Alas, yes. Personally, I would have rather he tempered with some caveat like "may not have" or similar. Unfortunately, strong and controversial categorical statements seem to be what grab attention with popular press and what raise hackles of scholarly readers.
Eugene -----Original Message----- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Jaroslaw Lipski Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 4:24 PM To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted Eugene, Well, saying that "the evidence would be that Bach did not write any music specifically intended for solo lute" sounds to me (do correct me if I'm wrong) a little bit like a definite statement or a final argument, doesn't it? There is nothing wrong in having doubts and expressing them publicly, but making new theories is another matter. I greatly recommend David Ledbetters book "Unaccompanied Bach" (as mentioned) which deals with all available data concerning this subject in detail. There are many question marks and unfortunately no simple answers so far, I am afraid. However it can be agreed that there are no so called Bach lute suites if we understand them the same way that some guitarists used to believe in past, but then the question is what guitarist and how can we judge someones knowledge. It's much better to present bare facts letting people decide what they can make of it, IMHO. My 2 cents Best regards Jaroslaw Wiadomość napisana przez Braig, Eugene w dniu 26 kwi 2012, o godz. 22:01: > I wholeheartedly agree, jl. Fortunately, I don't believe the little article > discussed here did make any such definitive statements. I think it did a > fair job of presenting evidence with relative objectivity. > > Eugene > ________________________________________ > From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] on behalf > of Jarosław Lipski [jaroslawlip...@wp.pl] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 3:06 PM > To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted > > Discussion is always a good thing, the problem begins when someone > makes very definite statements like- the evidence would be that Bach > did not write any music specifically intended for solo lute > - or -You know what I am going to say next–perhaps you should sit > down I understand that it was addressed to guitar players, but still we need > more evidence before trying to convince someone that A or B is true. > Musicology is a tricky bussiness and there is a lot of speculation on lute > pieces by Bach. I'd rather use some arguments from available scholarly > literature than made ad hoc theories, unless the reason for this was to stir > a discussion. > > jl > > > Wiadomoœæ napisana przez t...@heartistrymusic.com w dniu 26 kwi 2012, o godz. > 20:02: > >>> ... It's obviously a bit of >>> popular-press fluff, not even quite "gray literature," but that >>> stuff tends to reach much more of the general public than scholarly >>> literature ever will. > Eugene >> I agree. >> The interesting thing to me on this topic is the response it is >> getting from the Lute list. Yes, you lutenists who have been at it >> for 20 - 30 years already know this, but I think that in all >> likelihood, the rest of the music world does not. An article like >> this on a "guitar site" (nose upturned?) will probably reach a lot >> more people, and therefore could be a good thing, bringing more >> attention to lutes from other musical disciplines. Something I have >> noticed in reading liner notes to CDs / LPs is that, for example, >> keyboard afficianodos sometimes seem to be unaware that a Bach piece >> was also arranged by the man himself for other instruments. The same is >> true for violin, etc. >> "Any press is good press - even bad press." I personally think that >> the more people write about these things, the better. And if you >> have pertinent info that this writer doesn't seem to have, maybe they would >> like to know about it? >> Knowledge, especially accurate knowledge, is best shared with the world. >> And anything done to place the word Lute in front of a wider audience >> is going to be good for lutes and lutenists. >> I'll look forward to future responses. >> Tom >>> However, there is at least a fair amount of reference to primary >>> source material (the manuscripts themselves). It's obviously a bit >>> of popular-press fluff, not even quite "gray literature," but that >>> stuff tends to reach much more of the general public than scholarly >>> literature ever will. >>> >>> Eugene >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] >>> On Behalf Of Stephan Olbertz Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:35 AM Cc: >>> lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: [LUTE] Re: Re: Bach´s Lute >>> Suites: This Myth is Busted >>> >>> Am 25.04.2012, 22:27 Uhr, schrieb Daniel Winheld <dwinh...@lmi.net>: >>> >>>> The article was aimed at the guitar crowd, >>> >>> And that's probably why the article is a bit superficial. ;-) A real >>> contribution would need to be in scholarly style. No references >>> here, no mentioning of newer literature (e.g. by Negwer, Dierksen, >>> Hofmann, Ledbetter), lots of statements without evidence. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Stephan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> still clinging to illusions >>>> of lute. It's tough letting go. >>>> But he put it all together very nicely, I thought. >>>> >>>> On Apr 25, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Braig, Eugene wrote: >>>> >>>>> While I enjoyed this read, I didn't see anything particularly new >>>>> here. For example, Hopkinson Smith specifically named all the >>>>> sources of Bach's original "lute" music in the liner notes he >>>>> drafted for his recording of this music around 30 years ago. He >>>>> also stated their evident non-lute provenance. I have heard Paul >>>>> O'Dette unequivocally state on more than one occasion something >>>>> like "Sorry, Bach did not write for the lute." Etc. I suspect >>>>> that anybody who is still clinging to the notion that Bach >>>>> knowingly composed lute music after having had some exposure to >>>>> some reference of the source material either really, really wants >>>>> to believe so to somehow legitimize the lute or is a fan of modern >>>>> classical guitar who wants to somehow legitimize the perceived >>>>> ancestor of his/her own instrument. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Eugene >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] >>>>> On Behalf Of t...@heartistrymusic.com Sent: Wednesday, April 25, >>>>> 2012 11:58 AM To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Luca Manassero Subject: >>>>> [LUTE] [LUTE] Bach´s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted >>>>> >>>>> A very interesting article. I can't wait to see the responses >>>>> from the rest of the list! I am reminded that Walther Gerwig did >>>>> an arrangement of Bach's Cello Suite No.1 in G major, BWV1007. >>>>> Very nice and beautifully played - in Renaissance tuning! >>>>> Tom >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> To get on or off this list see list information at >>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: >>> http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> Tom Draughon >> Heartistry Music >> http://www.heartistrymusic.com/artists/tom.html >> 714 9th Avenue West >> Ashland, WI 54806 >> 715-682-9362 >> >> >> > > > -- > > >
