It's good to know you're paying attention. Since Spinacino's books
(1507) and Capirola's manuscript (circa 1511) are essentially from the
same time frame, and really represents late 15th century repertory and
practice, we don't know for certain who was copying whom. But (if you
read my last blog post on Bembo) at the time, the idea of imitation was
an indication of acknowledgement and respect, and not to be considered
the sort of plagiarism that is the basis for songwriting lawsuits so
common today. As Martin Shepard points out in the Lute News, Capirola
also includes a quotation from the famous Benedictus by Isaac in the
same recercar. By the way, the particular section you mentioned should
really be considered to be in triple time.
RA
__________________________________________________________________
From: lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu
<lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu> on behalf of Tristan von
Neumann <tristanvonneum...@gmx.de>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 7:10 PM
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: [LUTE] Spinacino/Capirola
*rubs his chin*
Hmmm..... so why exactly are m. 43ff in Capirola f.6v literally m. 17ff
in Spinacino No 37?
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
