<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff background="">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Robert Fitzmorgan wrote:<BR><BR>>Where is your
documentation to show that Bardic Competitions</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> in the Middle Ages required this kind of
documentation from the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> competitors? <BR><BR>Don't play games
with us -- nobody has ever claimed that they did.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>> What aspect of the Middle
Ages are you trying to recreate in</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> asking for that kind of documentation
from a performer? <BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>> I am
not an expert but I think that even in the more structured</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> "Bardic" traditions a performer was
expected to demonstrate his or</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> her knowledge of the forms and
practices by using those forms</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> and practices correctly rather than by
writing out documentation</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> explaining what he knew and how he knew
it. <BR><BR>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.
<BR><BR>C'mon, Robert, you know this. Why are you pretending not
to?<BR><BR>> I'm not against doing research, or sharing that research.
Good</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> research won't prop up a poor piece, and
a good piece doesn't need</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> propped up. <BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>> But as soon as you start asking for and presenting
documentation that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> what you are doing is period, you have
ceased doing something period</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> and started doing something modern.
<BR><BR>Again, nobody denies this. Trying to re-create or re-enact at all
is a modern goal<BR><BR>> This is just my opinion and I'm sure that some will
disagree with me,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> but I believe that in a competition, the
research you have done should</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> be judged by what appears in your
performance. <BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>> If it's not in the performance then it's not
relevant. <BR><BR>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."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>