[Bards] Bardic Documentation: Was: Prose Tales

Jay Rudin rudin at ev1.net
Thu May 3 23:21:41 PDT 2007


Robert Fitzmorgan wrote:

>Where is your documentation to show that Bardic Competitions
> in the Middle Ages required this kind of documentation from the
> competitors? 

Don't play games with us -- nobody has ever claimed that they did.

They weren't re-enactors, so they were not required to document that what they were doing was a re-enactment.  Modern rock singers don't have to document that what they are doing is authentic 2007 singing -- that's automatic since they are, in fact, singing it in 2007.  But I legitimately have to show that what I do is similar to what somebody might have done in the 1590s -- otherwise we would give the prize to a brilliantly sung rock song.

> What aspect of the Middle Ages are you trying to recreate in
> asking for that kind of documentation from a performer? 

Authentic performances, of course.  They go up when documentation is required, and go down when documentation is not required.  The documentation is not an aspect of the Middle Ages.  It's the proof that the song was an aspect of the Middle Ages.

The SCA does several modern things to support our re-enactments.  Just as our fighters have to show that their weapons are made of rattan, our bards should show that their pieces fit within our rules.  

>   I am not an expert but I think that even in the more structured
> "Bardic" traditions a performer was expected to demonstrate his or
> her knowledge of the forms and  practices by using those forms
> and practices correctly rather than by writing out documentation
> explaining what he knew and how he knew it.  

Of course, all the judges knew all of the current forms, so documentation was not needed.  No thirteenth century Scot ever had to prove to his judges that his piece was done in the thirteenth century in Scotland. 

C'mon, Robert, you know this.  Why are you pretending not to?

> I'm not against doing research, or sharing that research.  Good
> research won't prop up a poor piece, and a good piece doesn't need
> propped up.  

This statement only makes sense on the false assumption that there is only one type of "goodness" that a piece should have. It's simply not true.  A good rendition of the theme song from Gilligan's Island is not acceptable, no matter how well sung.  The documentation is not to make a poor song better, but to show that a well-sung song is also a period one.

More importantly, if you are doing research to try to "prop up" a piece, then you aren't doing research at all; you're doing retro-documentation -- trying to justify a piece already written.  Research is the reading and study I do *before* writing a piece in order to make it an authentic recreation of our period, rather than just "something that takes me out of the mundane 21st century."  If that were my only goal, I'd be in air conditioning watching Star Wars.

No, I want something that takes me into the Middle Ages or Renaissance.  And this is *not* the same goal as taking me into my own preconceptions of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

> But as soon as you start asking for and presenting documentation that
> what you are doing is period, you have ceased doing something period
> and started doing something modern. 

Again, nobody denies this.  Trying to re-create or re-enact at all is a modern goal

> This is just my opinion and I'm sure that some will disagree with me,
> but I believe that in a competition, the research you have done should
> be judged by what appears in your performance. 

This only makes sense if all judges know all the research about all the cultures that any performer might ever want to perform.  No such judge exists.

> If it's not in the performance then it's not relevant.  

How about if it is in the performance but some judges might not recognize it?  Do you know all of the fixed forms of sixteenth century England?  I once translated a speech from the Iliad -- would you have known that the dactylic hexameter was the correct meter to use?  "If it's not in the performance then it's not relevant" sounds so reasonable, but in actual use, it has the same effect as "I should never do more research than the lowest common denominatoor of my audience has already done."

I'm in sympathy with the people who want to hear performances rather than documentation of performances, and I have any number of fairly generic pieces set in no particular time and place.  But the research is necessary to actually write period style pieces, and OF COURSE the judges need to see it to judge the authenticity of it.


Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/bards-ansteorra.org/attachments/20070504/9db01630/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bards mailing list