Dear Arthur:
I'm glad to know that I got your attention. Yes, i was mainly describing the
fantasia from Bottegari + Chilesotti's ms. This misattribution was by Chiesa,
who seemed to feel strongly that it was Francesco's. I don't.
There are several other pieces that it seems were deliberately misattributed by
16th century publishers, probably for the sales/recognition factor. The most
obvious is N. (that's you) 11. The rest of my examples are merely a matter of
a player's opinion, and include everything attributed to Francesco di Parigi,
everything from Vincenzo Galileo Fiorentino (Rome, 1563), and nearly everything
from the Siena ms. My opinion.
Best,
Ron Andrico
http://www.mignarda.com
> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 16:01:46 -0500> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC:
> lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Poulton
> #73 [was] dedillo> > I am unaware of any unascribed works that have been>
> assigned to Francesco, except for that ricercar by> "Incerto" in the
> Chilesotti Codice Lauten-Buch (and> several other places, incl. Bottegari--do
> you attribute> it to Francesco in your Bottegari edition?).> > Could you
> provide us with some examples of what you are> referring to?> > ==AJN>
> Boston, Mass.> This week's free download from> Classical Music Library:> Lalo
> "Symphonie espagnole"> Go to my web page:>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/arthurjness/> For some free scores, go to:>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/vzepq31c/arthurjnesslutescores/> ----- Original
> Message ----- > From: "Ron Andrico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: "Are Vidar Boye
> Hansen"> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "G.R. Crona"> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Cc:
> <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>> Sent: Sunday, November !
04, 2007 5:38 AM> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Poulton #73 [was] dedillo> > > >> > Dear
Are:> > Diana Poulton attributed the piece (with reservation)> > to Dowland
based on the fact that it contains several> > of Dowland's typical devices; the
ascending scale> > passages with a repeated first note, and several> >
tonic/dominant repetitions with inversions. The piece> > also appears in the
manuscript (D9) following another> > fantasia more securely attributed to
Dowland (Poulton> > #6). I have to agree with you that Poulton #73> > doesn't
necessarily sound like Dowland, and the fact> > that the piece really needs
reconstruction does not> > help the matter. There seems to be a tendency to> >
attribute unascribed music to known composers simply> > because a given piece
is good. This is certainly the> > case with many pieces attributed to Francesco
da> > Milano.> >> > Best wishes,> >> > Ron Andrico> > http://www.mignarda.com>
>> >> >> Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 23:28:35 +0100> To:> >> kaleid!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> From:> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
matnat.u
io.no> Subject: [LUTE] Re:> >> Poulton #73 [was] dedillo> > > Does any of you
know why this piece is attributed to> > > Dowland? It is a > great piece, but
to me it doesn't> > > sound like a Dowland piece...> > > Are> >
_________________________________________________________________> > Boo!!Scare
away worms, viruses and so much more! Try> > Windows Live OneCare!> >
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews>
> --> >> > To get on or off this list see list information at> >
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html> >> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!! Play Star Shuffle:! the word scramble
challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
--
