>How would the average concert audience feel if they went to a concert of
>lute music, billed as authentic, to find it played on a Spanish guitar? Why
>bother to learn to play harpsichord when we have Steinways?
You've introduced a red herring into the discussion--I didn't
see anyone claiming that the modern lever harp is the original
instrument for which late renaissance or early baroque music
was written, or even a close approximation thereof.
Sue did comment that Bill Taylor played early music on a
small harp for a competition; given what I've heard & read
about Bill Taylor, I rather doubt that he was using a modern
lever harp. (And if he were, I'm sure he would not
represent it as 'authentic performance'.)
But to address your question (rhetorical though it may be...)
each instrument offers a different set of possibilities and
colors, which in turn opens up a new set of aesthetic
possibilities. Thus, the point of learning the harpsichord
(as with any instrument) is that it may allow you to pursue
your aesthetic vision.
This is the fundamental premise of the renaissance of period
instruments, and it has borne spectacular fruit in a host of
superb performances.
However, it doesn't follow that period instruments are
necessary for performance of a given piece, or even that
they will necessarily give a more satisfactory effect.
Transcription, the adaptation of music written for one
instrument to another, is a valid activity, and a thoughtful
transcription for a modern instrument can be beautiful and
convincing.
For harps, this is an important point, given how little harp
music actually survives. The earliest surviving harp music
from continental Europe that I know of is Mudarra's tiento,
published in 1546; for the remainder of the sixteenth
century, we have only collections like Henestrosa and
Cabezon, which claim to be suitable for keyboard, harp,
or vihuela, but are primarily intended for keyboard. For the
middle ages, the situation is even more grim, since so little
instrumental music of any sort survives. a harpist who
rejects transcription won't find much material from before
the 17th C.
Of course, transcriptions exist on a continuum. One player
might make a sort of minimum-distance transcription, choosing
music for a similar instrument and preserving the stylistic
characteristics; another might adapt music written for a
very different instrument and into a completely different style.
And this is completely a matter of taste. There's nothing
immoral about taking a renaissance tune as the basis of a
composition for symphony orchestra, or arranging it with
rich arpeggios on a modern folk harp.
I agree with you that we need to look clearly at what we
are in fact doing, and to recognize that transcription
always means change; but I would note that I'm far
more interested in beauty than authenticity, and will
vigorously defend transcription and adaptation.
(I may dislike what you play, but I will present at
least a token defence of your right to play it...)
Bill McJohn
billmc@microsoft.com
>