording as many times as you like in the car, in your dorm room, on your iPod walking to and from class. I want to listen to that bit again - I never noticed that bowing... Yeah, I want to hear it again. You can only listen to a live performance once and you'd better be paying attention the whole time! You're only going to see your teacher once a week. Under these circumstances, how can recordings or even a single recording NOT have a huge influence? The natural outcome for these kids, then, is that they're mimicing single performances and not attempting to integrate a style. I record concerts all the time--most of the professionals don't listen to them and say, wow, I have to be more careful. And if they do listen, they say, hey I played outta tune in bar 12, gotta fix that. But these two things are really the same. I played outta tune in bar 12, gotta fix that=more careful. Someone should be able to think to themselves, I played outta tune in bar 12, but in the context of everything, its only a slight imperfection in an otherwise effective performance, the overall quality of which I probably won't be able to re-create if I try to fix that small rough edge. All things considered, SHOULD I fix it? No one who wants to be taken seriously even has this as an option. The competition is higher, and will get higher still. The winds players I work with set an awesome standard, whether it is trumpet, recorder, oboe or whatever. That's great. Technical proficiency is a laudable goal. The danger comes in when it becomes the standard for what constitutes a good musicians. I've heard way too many recordings (and live performances!) lately that are super clean and technically impressive - but so what? That's boring if there's no imagination behind it. Imagination is a difficult thing to hold on to if you're practicing scales and exercises all day because when you finally pick up a piece of music, all you see in front of you is a page of mixed up scales and exercises. It takes a cool head to sort it all out and most people don't have it. Chris We didn't have players like that in the 60s and 70s, I guarantee you. And they aren't overly careful, or safer, or uniform, they're just darn good. And they have artistic integrity of the highest professional standard. dt On what points do you not agree with Mr. Haynes? He doesn't say that people play worse, but that they they play safer and in a more uniform style, since the rise of recordings. This is a general classical music thing and not about lute playing in particular. If that is the case then this change in style could have a huge impact on the way that we think about performing pre-20th century music. As to if what we are doing is modern
[LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill?
Many of the earliest recordings are loaded with vibrato, so we can safely rule that point out. dt At 03:54 PM 2/3/2009, you wrote: Dear David, A pity, I would have liked to find out what you disagree with. It is indeed a secondary source, but it contains a great deal of original source material and the online access to audio files of the various recordings that are mentioned in the text is a great feature. Listening to Joseph Joachim's performance of Bach in 1903, without any noticeable vibrato and then a performance of the same piece by Menuhin 32 years later with continuous vibrato is amazing. Something happened in those 32 years. If Joachim was typical of 19th century playing then the extreme vibrato is a fairly short fashion in the grand scale of things. I think it is an amazing book that dares to raise some interesting questions and I am surprised it is not standard reading for any early music performer. But maybe it is just too spicy All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: David Tayler [mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009 23:11 An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Haynes Book, was French trill? Well, I don't really want to go into a critique of a book or books in a public forum. I just have a different opinion. And I don't think people play more carefully either. They just play better. I don't think recordings have had a big impact on the way people play live music. I record concerts all the time--most of the professionals don't listen to them and say, wow, I have to be more careful. And if they do listen, they say, hey I played outta tune in bar 12, gotta fix that. I don't call that being careful, exactly, because that is exactly the kind of thing we say in rehearsal. Possibly, some people are objecting to the modern baroque orchestra standard which is sort of a crack a note and you are out mindset. I can relate to that. I live with that every day, because I'm play these gigs every day. But I can also imagine that it was the same back then. The competition is higher, and will get higher still. The winds players I work with set an awesome standard, whether it is trumpet, recorder, oboe or whatever. We didn't have players like that in the 60s and 70s, I guarantee you. And they aren't overly careful, or safer, or uniform, they're just darn good. And they have artistic integrity of the highest professional standard. dt On what points do you not agree with Mr. Haynes? He doesn't say that people play worse, but that they they play safer and in a more uniform style, since the rise of recordings. This is a general classical music thing and not about lute playing in particular. If that is the case then this change in style could have a huge impact on the way that we think about performing pre-20th century music. As to if what we are doing is modern or new, I think that is mere wordplay, ask someone outside our little world and they will probably burst out into laughter at the mere question :) I do not know of any HIP performer who has ever claimed to be able to perfectly reconstruct a period style or be completely authentic... Wait one person is claiming that (name removed to avoid flame war) his latest promo text XXX treats the lute as the real forerunner to the modern guitar, playing with a style at once completely authentic and thoroughly revolutionary. Newly signed to Records in London, he will record his first album this year, and it will be released in 2008 So maybe we are all wrong, it is possible to be completely authentic I just wanted to recommend a good book, I think it is worth a read. Anyway I am off to watch the latest episode of Battlestar Gallactica, now that is new and modern... All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: David Tayler [mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009 10:04 An: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu Betreff: [LUTE] Re: French trill? I don't agree with Mr Haynes, but it doesn't matter, I use primary sources. Why use a secondary source? As for recording changing the way people play, that simply can't be true, because the players are getting better--if they were just learning three notes at a time to squeeze through a recording, they would be getting worse. Even the youtube videos are getting better in the short amount of time they have been around. Of course there will always be players like that use a thousand edits, and have been so for nearly thirty years, and there are more of them, alas, in the lute world, but the best players are much better than those players. And we are really talking about a reasonably small number. As long as we have live concerts, there is a big reality check. dt At 12:42 AM 2/3/2009, you wrote: The question is what do you mean by old fashioned? I am sure that most mainstream classical players would see their playing as old fashioned in a sense, going back to Beethoven maybe in spirit back to Bach
