Dear all,
I am preparing materials to investigate the function of Ensemble
Organum within a general contemporary music-culture.
I post to the list to ask for views on the performance practice, and
marketing ploys, concerning Ensemble Organum. Why do we tend to equate
value with authenticity? Not that I am advocating misrepresentation of
sources, but rather am interested in the psychological neccessity for us
to 'believe' something is 'authentic' - whatever that might actually
mean! Somewhat Nietzshean (?) answers like "what we believe is authentic
at any given time must be considered truly authentic" seem all too easy
to propose...
The ethnomusicological practices of the group are somewhat elusive to
unearth. Does anyone have any views on these, even if not with respect
to their subsequent application to the performed music?
Also, to what extent do we think that Ensemble Organum's approach has
affected the performance of other early music (or even our notions of
what is 'authentic' in comparatively modern music - if we do not assume
that all music that has been written to date is by definition 'early'!).
Does the addition of the ison drone in the recording of Roman Chant
make it more 'accessible' to an audience outside the specialist
classical listenership? Is this good or bad? Does it matter?
I know that some aspects of the group's approaches are something of a
hot potato, and look forward therefore to receiveing a few animated
replies.
In short, any views on any related points would be welcomed, although
disinterest is a response in itself...
Many thanks,
Rob Howe.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|