I'm a novice at all this, but I can see the point that Arthur Ness is making. Earlier on (if I understand correctly) he gave the example of Byrd pieces that have been transcribed unchanged from lute originals (rather than arranged) to the keyboard. Even in my limited experience I have come across examples of this - for example there is a Fancy by Newman in the Mulliner Book and a Sarabande and Allemande in the Elizabeth Rogers Virginal Book all of which look very much (from the distribution of the parts) as if they are lute pieces that have been written down in grand staff (for virginal players to play?) with hardly any (if any) rearrangement. These transcriptions (yes, I think this to be the correct term) are clearly different from the example of "reworking" given by Salvatore Salvaggio. However this "reworking" is different again from the many examples of "different" pieces based on the same theme - eg Edward Collard's Ground (for lute) based on the same theme as Byrd's Hugh Ashton's Ground, and the several versions of "Conde Claros" for vihuela and lute.
Eric Crouch On 24 Jul 2005, at 06:00, Sal Salvaggio wrote: > > Luters, > > I am presently working on a Pavan by Byrd set by > Francis Cutting for a program of Elizabethan Ballads > and Dances.I put the piece in with a group of Cutting > pieces. The "Cutting" style is evident > in his "reworking" or "recomposition" of this work. I > consider it as original in the way Mr. Cutting has > used the lute to express his rendition of the Byrd > piece. Would I call this a Cutting composition? NO. I > think of it as an original Cutting impression of a > keyboard piece by Byrd - in effect an original piece > for the lute by Cutting, much as I consider Andres > Segovia's "Bach Chaconne" or his recomposition of > DeVisee or Llobet's thinning out + guitaristic > coloring of Granados as original works for the > guitar...........Let the semantic fur fly!!!! > > > Salvatore Salvaggio > http://www.Salvaggio.50megs.com > On 24 July at 04:49 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi to all, > > It seems that Ness is saying that a keyboard composition, reworked > (arranged) for lute, can qualify as an original lute piece. Thames > is saying, not so. > Do I have this right? I'm a little confused about this thread... > I've > published several books with Mel Bay Publications of my > arrangements for guitar: > works by Debussy, Handel, Strauss, Bach, Schubert, Mozart, etc. > Even though a > lot of creative work goes into these arrangements; in no way would > I consider > them to now qualify as original guitar compositions. I've had a > very busy and > tiring week, so forgive me if I'm missing the obvious; but it seems > to me > that Michael has a valid point about all this. Being a nice person > and valued > musicologist is not the issue here, is it? > > James > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
