----- Original Message -----
From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul Pleijsier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Arthur Ness"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lute Net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Respighi
| POssibly because he doesn't want to quoted, for political reasons.
| The same ones another (the same?) lutenist isn't talking about the
| Melchiorre Chiesa archlute Ms.
| Same situation.
| RT
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
You can imagine that there might be some further developments in Italy
about which we are unaware. "Politics" might very well be involved in the
selection of an editor and publisher for a facsimile edition, or maybe a
facsimile edition with a new (and better) transcription to replace
Chilesotti's. There would be big bucks in such an edition. Every music
library in the world would buy a copy, just for starters.
For "political" reasons some libraries are known to conceal rare books in
their collection because they want to save them for a local scholar. I've
heard that charge from musicologists who were in a position to know.
E.g., the Berlin materials in Cracow. They were acknowledged to be in
Cracow, but the Russian tanks moved into Hungary, and the "books were no
longer there."<g> "You must have misunderstood me, Professor Heartz. We
don't have the autograph manuscript for Magic Flute in our library. Sorry.
I don't understand why you thought I was sending you a microfilm."
=====AJN (Boston, Mass.)=====
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Paul Pleijsier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: "Arthur Ness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Cc: "Lute Net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
| Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 3:19 AM
| Subject: [LUTE] Re: Respighi
|
|
| > As a total outsider in this matter, I just wonder why the Italian
"living
| > and breathing" "master lutenist" is unnamed as of yet.
| > Paul Pleijsier
| >
| >
| >
| > Op 26 sep 2008, om 04:24 heeft Arthur Ness het volgende geschreven:
| >
| >> <<<P.S. I should have posted this earlier. I found Eugene's
| >> accusations disturbing, and wanted to reply to them only after I had
| >> calmed down a bit.
| >>
| >> <<<After all, the discovery of the manuscript for Chilesotti's Codice
| >> Lauten-Buch was a major event for which we all should be cheering,
and I
| >> felt the readers of this list would like to hear about it. To my
| >> chagrin
| >> Eugene charged that the discovery of the original manuscript is some
| >> kind of fraud. His allegations are wholly unjustified, often
| >> mean-spirited and false.>>>
| >> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
| >>
| >> My word, Eugene! To equate some distant floating tree stump in a
| >> Scottish
| >> lake with a sighting of the mythical "Nessie monster" is hardly
| >> comparable
| >> to a master lutenist holding and playing from a 16th-century
manuscript
| >> of
| >> lute music at a private function in northern Italy.
| >>
| >> The former is a fiction, the latter, a bona fide.
| >>
| >> Furthermore, I find it unfortunate that you would misrepresent the
facts
| >> with your perversion of the word "rumor."
| >>
| >> Consult your dictionary for the correct meaning and usage of the word
| >> "rumor" and you will discover that a rumor is a "statement or report
| >> WITH
| >> NO DISCERNABLE SOURCE" (my caps). Even a tenth-hand report, when
| >> attributed, is not a rumor, or folktale, I would like to point out.
| >>
| >> The manuscript used for OC's Codice Lauten-Buch was seen by a living,
| >> breathing Italian lutenist (whose name I have forgotten, but whose
| >> identify is known to many, including the
| >> several lute scholars and performers I encountered and with whom I
| >> discussed it at the various social gatherings at the 1997 Francesco
| >> Conference in Milan.). Thomas Schall also told this
| >> list about a meeting with the professional (see below). So we even
have
| >> an immediate and direct (first hand) source--not a rumor of one.
| >>
| >> Furthermore, there is no necessity for further "verification"
because
| >> that
| >> professional lutenist is fully qualified to pass on its authenticity
and
| >> has
| >> already identified the manuscript as the original 16th-century
| >> manuscript
| >> used for Chilesotti's edition, _Da_un_Codice_Lauten-Buch._ Do you,
| >> Eugene,
| >> have factual evidence that the lutenist is a disreputable person, or
| >> "phantom
| >> looth fairie" (Matanya Ophee), who might spin a yarn and lie about
the
| >> private recital and his host's treasured manuscript? What purpose is
| >> served by such deception?
| >>
| >> Do you have evidence that the lutenist lied to Dinko Fabris?
| >>
| >> Did he lie to Thomas Schall?
| >>
| >> Did he lie to the several individuals I met in Milan?
| >>
| >> This is not court-room testimony, nor is it the draft of a statement
for
| >> a
| >> scholarly journal. Nevertheless, in a court of law, our lutenist
might
| >> well qualify as an "expert witness" on the subject of manuscript lute
| >> music.
| >>
| >> Since when does a simple statement detailing the events and
discoveries
| >> at
| >> a private recital remain invalid until scrutinized and approved in a
| >> peer-reviewed scholarly journal as you claim? And ecven if you had
one,
| >> what good would it do you or your pal Matanya? Can you read titles
| >> written in 16th-century German script?
| >>
| >> I've never heard of such a thing in the discipline of musicology.
Can
| >> you
| >> cite examples of peer-review to approve the authenticity of any
| >> manuscript? Do such certified works carry some kind of distinctive,
| >> notarized stamp on the flyleaf? Of course not, because such
procedures
| >> have never
| >> been followed in any musicological context. Where'd you get the
screwy
| >> idea they do?
| >>
| >> Usually if one discovers a new manuscript, everyone yells "bravo!"
And
| >> you, Eugene? You scream, "Get the approval stamp on the manuscript,
get
| >> the stamp, or I'll report you as a liar and fraud! A phantom!"
That's a
| >> crazy
| >> way to act.
| >>
| >> Now you even get sillier, when, in order to malign a
| >> distinguished colleague in Italy you allege that he may have played
from
| >> a
| >> fictitious Nessie-like fictional manuscript you describe as
| >>
| >> | >>a deliberately fraudulent reintabulation,
| >> | >>passed off if as <sic> an original.
| >>
| >> Think about it. Can't you thimk? Where would anyone find a person
with
| >> the
| >> skills and leisure to counterfeit a 250-page manuscript written in
old
| >> German script,
| >> which most Germans can't even decipher? Even if a professional
forger
| >> were
| >> engaged, the resulting document would cost more to prepare than it
would
| >> be to purchase the original. And what would motivate anyone to
| >> promulgate
| >> such an expensive hoax? Do think you could spot such a
| >> forgery if presented to you on the pages of a peer-reviewd journal?
| >> That's how screwy your idea is.
| >>
| >> You're really grasping at straws now, Eugene, as you try to defame
the
| >> reputation of an eminent Italian lutenist by joining Matanya Ophee to
| >> claim he is some kind of "phantom looth fairie."
| >>
| >> Do you claim that Thomas Schall was lying when he reported on his
| >> face-to-face meeting with the lutenist:
| >>
| >> | >As far as I can judge the story of the Chilesotti
| >> | >Codice which survived
| >> | >and about the lutenist giving a house concert
| >> | >from it is true - I met
| >> | >the lutenist in question and he confirmed the story.
| >>
| >> | >It seems the manuscript is preserved in a
| >> | >bank tresor (I've been told
| >> | >there would be many treasures in tresors
| >> | >because some people buy old
| >> | >books for their insurance value
| >> | >[does Tom mean investment value? ajn]
| >> | >which would
| >> | >get lost if the owner would
| >> | >make the manuscript accessible
| >> | >to the public). A pity!
| >>
| >> Of course, Matanya seems to think Tom's a liar, because he
deliberately
| >> misrepresented Schall's words that Tom described
| >>
| >> | >a phantom lutenist who played from the phantom
| >> | >original Codice at a phantom evening given by
| >> | >the phantom owner at some phantom evening.
| >>
| >> Who among us can approve such twisting of the truth? Except you,
Eugene,
| >> as I presume from your several sad comments approving Matanya's
drivel
| >> in
| >> his article, "Vagaries of the Looth Fairie"? You wrote as follows,
| >>
| >> | >>>I admit that I cannot find anything
| >> | >>>that disagrees
| >> | >>>with *either* of our
| >> | >>>positions in the content of [Matanya's article].
| >>
| >> Besides putting words in my mouth, which I resent, I also deplore
your
| >> attempts to lend credence to your comments by asserting that I am
your
| >> friend and somehow agree with you. In any event, yours was a real
cheap
| >> shot. I disagree with almost everything Matanya wrote in that
article.
| >> oooooooooooooooooooooo
| >>
| >> It was exciting to learn at a genial group luncheon in Milan that the
| >> original manuscript for the Codice Lauten-Buch was not destroyed. It
is
| >> perhaps one of the most important lute discoveries of the decade. I
hope
| >> one day to examine it to clarify some of the mysteries which have
| >> fascinated me for so long. (Not the Latin dirty jokes in the
margin--I
| >> have them
| >> already, thanks to Billy Tappert who copied them out.<g>) I doubt
| >> Eugene's potential forger has them either.
| >>
| >> Chilesotti freely altered the musical texts in his edition, and the
| >> readings need to be set right. I suspect that some of the pieces
may be
| >> in the hand of the Italian lute virtuoso at the Polish Royal Court,
| >> Diomedes Cato, and I'd like to find which ones are his by following
the
| >> handwriting.
| >>
| >> It is possible that Chilesotti may have himself composed some pieces
in
| >> his edition,
| >> and I'd like to know which ones they are (if indeed my suspicions are
| >> correct). And why did he leave out so many reputed fine
compositions,
| >> like the famous Howett galliard. (they were probably corrupt, as are
| >> some
| >> pieces he did include--none of the currrent editors tracked down the
| >> concordances to compare with the OC versions, an easy task given the
| >> available reference tools of this computer age.).
| >>
| >> And what are the actual titles that Chilesotti
| >> could not read or misread. (I know some of them already from
Tappert's
| >> papers--they are seldom illegible, at least not to anyone familiar
with
| >> 16th-century German script. Compare No. 58 which OC calls "titolo
| >> indecifrabile" with the facsimile.)
| >>
| >> It may also be Chilesotti's struggle with German script that caused
him
| >> to
| >> print so many misspelled titles, some rather funny in their
misreading.
| >> One of the most famous canzonettas of the 16th century is included,
"Chi
| >> mira gli occhi tuoi", unattributed in OC's edition, but by Orazio
Vecchi
| >> ("Whoever looks in your eyes and does not sigh is surely without
life .
| >> .
| >> ."). Chilesotti comes
| >> up with this title, "Ch mira l'odio tuo et non sospira poi," a title
| >> faithfully reproduced in all those rip-off guitar editions: "Whoever
| >> sees
| >> your hatred and doesn't sigh is without life." That must have
produced
| >> a
| >> few chuckles at Italian guitar recitals. (Be careful with the
titles in
| >> the Codice
| >> Lauten-Buch editions. If performing from the modern transcriptions,
you
| >> can easily check the titles in a library. If you need assistance,
ask a
| >> music referenmce librarian. They're whizzes at that sort of thing,
as
| >> I've discovered so frequently.<g>)
| >>
| >> We should not have to resort to error-filled, incompetent pseudo-
guitar
| >> rip-offs in order to appreciate this significant repertory,
including
| >> some
| >> of the most beautiful and exciting lute pieces of the Cinquecento.
| >>
| >> Discovery of the manuscript restores this music to the instrument for
| >> which it was intended. (Most of the pieces are for SIX-course lute,
| >> sometimes "in Abzug," and only a few for seven course--pace
Matanya.)
| >> The
| >> original owner of the manuscript, a Nuremberg merchant, seems to have
| >> acquired a seven-course lute late during the copying of the
manuscript,
| >> which extended, I believe, over a period of nearly 30 years. It's a
| >> commonplace book, as witness the dirty jokes and witty sayings in the
| >> margin. They probably were reminders of jokes to tell his listeners
| >> while
| >> he tuned.)
| >>
| >> The matter of the present whereabouts of the manuscript was settled
| >> decades ago: the Codice Lauten-Buch was not destroyed in a fire (as
| >> Dinko
| >> discovered), but resides in a private library in northern Italy, as
Paul
| >> O'Dette's then unconfirmed reports suggested as early as 1987.
| >>
| >> Further discussion of that point is moot. And Matanya and Eugene's
| >> allegations of scholarly malfeasance are without any substance
| >> whatsoever.
| >> Case dismissed.
| >>
| >> =====AJN (Boston, Mass.)=====
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> To get on or off this list see list information at
| >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
| >>
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|
