Dear Denys
Thank you for your cordial response, but it raises as many questions as
it answers - more or less. (see below)
On 3/31/05 3:20 PM, "Denys Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
I would say, looking at tables of concordances, etc. that the ammount of
double counting is huge!
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.
"some duplication?" I would say much duplication. This is tantamount to
counting every separate edition of Leyenda as another piece. Let me put this
in a bit more perspective: Johann Kaspar Mertz composed into the 300s in
opus numbers. Many of those opera contain 12 to 20 pieces, all of which are
as original and as interesting as "My Lady Hundson's Puffe." JK Mertz is
only one of many 19th C. composers for the guitar. Add to that huge number
of unique works the composers from the 20th C. in Europe, Asia, Latin
America, and The United States.
>
> 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.
Now we have a problem. You would deny the guitar all transcriptions and
rather than do the same for the lute - that means about half of Francesco's
output. You want to include choral works that haven't yet been
transcribed(?) it's OK for the 16th C. on lute because it was the
performance practice - then why is it not OK for the guitar for the same
reason?
> 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 agree to a point. One of the short comings of classical guitarists has
been their inability to read. This is changing in recent years, but has a
long way to go. But one of the areas that the guitar must claim predominance
is variety. Renaissance lute players play music of the renaissance. Baroque
lute players play music of the baroque. Classical guitarists play music of
the renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic, 20th C., 21st. C. Latin etc.
All aspects of geographical sub groups are the same. This is not the reason
that guitarists memorize. They memorize because it is the tradition. Some
musicians read from music when they play - like string players, some
memorize - like pianists.
Guitarists also memorize because they can't read.
>
> 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!
We absolutely agree. Or as (I think it was) Duke Ellington once said,
"There are two kinds of music - good music and bad music."
Best regards
Joseph
>
>
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
