The Galliard is a later composition, and probably designed for the amateur market--it is a fine piece, just not that difficult. If I were to make these a pair, there would be a stylstic dissonance between the versions that outweighs any choice of lutes, I could make my own 7 course version of the galliard, trying to match the style, as reworking the pavan would be more difficult. Although it occurs to me as a theoretical problem that one could play the published galliard in a minor and try to find a suitable pair in LOST. Or use one of the LOST versions in G. Technically that would be more challenging.
Personally, I think that the Early Dowland is Seven, sources for six do not address the core of the repertory, so the answer for is, 7 (with due respect to 7 of 9) for the Early repertory; 9 for LOST, the galliard and later works, including the later songs. I don't think Dowland really adadpted his music--that is, I don't see a whole set of pieces that he revised for later instruments. I see the "player composer" crowd adapting all composers for whatever lute they were playing, and that is completely typical for this period. The standard practice was to take a piece of Dowland or anyone else and remove the harmonic framework and replace it with ornamentation formulas, a practice which Dowland specifically condemned, but of course, was unable to stop. The combination of the faster notes with less chords was irrestible, presumably because they are easier to play yet sound more difficult. Clearly at some point Dowland changed from 7 to 9, and then composed for the new instrument. And this is the standard situation for all composers. Mozart, Beethoven, you name it. The later works have a bigger range as the instruments expand. And if one were to play Mozart's Opus 2 followed by B's Hammerklavier, then you would need two pianos, or play the earlier piece on the later instrument. dt .At 06:51 AM 11/28/2007, you wrote: >Dear David, > > Your reasoning is historically "correct," but this >puts us in something of a quandry from a practical >performance view. Just take Dowland, for example. >His "Lachrimae" lute solo exists in a version for >six-course lute, (its 7-course in Board and Folger) >"Flow my teares" is for 7-courses, the lute used in >"Seven Sad Pavans" is 9-courses and the "Galliard to >Lachrimae" is also for 9. Now, if you want to pair >the Lachrimae Pavan with its Galliard on the same >concert program, what should you do? > > You're quite right that none of the above >mentioned pieces requires the 8-course lute, but, >according to your line of reasoning, would it be any >more acceptable to play the 6-or-7-course Pavan on a >9-course instrument? (What about playing a 9-course >piece on a 10-course? Out, too?) Certainly, the >tonal distinction between the 6 and 9 coursers would >be much greater than between the 7 and 8 courses that >you suggest is significant. Or would you suggest our >performer should play the pavan on a six-course lute, >put it down, fine-tune the 9-course and go? Would >Dowland? > > Clearly, the answer is that Dowland adapted the >music to the instrument at hand. There's no shame in >us doing the same. > > >Chris > >--- David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's important to play 6 & 7 course for the > > renaissance repertory. > > I understand the issues of resale value, etc, but I > > really think for > > most of the 16th century > > the three instruments, 6 course, 7 course _F and 7 > > course D give the > > most insights into the music. > > > > Also, if you are going to sell the lute it is best > > not to buy it :) > > > > As important as course, ideally one should have an > > instrument set up > > for intabs and one for ricercars, and the optimum > > setup really requires > > the right number of courses. > > It's possible that without the best setup, it might > > be harder to > > learn certain techniques, and that an eight course > > could become > > a bit of a tugboat. > > > > There's a big difference in the sound when the > > eighth course goes on, > > which is immediately attractive, but for me, > > ultimately, > > later sounding, rich rather than clear. > > > > Many instruments share these issues of practicality > > and range. When > > buying an Italian harpsichorp, people have to decide > > whether to buy > > an instrument with a very wide range, > > so they can play "everything", or an historical > > instrument. But there > > is a fundamental difference in the sound; sound vs > > practicality: no > > easy answers. > > > > dt > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. >Make Yahoo! your homepage. >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
