Hello C.
Le 23-Nov-98, C. Urchueguía a écrit:
> Dear all,
> The problems
> Mr. Howe is speaking about have very much in common with the discussion
> that has taken and is taking place within editorial theory. What's the
> text, is it the authorised text, is it the text sources transmit, is it
the
> text reception has shapen? Am I interested in the product of artistic
> creation or in the creation process itself?
You are right, BUT: Mr Perez pretends to do authenticity with no serious
basis.
As an exemple, take his Ambrosian Chant concerts and recordings:
First, he pretends the ambrosian rite is of syriac origin (IV century...).
That is not at all sure and even many features of the ambrosian rite are
similar to the archaic roman rite.
Second, upon this pretention, he studies the performance practice of the
XXth century syriac chant, pretending it didn't change since the IVth
century...
Third, he applies the modern syriac performance practice and modality to an
ambrosian manuscript of the XIIth century pretending it represents the
original, authentic shape of the melodies in he IVth century.
Fourth, he applies *everywhere* a drone, which is unhistorical even for the
byzantine chant...
I could accept all that if he said: «look, this is my artistic vision of the
spirit of this music». But he says: «look, this is the right authentic
version, and everything is in the manuscript». And unfortunately, the
public starts thinking: the ambrosian, roman, gregorian, medieval... chant
was really SO: finally we have a true version.
I can't accept that.
Meilleures salutations
Luca Ricossa
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Luca Basilio Ricossa
#http://perso.club-internet.fr/lrs/#
#Gregorian Chant on the WEB !#
Team *AMIGA*
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|