I suppose playing only two notes of the last chord (and getting one of them wrong) is a tremendouser sin than just changing one of the notes of the last chord, eh? And yet, considering the setting (and the title of the music) who is to say? I can't speak for the manuscript that Forlorn Hope is found in, nor the accuracy of transcription of M. Veylit's PDF collection, but I found enough errors in both mss and printed tab (period and modern) to be unable to stand on an absolute like this. Wrong letters, misplacement by a string, all sorts of things.
Whence the provenance of this "sin to change a note"? ray On Jan 24, 2008 1:48 PM, howard posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .. > But if he doesn't like the way Dowland ended the piece, he should > play another piece instead of dramatically substituting a minor chord > for the major one Dowland wrote. I'm sure there's a lot of lute > music that's inconsequential enough that it's not a great sin to > tamper with it, but Forlorne Hope isn't in that class. .. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
