The F sharps are wrong. That was the entire point. Beethoven would save the F
sharp for the theme in measuire 13. That's why the progression is so
Beethoven-like. I disagreed with Erik, too.
And it is you, Matanya, who is lying when you write
<quote>The current on line edition has the F natural and for Arthur
to say
that it is a sharp is not only a misrepresentation, but an outright
lie.<unquote>
The F SHARP is right there in measure 11. And to be valid the F natural needs
the later B FLAT which you have as B NATURALs. So you've lied twice in one
breath.
The problem is that any attempt to educate you is beyond your ken. You haven't
the slightest notion of what is happening harmonically in the passage. You
can't even tell what key a piece is written in.
And I'm not going to try to explain why the passage is so Beethoven-like, and a
characteristic close for an Introduction. The whole point is that you have to
SAVE the F sharp for the Theme in measure 13!
This kind of misterioso minor 6/4 chord approaches before a significant theme
is sounded are characteristic features in the music of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven
and their contemporaries. The point is to introduce the major when the theme
is sounded. It's a kind of Picardy Third effect to place emphasis on the theme
when iot arrives.
The fingerings in measure 11 are incorrect. The Danish amateur knew he played
something wrong, but his solution, like yours Matanya, was not the correct
solution.
----- Original Message -----
From: Matanya Ophee
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:36 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Leonardo Sciulzzo
At 11:18 PM 8/12/2005, you wrote:
>Arthur wrote:
> >I'll stand on my F naturals, which both MO and ES turn to F sharps.
>
>My original printed edition did have the F naturals, and that was the
>point on which Erik criticized it. Eventually, in our discussions on
>RMCG, you were the one who told me (Remember, all of this is still
>on-line in the Google archives of RMCG) that Erik was right and I was
>wrong, and I should put the sharp back in. As I explain in my on-line
>article, I eventually made the change not because of what you and
>Erik said, but for my own reasons. I any case, the critical apparatus
>attached to the edition clearly spells out the available choices and
>each guitarist can make up his or her mind without being spoon-fed by
>you or by me.
All of the above is of course exactly 180 degrees off. My original
1984 paper edition had the F#, and that is the point Erik criticized
it. (Takes a bit of reflection to get untangled from Arthur's
obfuscations...) The current on line edition has the F natural and
for Arthur to say that it is a sharp is not only a misrepresentation,
but an outright lie.
Check it out for yourself:
http://www.orphee.com/schulz-1.pdf
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
Phone: 614-846-9517
Fax: 614-846-9794
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
