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, s
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
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. C
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 m
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://ma
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 th
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-
> 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 p
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: "
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
>
>>
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
