Chris, John Dowland complained that corrupted versions of his music were circulating, and that's why he made his authorized edition. So did Denis Gaultier! No reification of documents there!
> No, the print only reveals that no slur sign is there. This is not the same as no > slur being intended, expected or tolerated. We will never know what exactly Denis Gaultier intended because we cannot ask him any more. We may assume, however, that the tablature represents his intentions to the best of his then means because he supervised its making. > the publisher and gave final approval, so even though this edition was > "supervised by the composer himself," mistakes got through. It is entirely my > fault, but things that weren't my intentions are now in print. And we can ask you about it, fortunately. We can't ask Denis Gaultier. That is why we can't claim that he forgot to correct an omitted slur sign. It's not there in his authorized print, that's all we can say. Doesn't mean you can't play a slur there according to your whim and taste. Everybody is free to do as they please. > The idea of the "composer's intentions" is a very slippery concept in itself. Yes! > From everything we know of 17th century musical > culture, with its expectation of improvisational skills, I have to believe that my > modern mental limits to malleability are much less flexible than Gaultier's would > have been. May I quote: " The idea of the "composer's intentions" [= mental limits to malleability, ed.] is a very slippery concept in itself." Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
