Is "Pastyme with Good Companye" really not by Henry the VIII? Excuse this perhaps very silly question from a 17c-iste, but I always assumed it was actually by the great man himself - although there could easily be new information/finds/theories I am not aware of. I note however that the New Grove's still attributes this piece to Henry, although tacitly accepting that the attribution could be challenged:
"Several of Henry's pieces have connections with continental music, but the extent to which he borrowed from continental composers has been exaggerated. The only demonstrable case of borrowing is *Gentil prince de renom*, where three of the parts are from Petrucci's *Harmonice musices Odhecaton A*(1501), Henry's only contribution being the extremely weak contratenor part. The discantus of *Helas madam* is based on a continental melody, and *En vray amoure* uses a melody found in Comp=E8re and elsewhere, but in both cases the other parts appear to be by Henry, and reveal the characteristics and limitations of his technique. *Adew madam* exists in a slightly improved version as *Time to pas*. Apart from faults such as consecutives and ill-considered doubling of the 3rd (especially in the contratenor), a notable feature of Henry's style is his reliance on passages in parallel 6ths. The four-part pieces with French texts probably date from when he was as young as ten (see Fallows). Their survival is no doubt due more to the celebrity of the composer than to their musical merits. However, the same cannot be said for some of the English pieces, such as *Pastyme with good companye* (the melody of which is found in Richafort's *De mon triste et desplaisir* and could have been borrowed by Richafort rather than the other way round), *Alac alac what shall I do* and *Grene growith the holy*. These songs, robust or plaintive as the case may be, have a memorable beauty all their own." Best, Benjamin On 29/03/2008, David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is a favorite pastime to say pieces are really not by X, > and it is easy because, when you come right down to it, > in the renaissance there is no real way to prove anybody wrote anything. > People argue whether Shakespeare existed. > You can't go exclusively on attribution, because they are often wrong. > You can't go on style, because that is always wrong. > So basically, you have the contemporaries' word in the absence of > contradiction, that is the standard. > If it says X on it, it is X unless there is a really good reason not > to believe it. > But in spite of this, people (myself included, of course) hammer away > at the canon--it is an easy target. > And sometimes, it is right to do so, but many times people try to > take down a famous piece because it is famous. > Many people still think Henry VIII wrote Pastime with Good Company. > Hey, isn't that in the Ness book? I have to have a look (papers > shuffling). > > There are maybe some marginal pieces to look closely at, but not > "Compagna." > Or maybe I'm too attached to it. > I still can't get over Bist du bei mir. I secretly believe it is > Bach, and probably always will. > Is it fair that once a gorgeous piece is de-canonized, that we play it no > more? > > dt > > > At 09:12 PM 3/28/2008, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Ron Andrico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >(One issue with Francesco' 'La Compagna' is that the piece may > >not really be his after all, coming from a much later source.) > > > >ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > > > >Victor Coelho's theory was throughly knocked down at the > >Francesco conference in Milan by Chris Wilson. A third source > >has surfaced for the "Compagna" ricercar, likewise attributed to > >Francesco. The Siena MS has works from throughout the 16th > >century, including one of the first works by Francesco to appear > >in print. It was printed in 1529 in a corrupt version, and the > >correct version appears 50 years later in a retrospective > >anthology of Italian lute music, the Siena MS. Nothing in > >between. The Siena lute book is perhaps the > >single most important Italian source of the century. Its contents > >range from music from the Petrucci era through the 1590s, in > >readings that are eminently superior to almost every other > >source. It has lots of pieces from the early quarter century, > >and surely we wouldn't attribute them all to composers from the > >end of the century just because there is no earlier extant copy. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- Benjamin Narvey Luthiste: http://www.luthiste.com --
