Byrd
I've never met Arthur Ness, as I'm not really a member of the "good old boys club". I'm relatively new to the lute, 4 years or so. I did play it a bit in the mid 70's. I've seen his name next to Da Milano's pieces, and that's about all I know, other than he is. I've been assuming, some kind of musicologist. I'm sure he's a nice guy, however, like most humans, if you get on their bad side, they can be not so nice! Myself included. So, niceties aside. What I'm seeing, is basically, all the people who know, and like Arthur, are turning a blind ear, to what he's saying. Not having been in the loop, maybe I'm supposed to just humor him? Nancy, etc. do you really believe that Tablature, is for the novice lute player? when both the London and Dresden MS and all of Weiss's music is written in Tablature? No attempt was ever made by Weiss to put it into pitch notation, and Bach's music transcribed into tab from grand staff ? by his lute students. If I follow your rational. if Arthur says it, it must be true. However, you don't have to be a musicologist, to see through this ridiculous claim. Can anyone find in one of my emails, any comment where I said lutenists were "Musically illiterate "? and "lutenists can't read pitch notation". I really don't mind an interesting debate, and I've admitted I've been wrong at times, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people putting words in my mouth, and bending the truth, so they can try and make me into a "village Idiot". and make them look good. and man! Arthur is doing one hell of a song and dance! Arthur is able to twist me saying.. > Transcriptions of original keyboard compositions to the >lute, are NOT >original lute pieces, and transcriptions of original lute >pieces to the >keyboard, are not keyboard pieces, they are what we >"village idiots" refer >to as ARRANGEMENTS, or transcriptions, or neither, >just popular tunes of the >time, played on what ever instrument was hanging around. Into lecturing me on the difference between transcriptions, and arrangements.. If you notice I didn't use the term "equate.. I used the word "or", big difference, but not to Ness I guess. He sees what he wants to see, problem is, it hasn't allot to do with reality. I guess dialogue, and reason, have no place when one is dealing with the one and only authority, in the upper realms of the lute cosmology. It's really a pretty small fraction in the musical universe. Nancy, you called me to ask what the lute society could do to promote itself when Barto plays this year at the GFA. Well maybe you could start by not supporting Nessy's derogatory comments about guitarists, and start putting lute music along side guitar music, in treble clef, for starters. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Byrd
I'm a novice at all this, but I can see the point that Arthur Ness is making. Earlier on (if I understand correctly) he gave the example of Byrd pieces that have been transcribed unchanged from lute originals (rather than arranged) to the keyboard. Even in my limited experience I have come across examples of this - for example there is a Fancy by Newman in the Mulliner Book and a Sarabande and Allemande in the Elizabeth Rogers Virginal Book all of which look very much (from the distribution of the parts) as if they are lute pieces that have been written down in grand staff (for virginal players to play?) with hardly any (if any) rearrangement. These transcriptions (yes, I think this to be the correct term) are clearly different from the example of "reworking" given by Salvatore Salvaggio. However this "reworking" is different again from the many examples of "different" pieces based on the same theme - eg Edward Collard's Ground (for lute) based on the same theme as Byrd's Hugh Ashton's Ground, and the several versions of "Conde Claros" for vihuela and lute. Eric Crouch On 24 Jul 2005, at 06:00, Sal Salvaggio wrote: > > Luters, > > I am presently working on a Pavan by Byrd set by > Francis Cutting for a program of Elizabethan Ballads > and Dances.I put the piece in with a group of Cutting > pieces. The "Cutting" style is evident > in his "reworking" or "recomposition" of this work. I > consider it as original in the way Mr. Cutting has > used the lute to express his rendition of the Byrd > piece. Would I call this a Cutting composition? NO. I > think of it as an original Cutting impression of a > keyboard piece by Byrd - in effect an original piece > for the lute by Cutting, much as I consider Andres > Segovia's "Bach Chaconne" or his recomposition of > DeVisee or Llobet's thinning out + guitaristic > coloring of Granados as original works for the > guitar...Let the semantic fur fly > > > Salvatore Salvaggio > http://www.Salvaggio.50megs.com > On 24 July at 04:49 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi to all, > > It seems that Ness is saying that a keyboard composition, reworked > (arranged) for lute, can qualify as an original lute piece. Thames > is saying, not so. > Do I have this right? I'm a little confused about this thread... > I've > published several books with Mel Bay Publications of my > arrangements for guitar: > works by Debussy, Handel, Strauss, Bach, Schubert, Mozart, etc. > Even though a > lot of creative work goes into these arrangements; in no way would > I consider > them to now qualify as original guitar compositions. I've had a > very busy and > tiring week, so forgive me if I'm missing the obvious; but it seems > to me > that Michael has a valid point about all this. Being a nice person > and valued > musicologist is not the issue here, is it? > > James > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: Byrd
Luters, I am presently working on a Pavan by Byrd set by Francis Cutting for a program of Elizabethan Ballads and Dances.I put the piece in with a group of Cutting pieces. The "Cutting" style is evident in his "reworking" or "recomposition" of this work. I consider it as original in the way Mr. Cutting has used the lute to express his rendition of the Byrd piece. Would I call this a Cutting composition? NO. I think of it as an original Cutting impression of a keyboard piece by Byrd - in effect an original piece for the lute by Cutting, much as I consider Andres Segovia's "Bach Chaconne" or his recomposition of DeVisee or Llobet's thinning out + guitaristic coloring of Granados as original works for the guitar...Let the semantic fur fly Salvatore Salvaggio http://www.Salvaggio.50megs.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Byrd
Hi to all, It seems that Ness is saying that a keyboard composition, reworked (arranged) for lute, can qualify as an original lute piece. Thames is saying, not so. Do I have this right? I'm a little confused about this thread... I've published several books with Mel Bay Publications of my arrangements for guitar: works by Debussy, Handel, Strauss, Bach, Schubert, Mozart, etc. Even though a lot of creative work goes into these arrangements; in no way would I consider them to now qualify as original guitar compositions. I've had a very busy and tiring week, so forgive me if I'm missing the obvious; but it seems to me that Michael has a valid point about all this. Being a nice person and valued musicologist is not the issue here, is it? James -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Byrd
Arthur Ness - A helpful, articulate and scholarly member of our list - a nice fellow as well!!! Salvatore Salvaggio http://www.Salvaggio.50megs.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Byrd
I agree as well. Arthur has look at more original sources of lute and other early music than I will get to in this lifetime. I love his contributions. Nancy Carlin >A strong ditto here. > >It's a long difficult puzzle to see the ingenuity and scope of the lute >in its many centuries. I know that if Arthur does make conjectures he >has, at least, done the research to back it up --and, more often than >not, among the primary sources. > >And now I feel a little out-of sorts having had to give the author of >the Complete Works of Francesco a letter of recommendation. > >Sean > > >On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:58 AM, paolo..declich@@libero..it wrote: > > > Dear Arthur, > > > > for me has ever been a pleasure to read yours truly informative > > e-mails, on every subject and in all occasions. > > I hope that you will continue to spend part of your time wrinting on > > this list. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Paolo Declich > > > > > > > > > >> In the present discussion it is important to understand > >> the essential difference between an ARRANGEMENT and a > >> TRANSCRIPTION. Thames misses the point completely when > >> he equates the two (see below). The terms are not > >> interchangeable, when used according to their proper > >> meaning. > >> > >> When I studied privately with Julius Gold in Hollywood > >> as a teenager, I recall one of his watch words: "Fit > >> the music to the instrument." Likewise an arrangement > >> takes a pre-existent work, say one by Giulio da Modena, > >> Byrd or Couperin, and adapts and re-works it into an > >> idiomatic piece for another instrument. You "fit" the > >> music from one > >> instrument to another, especially when dealing with a > >> complex instrument like the lute or guitar. Master > >> lutenists such as Melchior Newsidler, Holborne, Cutting, > >> Dowland, de Visee, da Crema, Francesco, Gauthier, and > >> the like, often made such works. The new work for lute > >> is > >> created from, say, a keyboard or vocal composition, or > >> even instrumental ensemble partituras (e.g., ricercars > >> and > >> fantasias by Giulio da Modena done up by da Crema and > >> others). > >> > >> If done well, these are as valid as are works originally > >> conceived for lute. And it is wrong to accord them > >> second class status, as Thames > >> does. Several lutenists on this List have already > >> testified to the beauty and effectiveness of such music. > >> > >> (Denys, "O bone Jesu" is by Antonio de Ribiera (not > >> Comp=E8re), a Spanish musician in the papal chapel during > >> the time of Francesco's tenure as chamber musician. It > >> does have > >> that sultry mood of Spain. A manuscript in > >> Tarazona calls it "il pi=F9 bel motetto del mondo." It > >> surely represents another effective work arranged for > >> lute. You should publish your arrangement for voice and > >> lute in the Lute News. Alla Wm Birde.) > >> > >> In contrast a TRANSCRIPTION is simply a re-writing from > >> one system of notation to another. In the FWVB, Byrd > >> made transcriptions, NOT arrangements. In this > >> instance, lute music is not "fitted" > >> or adapted to the keyboard instrument. It is just simply > >> transferred directly from one notational system > >> (tablature) to another (grand staff). Byrd's labor was > >> no different than that of a modern transcriber/editor of > >> lute music. > >> > >> Byrd's transcrptions made available lute music on the > >> grand staff for keyboard players who could not read lute > >> tablature, and for those lutenists who preferred to play > >> from pitch notation. > >> > >> Thames's assumption that notation on > >> the grand staff miraculously changes lute music into > >> keyboard music is just as invalid as his notion that > >> lutenists cannot read pitch notation. There are > >> examples of lute music in pitch notation back to the > >> 15th century, and of course modern > >> editions of lute music have for a century used the grand > >> staff, with usually a nominal G tuning. The standard > >> way of notating lute music. > >> > >> Judging from the inclusion of elementary instructions in > >> many early lute tablature books, tablature was > >> originally intended > >> for novice players. But it was easy to print, and > >> survived because of the many scordatura lute tunings in > >> the 17th century. > >> Somone counted 28 of them. Pitch notation would make > >> that jumble of tunings a real mess for even the most > >> skilled player. Tablature was a practical solution. > >> > >> Oh yes, there's a lot more lute music by Byrd than I > >> indicated before. There are a whopping 182 works with > >> lute in the Paston Books alone, albeit many adapted for > >> lute from vocal music (as I said when I first mentioned > >> the Byrd works). Over the years Paul O'Dette and Julian > >> Bream have explored some of this repertory, so it is > >> hardly uncharted territory. Stewart McCoy has published > >> some editions of the songs with lute. Of course, no one > >>
Re: Byrd
A strong ditto here. It's a long difficult puzzle to see the ingenuity and scope of the lute in its many centuries. I know that if Arthur does make conjectures he has, at least, done the research to back it up --and, more often than not, among the primary sources. And now I feel a little out-of sorts having had to give the author of the Complete Works of Francesco a letter of recommendation. Sean On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:58 AM, paolo..declich@@libero..it wrote: > Dear Arthur, > > for me has ever been a pleasure to read yours truly informative > e-mails, on every subject and in all occasions. > I hope that you will continue to spend part of your time wrinting on > this list. > > Best wishes > > Paolo Declich > > > > >> In the present discussion it is important to understand >> the essential difference between an ARRANGEMENT and a >> TRANSCRIPTION. Thames misses the point completely when >> he equates the two (see below). The terms are not >> interchangeable, when used according to their proper >> meaning. >> >> When I studied privately with Julius Gold in Hollywood >> as a teenager, I recall one of his watch words: "Fit >> the music to the instrument." Likewise an arrangement >> takes a pre-existent work, say one by Giulio da Modena, >> Byrd or Couperin, and adapts and re-works it into an >> idiomatic piece for another instrument. You "fit" the >> music from one >> instrument to another, especially when dealing with a >> complex instrument like the lute or guitar. Master >> lutenists such as Melchior Newsidler, Holborne, Cutting, >> Dowland, de Visée, da Crema, Francesco, Gauthier, and >> the like, often made such works. The new work for lute >> is >> created from, say, a keyboard or vocal composition, or >> even instrumental ensemble partituras (e.g., ricercars >> and >> fantasias by Giulio da Modena done up by da Crema and >> others). >> >> If done well, these are as valid as are works originally >> conceived for lute. And it is wrong to accord them >> second class status, as Thames >> does. Several lutenists on this List have already >> testified to the beauty and effectiveness of such music. >> >> (Denys, "O bone Jesu" is by Antonio de Ribiera (not >> Compère), a Spanish musician in the papal chapel during >> the time of Francesco's tenure as chamber musician. It >> does have >> that sultry mood of Spain. A manuscript in >> Tarazona calls it "il più bel motetto del mondo." It >> surely represents another effective work arranged for >> lute. You should publish your arrangement for voice and >> lute in the Lute News. Alla Wm Birde.) >> >> In contrast a TRANSCRIPTION is simply a re-writing from >> one system of notation to another. In the FWVB, Byrd >> made transcriptions, NOT arrangements. In this >> instance, lute music is not "fitted" >> or adapted to the keyboard instrument. It is just simply >> transferred directly from one notational system >> (tablature) to another (grand staff). Byrd's labor was >> no different than that of a modern transcriber/editor of >> lute music. >> >> Byrd's transcrptions made available lute music on the >> grand staff for keyboard players who could not read lute >> tablature, and for those lutenists who preferred to play >> from pitch notation. >> >> Thames's assumption that notation on >> the grand staff miraculously changes lute music into >> keyboard music is just as invalid as his notion that >> lutenists cannot read pitch notation. There are >> examples of lute music in pitch notation back to the >> 15th century, and of course modern >> editions of lute music have for a century used the grand >> staff, with usually a nominal G tuning. The standard >> way of notating lute music. >> >> Judging from the inclusion of elementary instructions in >> many early lute tablature books, tablature was >> originally intended >> for novice players. But it was easy to print, and >> survived because of the many scordatura lute tunings in >> the 17th century. >> Somone counted 28 of them. Pitch notation would make >> that jumble of tunings a real mess for even the most >> skilled player. Tablature was a practical solution. >> >> Oh yes, there's a lot more lute music by Byrd than I >> indicated before. There are a whopping 182 works with >> lute in the Paston Books alone, albeit many adapted for >> lute from vocal music (as I said when I first mentioned >> the Byrd works). Over the years Paul O'Dette and Julian >> Bream have explored some of this repertory, so it is >> hardly uncharted territory. Stewart McCoy has published >> some editions of the songs with lute. Of course, no one >> has yet studied the dance pieces to determine whether >> they were >> done up first as lute or as keyboard music. Byrd studied >> with Ferabosco, after all. >> >> **Of course much lute music was conceived in pitch >> notation, most likely on the grand staff or in >> partitura. See Jessie Owens excellent study, _Composers >> at Work: The Craft of Musical Composition 1450-1600_ >
Byrd
> In the present discussion it is important to understand > the essential difference between an ARRANGEMENT and a > TRANSCRIPTION. Thames misses the point completely when > he equates the two (see below). The terms are not > interchangeable, when used according to their proper > meaning.First point, How on earth can you say I equate the two terms.I listed > three different possibilities. You have an amazing ability to distort the > written word. Second point, I never once said lutenists couldn't resd pitch > notation, I said the preferred notation was Tablature. Judging from the > inclusion of elementary instructions in > many early lute tablature books, tablature was > originally intended > for novice players. Yea Ness, I guess by your standards Weiss was a > novice as well! What an unbelievably ignorant statement! I guess now, Ness > has changed the standards of what we call original lute music. Using Ness's > NEW classificationof what we have mistakenly assumed was lute music, I could > transcribe, or arrange Leyenda, or Romanza, for lute, and this would go down > in musical history as an Original lute piece. Sorry Ness I think I'll stick > with the old fashion way, thesame as most other educated musicologists, you > seem to be making it up as you go along. I might remind you that I haven't > been as insulting to you as your writing on this list...I don't use words > Like " kill list"I've noticed every email on the subject you proclaim it's > your last why don't you make good on your word.Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Byrd
I agree with Paolo, Arthur's messages are always good to read even if I may not fully agree all of the time. They are not condescending, arrogant or pretentious, and for the most part make you think instead of make you mad. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "arthurjness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "lute" Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:58 PM Subject: Re: Byrd > Dear Arthur, > > for me has ever been a pleasure to read yours truly informative e-mails, on every subject and in all occasions. > I hope that you will continue to spend part of your time wrinting on this list. > > Best wishes > > Paolo Declich > > > > > > In the present discussion it is important to understand > > the essential difference between an ARRANGEMENT and a > > TRANSCRIPTION. Thames misses the point completely when > > he equates the two (see below). The terms are not > > interchangeable, when used according to their proper > > meaning. > > > > When I studied privately with Julius Gold in Hollywood > > as a teenager, I recall one of his watch words: "Fit > > the music to the instrument." Likewise an arrangement > > takes a pre-existent work, say one by Giulio da Modena, > > Byrd or Couperin, and adapts and re-works it into an > > idiomatic piece for another instrument. You "fit" the > > music from one > > instrument to another, especially when dealing with a > > complex instrument like the lute or guitar. Master > > lutenists such as Melchior Newsidler, Holborne, Cutting, > > Dowland, de Visée, da Crema, Francesco, Gauthier, and > > the like, often made such works. The new work for lute > > is > > created from, say, a keyboard or vocal composition, or > > even instrumental ensemble partituras (e.g., ricercars > > and > > fantasias by Giulio da Modena done up by da Crema and > > others). > > > > If done well, these are as valid as are works originally > > conceived for lute. And it is wrong to accord them > > second class status, as Thames > > does. Several lutenists on this List have already > > testified to the beauty and effectiveness of such music. > > > > (Denys, "O bone Jesu" is by Antonio de Ribiera (not > > Compère), a Spanish musician in the papal chapel during > > the time of Francesco's tenure as chamber musician. It > > does have > > that sultry mood of Spain. A manuscript in > > Tarazona calls it "il più bel motetto del mondo." It > > surely represents another effective work arranged for > > lute. You should publish your arrangement for voice and > > lute in the Lute News. Alla Wm Birde.) > > > > In contrast a TRANSCRIPTION is simply a re-writing from > > one system of notation to another. In the FWVB, Byrd > > made transcriptions, NOT arrangements. In this > > instance, lute music is not "fitted" > > or adapted to the keyboard instrument. It is just simply > > transferred directly from one notational system > > (tablature) to another (grand staff). Byrd's labor was > > no different than that of a modern transcriber/editor of > > lute music. > > > > Byrd's transcrptions made available lute music on the > > grand staff for keyboard players who could not read lute > > tablature, and for those lutenists who preferred to play > > from pitch notation. > > > > Thames's assumption that notation on > > the grand staff miraculously changes lute music into > > keyboard music is just as invalid as his notion that > > lutenists cannot read pitch notation. There are > > examples of lute music in pitch notation back to the > > 15th century, and of course modern > > editions of lute music have for a century used the grand > > staff, with usually a nominal G tuning. The standard > > way of notating lute music. > > > > Judging from the inclusion of elementary instructions in > > many early lute tablature books, tablature was > > originally intended > > for novice players. But it was easy to print, and > > survived because of the many scordatura lute tunings in > > the 17th century. > > Somone counted 28 of them. Pitch notation would make > > that jumble of tunings a real mess for even the most > > skilled player. Tablature was a practical solution. > > > > Oh yes, there's a lot more lute music by Byrd than I > > indicated before. There are a whopping 182 works with > > lute in the Paston Books alone, albeit many adapted for > > lute from vocal music (as I said when I first mentioned > > the Byrd works). Over the years Paul O'Dette and Julian > > Bream have explored some of this repertory, so it is > > hardly uncharted territory. Stewart McCoy has published > > some editions of the songs with lute. Of course, no one > > has yet studied the dance pieces to determine whether > > they were > > done up first as lute or as keyboard music. Byrd studied > > with Ferabosco, after all. > > > > **Of course much lute music was conceived in pitch > > notation, most likely on the grand staff or in > > partitura. See Jessie Owens excellent study, _Composers > > at Work: The Craft of Musical Compositi
Re: Byrd
Dear Arthur, for me has ever been a pleasure to read yours truly informative e-mails, on every subject and in all occasions. I hope that you will continue to spend part of your time wrinting on this list. Best wishes Paolo Declich > In the present discussion it is important to understand > the essential difference between an ARRANGEMENT and a > TRANSCRIPTION. Thames misses the point completely when > he equates the two (see below). The terms are not > interchangeable, when used according to their proper > meaning. > > When I studied privately with Julius Gold in Hollywood > as a teenager, I recall one of his watch words: "Fit > the music to the instrument." Likewise an arrangement > takes a pre-existent work, say one by Giulio da Modena, > Byrd or Couperin, and adapts and re-works it into an > idiomatic piece for another instrument. You "fit" the > music from one > instrument to another, especially when dealing with a > complex instrument like the lute or guitar. Master > lutenists such as Melchior Newsidler, Holborne, Cutting, > Dowland, de Visée, da Crema, Francesco, Gauthier, and > the like, often made such works. The new work for lute > is > created from, say, a keyboard or vocal composition, or > even instrumental ensemble partituras (e.g., ricercars > and > fantasias by Giulio da Modena done up by da Crema and > others). > > If done well, these are as valid as are works originally > conceived for lute. And it is wrong to accord them > second class status, as Thames > does. Several lutenists on this List have already > testified to the beauty and effectiveness of such music. > > (Denys, "O bone Jesu" is by Antonio de Ribiera (not > Compère), a Spanish musician in the papal chapel during > the time of Francesco's tenure as chamber musician. It > does have > that sultry mood of Spain. A manuscript in > Tarazona calls it "il più bel motetto del mondo." It > surely represents another effective work arranged for > lute. You should publish your arrangement for voice and > lute in the Lute News. Alla Wm Birde.) > > In contrast a TRANSCRIPTION is simply a re-writing from > one system of notation to another. In the FWVB, Byrd > made transcriptions, NOT arrangements. In this > instance, lute music is not "fitted" > or adapted to the keyboard instrument. It is just simply > transferred directly from one notational system > (tablature) to another (grand staff). Byrd's labor was > no different than that of a modern transcriber/editor of > lute music. > > Byrd's transcrptions made available lute music on the > grand staff for keyboard players who could not read lute > tablature, and for those lutenists who preferred to play > from pitch notation. > > Thames's assumption that notation on > the grand staff miraculously changes lute music into > keyboard music is just as invalid as his notion that > lutenists cannot read pitch notation. There are > examples of lute music in pitch notation back to the > 15th century, and of course modern > editions of lute music have for a century used the grand > staff, with usually a nominal G tuning. The standard > way of notating lute music. > > Judging from the inclusion of elementary instructions in > many early lute tablature books, tablature was > originally intended > for novice players. But it was easy to print, and > survived because of the many scordatura lute tunings in > the 17th century. > Somone counted 28 of them. Pitch notation would make > that jumble of tunings a real mess for even the most > skilled player. Tablature was a practical solution. > > Oh yes, there's a lot more lute music by Byrd than I > indicated before. There are a whopping 182 works with > lute in the Paston Books alone, albeit many adapted for > lute from vocal music (as I said when I first mentioned > the Byrd works). Over the years Paul O'Dette and Julian > Bream have explored some of this repertory, so it is > hardly uncharted territory. Stewart McCoy has published > some editions of the songs with lute. Of course, no one > has yet studied the dance pieces to determine whether > they were > done up first as lute or as keyboard music. Byrd studied > with Ferabosco, after all. > > **Of course much lute music was conceived in pitch > notation, most likely on the grand staff or in > partitura. See Jessie Owens excellent study, _Composers > at Work: The Craft of Musical Composition 1450-1600_ > (OUP). There are very few surviving examples of lute > music sketched in tablature. I can list them (page byu > page) on one > hand. Composition with all the correction was first > done on erasable tablets of various sizes, so the > evidence disappeared. > > ajn > P.S. I have not read any further remarks from > Thames on this and other matters. For the first time > in all the years on the List, I have had to place a > a person on a"kill list." I will have no use for an > individual who is abusive in his public and private > communications. > ==
Re: Re:Malheur me bat
>> as regard to the chanson composition, it seems (sorry, no references here at work!) that Josquin heard the song at the Ferrara court around 1501-02 (4-5 years the Ockeghem's death) and that is now attributed to Malcort (or Martini); moreover, Ockeghem never wrote a Malheur me bat mass. It seems obvious that Petrucci misattributed to Ockeghem the song. << Dear Paolo I do have some references here: the introductions to the facsimile editions I used. They indeed say Petrucci attributed the chanson to Ockeghem. As the Odhecaton was an important source for other MSS and editions this attribution is often copied. Modern scolars seem to be convinced, however, the chanson was written by Malcort, perhaps Albertinus Malcourt, singer at St Gudula Church in Brussels from 1474 till his death in 1519. So you are right and I will amend my article. Yours David > > Best wishes > > Paolo > > > > > > >> Dear Paolo >> >> Ockeghem wrote a three part chanson called Malheur me bat, that is indeed >> also ascribed to Martini and Malcort (Brown believes it's either of these >> last two). As I understand it, the question of the conflicting >> attribution >> is not yet solved. The chanson melody formed the basis of masses by >> Agricola, >> Josquin, Obrecht and others. The text of Malheur me bat has not (yet) >> been >> found. I hope this answers your question. >> >> yours >> >> David >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "lgs.europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: "lute" >> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:52 PM >> Subject: Re:Malheur me bat >> >> >> > Ockeghem? I knew the song was by Martini or Malcort, and to the best of >> > my >> > knowledge, Ockeghem never wrote a Missa Malheur, whereas Obrecht and >> > Josquin did it >> > >> > From Goldberg "Malheur me bat is the song by Malcort or Martini (a >> > matter >> > of dispute) on which Obrecht based a mass already recorded by Bali. The >> > other Mass is based on an anonymous Flemish tune that was also used >> > frequently. The two Masses are more similar than contrasting, although >> > in >> > Fabrice Fitch's words the Agnus Dei of the latter Mass is more >> > "bizarre." >> > This choir of men's voices has a distinctive sound, more angular than >> > the >> > homogeneous tone of Renaissance vocal ensembles further west. I hope to >> > hear more obscure Masses from this group. jerome f. weberJEROME F. >> > WEBER" >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > Paolo Declich >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> I have made a detailed comparisson of Johannes Ockeghem's Malor me bat >> >> from >> >> Ottaviano Petrucci's Harmonice Musices Odhecaton A (1501) and >> >> Francesco >> >> Spinacino's intabulation in his Libro Secondo (1507). I found it >> >> interesting to do, you might find it interesting to read. I wrote it >> >> for >> >> Nostalgia, the newsletter of the Lute & Early Guitar Society Japan, >> >> but >> >> it's >> >> also on my website (see below). >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> >> * >> >> David van Ooijen >> >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Http://home.planet.nl/~d.v.ooijen/david/ >> >> * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 6X velocizzare la tua navigazione a 56k? 6X Web Accelerator di Libero! >> > Scaricalo su INTERNET GRATIS 6X http://www.libero.it >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > > Libero Flat, sempre a 4 Mega a 19,95 euro al mese! > Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it > > > > > >
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
I am reminded of an old joke. The searcher for truth is in search of the ultimate guru. He travels to India and Napal, he works his way through the villages, climbing ever higher into the Himalayas. He follows every lead in his search. After years of trekking, and always uphill, he finally comes to the place he is being guided to. There is a mystic in a cave, a great ascetic who contemplates everything. "Oh ultimate guru, tell me the meaning of life". "Life is a fountain, my son". "Damn it to hell, I climb every mountain, I seek through the villages, I spend years looking for the ultimate guru to tell me the meaning of life - and all you can say is Life is a fountain". The guru says "isn't it?". I work my butt off and wear down my fingers and now you tell me that Dowland liked thumb over?. Ah so, like the guru, whose disappointment had to be greater than the seeker's - after all he had devoted a life to the principle that "life is a fountain", and a life on a mountain top, whereas the seeker had only wasted a few years - I wonder at any absolute. O'Carolan was the definitive Irish harpist of the 18th C., he was blind (as were many early harpists, a good job for the blind who couldn't bring in the harvest). What if there were a fine lutenist without a thumb? Would he be able to play the songs of the time with the other four fingers, I think he would have found a way. Not the same sound exactly, but he might have started a "four finger" school of the lute, were he skilled enough. And we might all be playing without using the thumb if the cognoscenti of his time decided that his technique was best. Oh tempore, oh mores - and who was the Paris Hilton of the renaissance? (Pompadour might have a claim to her time). Best, Jon > Michael Thames wrote: > > > Is Dowland suggesting thumb out, rather than thumb under? > > Yes. > > It comes up pretty often here. There's a remark in Johann Stobaeus' > manuscript that Dowland changed from thumb-in to thumb-out in mid-career. > > For newbies, here's a more complete quote from Dowland: > > "...stretch out your Thombe with all the force you can, especially if thy > Thombe be short, so that the other fingers may be carried in a manner of a > fist, and let the Thombe be held higher then [sic] them, this in the > beginning will be hard. Yet they which have a short Thombe may imitate > those which strike the strings with the Thombe under the other fingers, > which though it be nothing so elegant, yet to them it will be more easie." > > HP > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
