[net.music.classical] Beware: Old Instruments aren't performed traditionally

robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (05/10/84)

References:

It is pleasurable and instructive to listen to performances of
old instruments.  But beware of the many ways that they are probably
not being played or heard in the traditional manner.

Ancient wind instruments usually sound out of tune.  It is possible they
were played as in tune (but to different scales!) as modern instruments.
Most modern virtuosi spend years playing one instrument to get really good
at intonation.  Most players of ancient instruments do not know their
instrument so well.  (The same argument goes for technique in general.)

Methods of making reeds may have changed.  Shawms always seem to have a
shwoopsy attack below pitch for every note.  I have heard the alto and
tenor shawm played with a clean attack on every note.  It can be
done, but WAS it traditionally done?

String technique has changed enormously.  Even changes in styles of accenting
notes and slurring have an enormous effect on the sound of string
instruments.

The worst problem of all --  we moderns HEAR instruments differently from
our ancestors.  It's hard to account for this difference, but it is an
immense factor.  A recent example of what I mean -- those of you who are
old enough will remember that Rock music in the 1950's was considered to
be incredibly heavy and pounding in its rhythms.   The heavy, pounding
rock recordings of the 50's sound light and delicate today.
					- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
					allegra!eosp1!robison
					decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
					princeton!eosp1!robison

urban@trwspp.UUCP (05/14/84)

* <- nasty bug

>> Methods of making reeds may have changed.  Shawms always seem to have a
>> shwoopsy attack below pitch for every note.  I have heard the alto and
>> tenor shawm played with a clean attack on every note.  It can be
>> done, but WAS it traditionally done?

I've been playing soprano shawm for all of six weeks, so I'm a real
expert by Usenet standards :-) ...  Generally I find that the
"shwoopsy" attack on a note is the result of my own inexperience
with the instrument.  It's a matter of attacking underpitch
and then immediately correcting the note.  Like an oboe, a
given fingering on the shawm can provide a whole host of notes
depending on air pressure, reed pressure, and reed position.  Lots
of variables to play with.  Then there's atmospheric condition.
In any case, the more experienced shawm players I know always
attack their notes dead on.

But the pictures of Renaissance musicians don't show them playing
the instrument like an oboe at all!  Instead, they seem to have
placed their mouth way down the reed to the mouthpiece (accounts
for the cup-shaped mouthpiece) and blown with their cheeks puffed
out instead of the tight-cheeked oboe-like embouchure.  This
produces a blatty duck-like sound that's pretty ugly to modern
ears.  I'll play my krummhorn when I want to make peculiar sounds.

By the way, re: galliard tempo -- we play (and dance) galliards
at the local Renaissance Faire, and generally go as up-tempo
as the musicians and dancers can handle it.

jlg@lanl-a.UUCP (05/15/84)

iii

Don't take pictures of renaissance musicians too seriously.  The artist
probably didn't play any instruments and was exagerating the mechanics of
playing the instruments.  I've seen tapestries in which recorder players
had distended cheeks!  We know from direct examination of the recorders of
that period that they weren't THAT hard to blow.

ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (05/16/84)

--
>> >> Methods of making reeds may have changed.  Shawms always seem to have a
>> >> shwoopsy attack below pitch for every note.  I have heard the alto and
>> >> tenor shawm played with a clean attack on every note.  It can be
>> >> done, but WAS it traditionally done?

>> I've been playing soprano shawm for all of six weeks, so I'm a real
>> expert by Usenet standards :-) ...  Generally I find that the
>> "shwoopsy" attack on a note is the result of my own inexperience
>> with the instrument.  It's a matter of attacking underpitch
>> and then immediately correcting the note.  Like an oboe, a
>> given fingering on the shawm can provide a whole host of notes
>> depending on air pressure, reed pressure, and reed position.  Lots
>> of variables to play with.  Then there's atmospheric condition.
>> In any case, the more experienced shawm players I know always
>> attack their notes dead on.

>> But the pictures of Renaissance musicians don't show them playing
>> the instrument like an oboe at all!  Instead, they seem to have
>> placed their mouth way down the reed to the mouthpiece (accounts
>> for the cup-shaped mouthpiece) and blown with their cheeks puffed
>> out instead of the tight-cheeked oboe-like embouchure...

I've been playing Renaissance reeds for years, though since I picked
up the viol 3 years ago it's been hard to go back to the unrefined
sound.  Yes, historic (including iconographic) evidence on shawm
embouchure is as stated above, and it sounds like hell when we ex-
oboists try it.  On the other hand, we have only sketchy evidence about
Renaissance reed-making.  I suspect that poor sound and wavering
attack are caused by bad reeds.  (All oboists blame their reeds.)

A research summary in a recent Chicago Area Early Music Assn newsletter
maintained that krumhorn reeds were quite square and thick, and played
absolutely dry!  The author found an obscure treatise, followed the
directions, and claimed to get a secure, sweet sound.

I can get sure attacks on my soprano shawm because I can keep the
steady pressure required--and you have to learn the subtleties of
your particular instrument to do so.  I also have played with the
reeds to give myself the best advantage--I recommend not shaving them
thin more than 1/4" back, and especially leave a good center ridge.
Better to have a stiff reed that sounds square on when you reach its
hard pressure than a kazoo-type object you could play through your
nose.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******    15 May 84 [26 Floreal An CXCII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7261     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken   *** ***