At 06:20 AM 8/14/2005, Arthur Ness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Thank you for finally admitting that you knew about this edition and
that your pretension to have found the J.G. Holm abschrift in the
R&BS Collection in Copenhagen was a misrepresentation. The argument
between me and Erik was not on the accidentals in measure 11, but in
measures 9 and 10. You can keep second guessing any single note in
this edition, and if you really want to keep yourself busy, even
analyze the more than 150 editions of guitar music I published over
the last 26 years, containing well over a thousand pieces of music.
Whatever turns you on. The fact of the matter is that right from the
beginning, this edition contained a critical apparatus which
indicated precisely every single editorial decision made. If anyone
disagrees with it, they can bloody well change it, particularly when
the source on which it is based is readily available. So what's your problem?
>
>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!
Actually, I think you are wrong about the Beethoven connection. This
introduction is more in the style of Thomas Moore who said:
I know I shall be told by the learned musician, that
whatever infringes on the rules of composition must be
disagreeable to the ear, but that, according to the pure ethics
of the art, nothing can possibly be pleasant that is wrong; but I am
sorry to say that I am lawless enough to disagree with him, and
have sometime been even lost to all sense of musical
rectitude, as to take pleasure in a profane succession of fifths
So unless you can find the original Schulz, all this petty
mealy-mouth nit-picking is meaningless blather. Particularly coming
form the likes of you, a person who had never in his life edited a
piece of guitar music.
>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.
How do you know? they do agree with your ideas of what correctness
was? who asked you anyway?
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
