I am having a bit of trouble with the "non-lute" part of the poll. Does this
mean, "didn't compose for the lute?"
If so, then why are Bach, Purcell, and Montiverdi on the list? One may
as well include Dowland.
Cheers,
Joseph mayes
> From: James A Stimson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:27:46 -0500
> To: Herbert Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Non-lute composers poll.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Herb: Don't quite understand the Ravel thing, but why not? I'll keep
> mine to five:
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Monteverdi
> 5. D. Scarlatti
> Yours,
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> Herbert Ward
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> exas.edu> cc:
> Subject: Non-lute composers
> poll.
> 03/31/2004 12:48
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Which non-lute post-Renaissance composers do we lutenists most respect?
> List your 6 favorite, in descending order.
>
> I will count the results. Please put a number before each name, as below.
>
> My vote is:
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Tchaikovsky
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Ravel
> 5. Bach
> 6. Wagner
>
> Below is a list of widely respected composers.
>
> Herb
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Beethoven
> Bach
> Mozart
> Brahms
> Tchaikovsky
> Haydn
> Chopin
> Stravinsky
> Mendelssohn
> Mahler
> Copland
> Strauss
> Sibelius
> Schubert
> Prokofiev
> Handel
> Dvorak
> Berg
> Bartok
> Vivaldi
> Verdi
> Schumann
> Schoenberg
> Ravel
> Rachmaninov
> Ives
> Hindemith
> Grieg
> Gershwin
> Debussy
> Bruckner
> Webern
> Wagner
> Vaughan-Williams
> Smetana
> Shostakovich
> Rimsky-Korsakov
> Purcell
> Puccini
> Poulenc
> Palestrina
> Orff
> Moussorgsky
> Monteverdi
> Milhaud
> Liszt
> Janacek
> Holst
> Grofe
> Glinka
> Franck
> Faure
> Falla
> Elgar
> Britten
> Bizet
> Bernstein
> Berlioz
> Barber
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
