Dear Joseph, I think that's a fair challenge! I don't have the week or two spare that it would take to do the job thoroughly, but we could make some guestimates:
Howard Mayer Brown lists over 300 printed books of lute music up to 1600 in his bibliography. Multiply that by a conservative estimate of 30 pieces per volume and you get 9000 pieces - there's a bit of double counting in there, but not a bad start. Julia Craig McFeely lists 52 sources of English Renaissance repertoire (mainly manuscripts) in her online dissertation -multiply that by an average of 40 pieces per volume and you would get another 2000 pieces. Some duplication of course - this is only broad brush. I have left out earlier Italian manuscripts, which would be a much smaller number of pieces. Where things start to get interesting is where we draw the boundaries: If one were to omit everything from the guitar repertoire that was not specifically written for the modern instrument its size would reduce drastically. On the other hand, if you include in the lute repertoire all of the Renaissance choral music that can legitimately be intabulated for it (as 16c. performance practice) then the volume of lute music rises exponentially. And we have not broached the subject of Baroque lute music, which I am not greatly familiar with and will leave to others to comment if they wish. It was not my intention to draw comparisons of musical value over the volume of repertoire issue, but rather to suggest that the volume of lute music tends to make lutenists move around from one sub-group of repertoire to another. That's one of the reasons why I don't want to memorise all of the music I play. I still love to hear the guitar played well and admire the musicianship of accomplished guitarists. But we should surely judge performance on the quality of the music? The original issue here was the predjudice that playing from memory is inately superior to playing with the aide-memoire of the written music at hand. The truth must surely be that there are sublime performances to be heard from lutenists playing from their music and uninspiring ones from guitarists playing from memory. And vice-versa in equal measure! Best wishes, Denys ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Mayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Denys Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "lute net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 2:52 PM Subject: Re: memorization > Dear Denys > > I have heard the claim - only from lute players - that the lute > repertoire is much larger than that of the classical guitar. This seems to > be accepted as undisputed fact - again, only by lute players. > > I have been immersed in both worlds now for over 40 years, I have been > paying close attention, I am not in any way hampered by some bias one way or > the other - and I do not see it that way at all. > > I think, without any basis in solid research, that there's more guitar > music just from the 19th century than there is lute music in total. To cast > modern guitarists in the same mold as Segovia in terms of repertoire is just > short sighted. The man died almost 20 years ago. > > If a guitarist already knew all of the music for his instrument - > including the art songs, guitar ensemble music, duos, concerti, etudes, etc. > - he couldn't possibly keep up with the music that is being published every > day. > > I would like some definite information on the true extent of the lute > rep. I hear, for instance about the English "Golden Age." How many printed > sources? 4? 5? How many manuscripts, and in those ms. How many pieces that > are repeated. > > The "lack of repertoire" has nothing to do with the lessening of the > number of guitar recitals. There are fewer recitals of any kind than there > were 20 years ago. Or do you think that the piano, for instance, also > suffers from the same lack? > > I don't mean to sound like I am angrily defending the classical guitar - > I don't think it needs my defense - I just would like some clarification to > what seems to me to be an unbelievable conclusion. > > Regards, > > Joseph Mayes > > > On 3/30/05 6:01 PM, "Denys Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dear Michael, > > > > You wrote: > > > > "I wonder if lute concerts will ever be on the level of guitar concerts > > where lutenist's have the proper professional stage presence to not be > > staring at their music all the time. This might give them more appeal to > > the general concert going public, and more acceptance by guitarist's. I > > always felt a little jiped when a guitarist would play a concert sight > > reading the whole thing, I thought they didn't spend enough time learning > > the music." > > > > Funnily enough I don't take great exception to this, although it baffles me > > as to why you would want to be in the company of lutenists if you think so > > little of our ability as performers! > > > > The paths of lutenists and guitarists diverged 30 years ago - there is a > > tradition of playing from tablature amongst lutenists, but I would not > > necessarily equate it with sight reading. I think you will find most lute > > players spend as much time studying the music and developing their > > interpretations as any guitarist - it's just a different way of working. > > The lute repertoire is very significantly larger than that of the classical > > guitar. > > Segovia (whom I admire greatly) did much to establish the form and content > > of the guitar recital format, which included playing from memory, but it has > > to be said that the content of his performances was predictable. > > There are only so many times that you want to hear the Bach Chaconne, the > > Villa Lobos preludes and so on before your ears glaze over, whether played > > from memory or not. I don't know what others on the list think, but I have > > certainly noticed a marked reduction in the number of classical guitar > > recitals since the 1980's and I think the lack of repertoire is very much > > part of that. > > > > Lutenists, by way of contrast, have a sufficient wealth of repertoire to > > play concert after concert without playing the same piece twice. I'm not > > claiming that we always do that, but there is great scope for variety. > > We don't need to hang our careers on grandiose "interpretations" of the > > same few pieces. Renaissance music is not Romantic music (in the > > context of the music history definition of the word) - the players role is > > often to detach one's ego from the performance and let the music > > speak for itself. > > > > So it's a different world to that of the classical guitar - please feel > > welcome to be part of it, but try to understand that there are reasons why > > we do things our own way. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Denys > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > >
