 |
 |
In message <000c01be195b$626ecee0$46c44e0c@computername>, Matthew Westphal <[log in to unmask]> writes >>Of course, he doesn't always make a "Greek Orthodox" sound, does >>he? The Cistercian Chant record, for example, sounds reasonably >>"conventional", and in fact much more conventional than Ensemble >>Gilles Binchois usually does. (Though I assume that EGB would be >>considered "historically informed" by more people?) What exactly is >>the nature of Peres' departure from authenticity/HIP? A few vocal >>ornamentations not in the neumes in Old Roman chant? > >Well, just to cite one of Peres' more notorious departures, the use of >Corsican ornaments and vocal timbre in Machaut's Messe de Nostre Dame... I might justify (or not!) experimentation with vocal timbre by suggesting that the standard way early music is sung in the 20th century is our (20th century) way of imagining how the music might have worked. We can't really be sure what vocal timbre was like (and Potter suggests that the modern "classical" voice influences what is acceptable in our reconstruction of the "early" voice). I see no reason why non- Northern/Western Europaean timbres shouldn't be accepted as a possibility. As to ornamentation, I would suggest that in chant, we can't be sure how closely a "score" was adhered to, or what ornamentation there was. There are neumes which probably denote ornaments, but we don't know how they were performed. This might, however, suggest that ornamentation was defined, and that it is unlikely that other, unnoted sorts of ornamentation could have been added as well. As for later music, I agree Peres' experiments seem rather absurd, particularly making baroque neo-Gallican chant sound Eastern Orthodox! -- Peter Wilton %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%