Dear Howard, Rather the opposite: I mean casting our conceptions (as historicaly based as they might be) upon a specific case where the evidence contradicts them. In this particular case it means reviewing what we consider a pavan (the historic category) in the face of what Milan is telling: i.e. that HE considers certain fantasias as having pavan characteristics while, nevertheless, providing information to the contrary: speed and rhythmic organization. Thus, if we play Milan's sixth pavan as a pavan we may be reassured by our knowledge of how pavans were played that we are on the right path; yet we are not following Milan's specific instructions, thus contradicting prima facie evidence. This also holds for the remaining five pavans in what concerns tempo.
Best wishes, Antonio ----- Original Message ---- From: howard posner <[email protected]> To: Lute mailing list <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 27 August, 2009 23:41:07 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Edward Marvin/who nose? On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Antonio Corona wrote: > You are quite right, but that was not the point I was trying to > make. Rather than questioning how to manipulate the piece, I was > trying to show the inconsistency of forcing a historic category > into a context that contradicts it explicitly. Maybe I'm missing the context. By "forcing a historic category" etc. do you mean playing a pavana as if it's a pavana because it's called a pavana? Or something else? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
