----- Forwarded Message ----- From: William Samson <willsam...@yahoo.co.uk> To: David R <d_lu...@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, 2 September 2011, 7:56 Subject: Re: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Hammering on and snapping off Hi,
I'vev been doing a little checking up on Tombeau de Mezangeau and it's attributed to Ennemond "Vieux" Gaultier rather than Denis - his younger cousin. It was Denis who supervised publication of the 'Livre de Tablature pour Lut . . . .' in which it appears, but this was published in 1672, over 20 years after the death of Ennemond. So I don't think Ennemond could have had much of a say in what appeared in the book - unless lead times for publishers were even longer than they are today. Thoughts, everyone? Bill From: David R <d_lu...@comcast.net> To: Mathias Roesel <mathias.roe...@t-online.de> Cc: baroque-l...@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011, 23:59 Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Hammering on and snapping off On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Mathias Roesel wrote: > Denis Gaultier was so highly respected as lute player > and composer that the very text of his music was set down ... well, yes, > once and for all. He doesn't serve as a model for those 17th century > liberties that you claim, I'm afraid. Well and good, if you happen to be of the opinion that musicians from the French Baroque were primarily interested in robotics. Composers generally want their compositions "etched in stone," but that doesn't mean that everybody does the same thing with them when it comes to playing them. They don't, and rightly so. Ditto Denis Gaultier, or anyone else for that matter. The only time composers want their music to always sound the same from everybody, is when they write tutorial studies. > But we're talking about one measure of the Tombeau de Mesangeau and the > question if three notes in the bass should be linked with a slur, although > no slur sign is written. My answer is, no. My reasoning is that Denis > Gaultier took special care with this particular print because he wanted to > present authorized versions of his music, according to his own preface. > That's why the 1669 print is meticulously endowed with fingerings and marks. One fingering fits all players, all the time, no deviating from the "authorised" version. Not even holy writ can stand up to that test! How about we make an "Revised Authorised Standard Version"? Or a "New Modern-Notation Version." Or, the "New Common-Sense Version": how about we study the whole big topic of period performance practice and how it relates to all music from the 17th and 18th centuries, and get our insights from that? DR To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
