Klarinet Archive - Posting 000023.txt from 1999/03

From: Martin Pergler <pergler@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] Craig Hill's comments on Steve Goldman's note
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:02:09 -0500

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:

> We need some more rigorous terminology here. The words at issue
> are "ornamentation," "embellishment," and "improvisation."
>[...]
> Ornamentation is a knowledge-oriented element of playing; i.e., we see
> a symbol and we interpret that symbol not based on some personal
> like or dislike, but rather on what that symbol meant at the time
> the composer created it.
>
> "Embellishment" is not so clear. It has to be understood in context.
> It can mean either ornamentation or improvisation depending on how it
> is used; i.e., "The performer embellished the composer's ornaments
> in exactly the way the composer would have liked." or "The performer
> ignored the composers ornaments and embellished the line improvisationally."
[oops I snipped improvisation -- see original posting]
> The matter of historically valid performances is a tough enough subject
> without the added complication of making the notions fuzzy by reason
> of incorrect vocabulary.
>

Dan, I like this distinction very much, and have seen it used.
But is it universally accepted nowadays? I think I have seen
(possibly older) writings where
your embellishment=their ornamentation,
your ornamentation=their "written-out-ornamentation",
their improvisation@-----.
Is that now considered incorrect usage?

Thanks, Martin
[tone of voice gets lost in email. I'm truly curious, not being
snarky]

--
Martin Pergler pergler@-----.edu
Grad student, Mathematics http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~pergler
Univ. of Chicago

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org