> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of howard posner > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 12:31 PM > To: Lutelist list > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Liuto Bacho > > > On Dec 21, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Eugene C. Braig IV wrote: > > > Obviously not, and I should have been more clear. I was referring > > to what > > has survived of Bach's music bearing a lute designation or > > attribution. > > Especially if intended for actual rather than idealized > > hypothetical lutes > > (or lautenwerk), that music still seems to inhabit the realm of > > novelty > > amongst Bach's output. I have many texts on botanical taxonomy on my > > shelves, but I'm not a botanist. I own an excellent jazz guitar, > > but have > > left even less evidence that I'm an excellent jazz guitarist (for good > > reason: I'm not) than Bach did that he was a lutenist with > > professional > > aspirations to publish collections of lute music. > > I suppose you're using "publish" in a loose sense, since Bach had > very limited interest in producing printed editions of his music of > any kind. > > He did, however, write a lot of music for instruments on which he is > not known to have played professionally, as most composers did. He > may well have written lute works because he liked the instrument and > knew good players. > > In any event, we're forgetting the first rule of Bach scholarship: > all instrumental works are adaptations from lost cantatas, and > everything in the cantatas is adapted from lost instrumental music > (except, of course, in those cases where we actually know the works > that were adapted). Thus, his Lutheran masses were all arrangements > from his lost lute suites.
Voila! Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
