Re: Hey Nonny Nonny?
- From: Oliver Webber <TheWebbers4@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:58:11 -0800 (PST)
I know Joey has said he's taking no further part in this thread; and I
know he advised (ironically) that one should not respond to trolls,
and I acknowledge freely that I personally have no expertise in the
music of, for, from, or in Shakespeare's plays...
....BUT...
is it just me, or is Joey reacting unnecessarily strongly here?
He says that John and Margot misrepresented his words - but John
quoted his words for all to see, and Margot's summary looks spot-on to
me. There's hardly any ground between the two points of view!
Joey's words do rather come across as those of one who is "looking for
a fight" - I'm sure I must have misunderstood and do hope so. It is
after all, interesting though it may be, hardly life and death...!
Regards, somewhat bemusedly
Oliver
On 4 Mar, 23:37, Joseph Gruen <gopher...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:57�pm, Margo Schulter <mschul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Joseph, John, and all,
Please let me say from long experience here that you, John,
are one of our most experience and valued contributors.
While I'm not sure quite what kind of unfortunately
misunderstanding is going on, I can say, Joseph and John,
that the nuances of meaning here need not lead to any
unpleasant clash, especially if the rule of mutually
charitable interpretations might apply.
Joseph, I see your point as one that a musical setting
of a Shakespeare song text known to be contemporary
with the plays _could_ have been used in them. John, I
see your point to be that _could have been used_ and
_indeed was used_ are two different assertions.
A fine example of this distinction occurs when one
considers the many madrigal settings of the epoch
around 1600 drawing on Giovanni Battista Guarini's
_Il Pastor Fido_ -- by Monteverdi, d'India, and many
others. Any of these presumably _could have_ been used
in a production of the play; but I'd guess that we can't
be sure which (if any) actually _were_ so used at the
time.
This does raise questions of just what "authenticity"
means. From my crude musical perspective, anything
roughly contemporary with the applicable drama might
be "period authentic" -- but knowing that a given
musical setting actually _was used_ in at least one
production during that epoch might be "superauthentic"
to me.
Anyway, I see a basis for rough consensus, at least,
if we agree that "could have been used at the time"
is a very meaningful claim, but "actually was used"
a yet more narrow and exacting one.
Personally, I'd be happy to use any contemporary
Elizabethan or Jacobean music for Shakespeare's
plays that seems to fit -- with a disclaimer,
if I wanted really to be "musicologically correct,"
that this is not necessarily the music actually
used at the Globe Theatre or wherever for the
original productions.
Please let me conclude with a familiar but not
untimely observation about Usenet: for whatever
reasons, the potential for rapid escalation of
tensions "out of the blue" is there, and is highly
desirable to avoid, especially in a congenial
group like rec.music.early.
A harmless misunderstood can remain just that if
one replies calmly, and maybe with a bit of humor.
A friendly "Surely you don't mean to imply
that...?" -- very possibly followed by a quickly
clarifying respoinse "Indeed I don't!" -- can
neatly avert a lot of unnecessary friction.
With many thanks,
Margo Schulter
mschul...@xxxxxxxxxx
Dear Margo,
You too have misrepresented what I said. I chose my words very, very
carefully and I made no claim whatsoever that the Thomas Ford setting
of Shakespeare's lyrics represent the tune as performed on the stage.
I just suggested that it is possible that Ford might have borrowed a
then well known theatrical tune, as did many composers at that time
when they used broadside ballad tunes. �Such as the many ballad tunes
in virginal music. �Or the Venetian street songs quoted by words and
music by composers of villanellas (e.g., Azzaiolo). Otherwise we
wouldn't have the slighted idea what dance tunes titled "Cara cosa"
meant. �Or La Traditora? �Or Bernardo.
What upset me was John Howell's misrepesentation of the late Andrew
Charlton's book on music in Shakepseare ("a practicum"). �He has
obviously never seen the book by a prominent figure in the recorder
community, yet he finds it appropriate to characterize it for the
readers of this newsgroup. �Charlton makes no use WHATSOEVER of the
settings by Sullivan, or by Rorem, or by Lady Mary Smyth (who uses as
her source the Christ Church manuscript--Ford's music and lyrics? �Or
just the lyrics? �I've never heard it. �Nor would Charlton use Sir
Peter Warlock's arrangement based likewise on Ford (but with icky
modern chromatic harmonies).
You and John have introduced a completely irrelevant point of
contention into the thread by misrepresenting what I said. �I wrote,
trusting that some readers might find it enlightening to examine
Charlton's interesting, "practical" work, or Sternfeld's musicological
monograph to see what has been revealed by experts about the music
from Shakespeare's stage.
Oh oh. �Time to quit. �And to read the Duffin book which came in the
door from the library just this moment! �If it has something, I may
say more. �But otherwise I find this thread closed to any further
comments from me.
--Joey.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- References:
- Hey Nonny Nonny?
- From: Zach
- Re: Hey Nonny Nonny?
- From: jill6viols
- Re: Hey Nonny Nonny?
- From: Margo Schulter
- Re: Hey Nonny Nonny?
- From: Joseph Gruen
- Hey Nonny Nonny?
- Prev by Date: Re: Hey Nonny Nonny?
- Next by Date: online resource for old time signatures? (circle, circle with slash, etc)
- Previous by thread: Re: Hey Nonny Nonny?
- Next by thread: Re: Hey Nonny Nonny?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
