[LUTE] Re: Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted
The article was aimed at the guitar crowd, 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] Bachs 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
[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 : >>> 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, 201
[LUTE] Re: Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted
Exactly! Wiadomość napisana przez David Tayler w dniu 1 maj 2012, o godz. 18:02: >I have to say for me I think the available evidence points nowhere. > People can't even agree on whether the pieces are playable on the lute, > and not only that, "playability" is not an indicator of authorship or > orchestration, so who cares? All this stuff about the "original intent" > of the composer is really about the intent about the people who write > the articles. > Shorter Bach: Can't play it? Please practice. Don't like it? Make an > arrangement. > --- On Sun, 4/29/12, Roman Turovsky wrote: > > From: Roman Turovsky > Subject: [LUTE] Bach's Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted > To: "lutenet" > Date: Sunday, April 29, 2012, 7:42 PM > > Jarek, > I thinks the available evidence pretty much points where Clive thinks > it does, and I am inclined to agree with him, notwithstanding Vasily > Antipov, > an excellent Russian player who actually can perform "Lute Suites" as > written (he knows no technical difficulties). > The "Lute Suites" are simply not performable by an average professional > player (unlike the rest of JSB's works), and that is the ultimate > giveaway > (besides being out of lutenistic character). > RT > From: "JarosAA'aw Lipski" <[1]jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> > Roman, > I do not share your dislike for musicology. It pays really big service > to all of us I suppose. It has its rules and trespassing them creates > the effect you are talking about. I am just saying that the available > evidence on so called Lute Suites does not entitle us to make very > definite statements that Bach never ever wrote anything with a lute in > mind apart from 2 small movements in his Passions. It would be not too > difficult to create a contradictory theory, but this kind of > speculation seems to be rather a waste of time. > JL > WiadomoAA>Ae/= napisana przez Roman Turovsky w dniu 29 kwi 2012, o > godz. 23:01: >> a geetar then. >> Phrases like "there is some likelihood that item X might very well > could have been item Y" >> may work in some musicological situations, but not in the case of our > "Lute Suites". >> RT >> >> - Original Message - From: "JarosAA'aw Lipski" > <[2]jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> >> To: <[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 4:50 PM >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Re: Re: Bach's Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted >> >> >>> but in this case a spade is not a spade :) >>> JL >>> >>> >>> WiadomoAA>Ae/= napisana przez Roman Turovsky w dniu 29 kwi 2012, o > godz. 22:32: >>> Yes, but - sometimes we have to give up the musicological mumbo-jumbo, and just call a spade a spade. RT - Original Message - From: "JarosAA'aw Lipski" > <[4]jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> To: <[5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 4:24 PM 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 > > > > WiadomoAA>Ae/= 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: [6]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [[7]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] > on behalf of JarosAA'aw Lipski [[8]jaroslawlip...@wp.pl] >> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 3:06 PM >> To: [9]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
[LUTE] Re: [LUTE] Re: Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted
Am 25.04.2012, 22:27 Uhr, schrieb Daniel Winheld : 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/
[LUTE] RE: [LUTE] Re: Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted
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
[LUTE] RE: [LUTE] Re: [LUTE] Re: Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted
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 : > 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/
