Dear Denys,
It could be that the missing "2" on folio 37v is something that
Mrs. Minkoff retouched. This would suggest that in 1992 she
re-used the
1978 facsimile pages. Hers was an innocent activity. She just
wanted everything to look neat and clean. When she was
criticized (I think it was in a review by Bob Spencer), she took
the remarks in very good humor, and realized her mistake.
I'll get on to some examples of publisher's corrections. And why
it is helpful to know where a given print came from. In a sense
it sometimes has to do with establishing authority for a given
reading.
==AJN (Boston, Mass.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This week's free download from Classical Music Library is
_Prokofiev's
Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 1, Op. 80___
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: "Denys Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Arthur Ness'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Lute Net'"
<lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: [LUTE] Re: Spinacino online
Dear Arthur,
Your information about the Minkoff facsimilies is
very useful to know. My own copy of the Spinacino
facsimile is dated 1992, but I suspect that the
images from the original edition may have been
re-used for later re-prints. Working that out for
sure would be a study in itself!
I find it fascinating that for years we have only known
Spinacino through the Minkoff edition taken from the pre-war
photos in Paris, which made them our primary source for
this work. Now these new images will also become a primary
source for those of us unable to visit Cracow to see the
original.Stephen Fryer is of course right in pointing out
that it's presumably the slight distortion of the pages
themselves that causes the stave lines to look distorted.
It seems clear from the Minkoff print that this distortion
was not evident in the photographs used to make their
facsimile,
so the damage has occurred since then. So we really need to
use the Minkoff facsimile and the new images now when studying
this
source.
At first I thought that seeing these new images would not
tell us anything new about Spinacino's music, but now I'm
not so sure. Just casually looking through the new images
this evening f.37v of the Libro Primo caught my eye -
in the bottom stave, 7th complete measure, the fourth event
looks like a very indistinct '2' and someone has faintly
added a 2 below the stave line, plus a '1' (or an extension
of the bar line). In the Minkoff print all that can be seen
for that event is a fingering dot and a crotchet sign - no
tablature numeral at all. Perhaps there may not be many more
instances like that, but they are certainly worth looking out
for.
Do tell us more about the publishers 'corrections' you know
about. The more one learns about these things, the more
apparent it becomes that 'facsimilies'are not all that we
think they are!
Best wishes,
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Ness [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 December 2007 23:07
To: Lute Net
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Spinacino online
Dear Denys,
I think it was about the time of the Utrecht lute conference
where mention
was made of Mrs. Minkoff's practice of retouching her
facsimiles. She
attended and took Bob Spencer's criticism at one of the
sessions with
typical good humor. The Minkoff facsimile first dates from
1978. Well
before the criticism was expressed. She stopped the practice
immediately.
I wonder if she re-did the Spinacino facsijmile for the 1998ish
reprint.
That's a very interesting analysis you have made from a
comparison of the
two sets of images. During WW_II the ex-Berlin prints were
stored in a
monestary in Poland. It could well have been cold and damp.
As I recall,
however, they were very carefully packed.
I'll have to tell you about some other instances of publisher's
corrections.
You are quite correct in looking at all known copies of a
print, if
possible. And in this case of the same print.
==AJN (Boston, Mass.)
This week's free download from Classical Music Library is
_Prokofiev's
Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 1, Op. 80___
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: "Denys Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:48 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Spinacino online
Dear Arthur & All,
Even though we are looking at two sets of images
of the same prints, the published and online facsimilies
are interesting to compare. Two things are immediately
apparent. The library stamp has been removed from the
title page of the Minkoff edition, which is fair enough
as it's not part of the original, but it does make one wonder
about any other details that might have been 'retouched.'
Secondly, many of the stave lines in the online images
are very distorted, but in the Minkoff print they are dead
straight. So the stave lines must surely have been straight
when the Paris photos were taken. I wonder if the distortion
that
has since occurred might have been from the book being in damp
conditions during the war years? At least, it's good to know
that Petrucci didn't print those wobbly lines! It's also very
nice
to see the corrections Petrucci's workshop made to misprints -
see
for example f.32v, Libro Primo,fourth measure of 'Adieu mes
amours'
where the second event has been corrected.Or f.5r of the Libro
Primo,
top stave, 6th measure, first event: the handwritten '5' is
reasonably
clear in both versions, but in the online copy it's much
clearer that
the '3' below it is handwritten, and that a further tablature
letter
below that has been erased.Despite the fact that we are in
theory looking
at two identical sets of images, there are subtle differences
that are
worth looking out for.
Best wishes,
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Ness [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 December 2007 23:00
To: Lute Net
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Spinacino online
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Spinacino online
Dear Wolfgang,
On 12/1/2007, "wolfgang wiehe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you noticed differences to the minkoff facsimile?
Interesting! I have both. Could you show us what differences
you have found
thus far?
All the best,
Arto
====================================================
Dear Arto and friends,
They are the same book. Before its discovery in Krakow, the
only surviving
copy of Spinacino (books 1 & 2) was in the Staatsbibliothek in
Berlin (shelf
number Mus. ant. pract.
P680/1-2). It disappeared during WW_II, and was known after
the war from a
Photostat made by Genevieve Thibault (iirc), and
deposited in the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris. The
original
Berlin copy (the only one known in modern days) turned up in
Krakow about
ten years ago.
Thus the on-line digitalizecd copy and Mrs. Minkoff's
facsimile
are
reproductions of the very same book. At one time, Mrs.
Minkoff
retouched some of pages in her facsimiles, but stopped that
parctice after
receiving complaints. In one instance she removed fingering
dots that she
thought were fly specs (or something like that).<g> But I do
not know if she
did so with her Spinacino facsimile, which is fairly late, and
probably
after she got the "Word" (from Bob Spencer).
There is a modern edition of both books with transcrption and
parallel
tablature in H. L. Schmidt's dissertation at U of North
Carlina
at Chapel
Hill.
==AJN (Boston, Mass.)
================================================
This week's free download from Classical Music Library is
_Prokofiev's
Sonata for Violin and Piano No. 1, Op. 80___
Go to my web page:
http://mysite.verizon.net/arthurjness/
For some free scores, go to:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzepq31c/arthurjnesslutescores/
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
