O.K. Ron,
I took the time to compare your version with the original, because this is a
piece close to my heart.
The original is for 7 courses. You rearrange it for 8 course lute. You
introduce dotted notes in places before where the facsimile seems to have a
dot over some ciphers. I don't quite understand why Holmes should write out
only some dotted rhythm signs. Could they perhaps be "bleedings", as they
occur all over the manuscript in many unwarranted places.
Checking the preceeding and following pieces seems to indicate this. I can't
rule out the theory of "economical writing" though, as some of the dots are
on plausible spots.
As you chose to have unequal bars (nrs. of beats) and no bar numbers, I will
here call each of your bars a measure, irrespective of note values within
each one.
In your 4th measure, you remove a dotted hook over the first chord, (which
should probably be a single hook - bleeding again?), and introduce a 2nd
note (c5) not in the maniscript. (In the penultimate note of this (your 4th)
bar Holmes apparently forgot a triple hook over a1 and consequently a double
hook on the e2 five ciphers later.
In your 13th ms. you have corrected the d4 to c4, something everyone playing
the piece will accept as right.
The last note in your ms. 15 is a1. The Ms. says c1. I opt for the latter.
One could even envisage a discreet mordent on the preceeding note.
In ms. 21, your 6th note is an e2, where the Ms. says d2. I believe the
original to be correct.
In ms.22, you choose to put 10th note as e4 instead of Ms's a3 which sounds
equal. (Barré reasons?)
In ms. 36 you chose to ignore the interesting longer 2-hook on the second
note (c4). This could explain why there are 4 strains instead of three as in
the following, as if that first one is just like a small prelude, to point
out that the virtuoso finale starts there. (I could be mistaken...)
In ms. 38 there is no a6 on note 22 in the Ms. as you have. Perhaps to
advertize that this type of scalar passages are coming to an end?
Ms. 46 is interesting. In the fac. note 7 is c3 instead of your a4, to keep
the descending bass line. I have to say, that I find the original adds an
interesting spice when breaking the descending bass so unexpectedly and then
continuing. There is someting of a small echo to this in ms. 49.
I agree to adding 2 chords at end of ms. 52 and beginning of ms. 53, and the
double hooks at the end, to slow the piece down before the final chord.
So, there you have it. As a whole, I find the differences to be minor, and
not much more faulty than most manuscript pieces out there. Therefore to
call the piece "really needing _reconstruction_" is perhaps to exagerate a
bit, don't you think?
B.R.
G.
PS. I totally agree with your view that many ascribed Francesco pieces do
not seem _at all_ to be in his style.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Andrico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Are Vidar Boye Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "G.R. Crona"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 11:38 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Poulton #73 [was] dedillo
Dear Are:
Diana Poulton attributed the piece (with reservation) to Dowland based on
the fact that it contains several of Dowland's typical devices; the
ascending scale passages with a repeated first note, and several
tonic/dominant repetitions with inversions. The piece also appears in the
manuscript (D9) following another fantasia more securely attributed to
Dowland (Poulton #6). I have to agree with you that Poulton #73 doesn't
necessarily sound like Dowland, and the fact that the piece really needs
reconstruction does not help the matter. There seems to be a tendency to
attribute unascribed music to known composers simply because a given piece
is good. This is certainly the case with many pieces attributed to
Francesco da Milano.
Best wishes,
Ron Andrico
http://www.mignarda.com
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 23:28:35 +0100> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC:
[email protected]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [LUTE]
Re: Poulton #73 [was] dedillo
> Does any of you know why this piece is attributed to Dowland? It is a >
> great piece, but to me it doesn't sound like a Dowland piece...> > > Are
_________________________________________________________________
Boo!!Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
