May I add to Gordon's comments on sponsorship. Not from the courts of Europe and their musicians, but from the precincts of Ireland. If there is a god of the harpist (the traditional, not the orchestral) it is Turlough O'Carolan (also transliterated Turloch Carolan). His time was 1670 to 1738, and he became blind from small pox at eighteen years, and took up the harp then. As he took up the instrument late he was never considered more than an adequate harpist but he was a prolific composer (and looking at, and playing, his works I think he might have been more than adequate).
In the style of the day he roamed Ireland as an entertainer and teacher, supported by the "big houses". He had a talent for improvisation and a great many of his pieces are called "Planxty", that being a dedication to his host, or the lady of his host. So when I play Planxty George Brabazon I am playing an approximation of the piece he improvised in the house of George Brabazon. I say an approximation as none of his compositions were written down, he being blind. They were transcribed after the fact by others to whom he had taught them. Even Mozart made a comment on his Poor Irish Boy, a very simple melody on the whistle, but an interesting composition if played with harmony. My point, in this digression, being that the relationship between musician and sponsor was a symbiosis. In those days there was a lot more of that as there was less of an economy. The musician couldn't make a CD and sell it to the populace, he had to depend on those who could feed him as he neither grew grain nor raised beef. A time of transition from the strict "estates" of medieval times - the peasant, the military and the clergy - to the time of artisans and traders and artists, along with the traditional producers, protectors and "shamans" - and thence to our modern culture of general consumption of the arts, when we have enough production to spare. (And let none of this suggest that I concur with the current public definition of what is valuable art - but that is both the value and the curse of a free market in the arts). Perhaps if one of you could get P. Diddy interested in promoting the lute we might again have music on the airwaves, but I have my doubts. Best, Jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon J. Callon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:46 PM Subject: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures. > Regarding the titles of pieces that are addressing the names of > various nobility: > > I assume that some such titles are intended to be simple literal > descriptions. Many surviving dances and other pieces were originally > composed for various masques and other entertainments that occupied > much of the nobility's time and resources. (In modern equivalent > values, The Triumph of Peace cost about 6.5 million pounds [U.K.]!) > Hence, a dance described as "So-and-so's Galliard" may simply infer > that the dance was composed for a courtly entertainment sponsered by > So-and-so. > > Various examples (for consort rather than lute alone) are in Sabol, > Four Hundred Songs & Dances from the Stuart Masque, for example: > nos. 146-148 (pp. 240-241), described as "The First of My Lord > Essex", etc. > Sabol states that these are dances from Jonson's _Hymenaei_, written > for the marriage of Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex, and Lady > Frances Howard (p. 582). > Another is no. 213 (pp. 294-295), Robert Johnson's "Lady Hatton's > Almain" possibly for an entertainment given by Lady Elizabeth Hatton > (p. 593). > > The instrumental versions of The Earl of Essex Galliard [no > connection with the above mentioned dances] are, of course, variants > of the song "Can she excuse my wrongs" (Bk I no 5). > Poulton, John Dowland (pp. 224-230), suggests that the poem of "Can > she..." that Dowland set for the song was written by Robert Devereux, > Earl of Essex, and that is where Dowland derived the name for the > instrumental version in _Lachrimae or Seaven Teares_, as a reminder > of the poem and the ill-fated career of Essex. So likewise, the name > is a description of the piece's source, rather than any attempt to > gain favour (especially as Essex was executed in 1601). > > GJC > > > > >
