>At 11:51 AM 9/22/2005, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: >>It isn't a theme and variations, formally. It fits the progression >>well enough, especially considering that Coste could have considered >>the bass progression or the chord progression or both. The main thing >>is that there could have been no doubt whatever in the author's mind >>that his theme was La Folia. >> >>If you don't want to consider it because it's not strictly a theme and >>variations, fine, but the theme itself is plenty close enough IMO. > > >Yes it is close, and I would be happy to consider it as La Folia whether >it was a set of variations or not (even a singular statement of the theme >by another composer in yet another work is another variation, >eh?). Consider Liszt's Rhapsodie Espagnole; this is not solely a theme >and variations, but very clearly uses the established La Folia >progression. Unfortunately, the Liszt work has nothing at all to do with >guitar. > >I did explore the notion of Coste's op. 38 with a bit of anticipatory glee >when you introduced it. The opening couple bars of no. 24 do fit, but >that's it. This just isn't a variation or a fantasy on La Folia, and I >have never heard it stated anywhere else that it might be. That it is in >d minor and opens on a d minor chord with a melody that sounds similar to >some past treatments of La Folia isn't even enough to conclude with any >degree of certainty that it was inspired by La Folia unless Coste himself >wrote on the topic. I'm not aware that he did. > >I did get a very thoughtful reply on why there is no La Folia setting for >guitar in this time span via the classical guitar history list: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > >Best, >Eugene
To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
