Thank you, Arthur, for that very precise and well-documented point of view on the first two bars of Francesco's 33 <g> ! Much appreciated and appended to your Francesco edition...
All the best, Jean-Marie ================================= == En réponse au message du 29-11-2010, 00:54:35 == > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Susanne Herre" <[1][email protected]> > To: "Lute List" <[2][email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:43 AM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Francesco da Milano - Ness 33 > > Thank you for all your responses! > > > > Sorry I didn't write clearly. > > > > I know of three versions which were kindly given to me by David van > Oijen: > > > > - Siena Manuscript > > - Intabolatura di Liuto di M. Francesco da Milano [...] Libro Terzo, > > Gardano 1562 > > - Theatrum Musicum - Petrus Phalesius, Antuerpiensi 1571 > > > > All these versions have the opening motif with a rhythm being > > "semibreve-minima-minima" > > I think it is strange to have an alternation of the motif as soon as > in > > the first imitation and I was thinking of any reason of notation / > > printing problems. > > But my theory also seems not to be very convincing because they could > have > > started the first imitation on an "upbeat" if they want to use bar > lines. > > On his CD of 2008 Hopkinson Smith plays the version written in Siena, > > Gardano and Phalese. > > It is very interesting, Jean-Marie, to know about this english > version > > with "corrected" opening motif. > > If there are any other versions or theories - it would also be > interesting > > to know about that. > > > > Thanks to all, > > > > Susanne > ==================================================== > >> > >> Dear lute lovers, > >> > >> What are your opinions about the beginning of Francesco > da > >> Milano - Fantasia Ness 33 regarding the note value of the first > note of > >> the first motif? > >> > >> My thoughts at the moment are that maybe it happened like > this: Francesco wrote the piece without bar lines. When they tried to > >> > print it with bar lines it was not possible or not common to > print > >> only an upbeat / a bar of half length. So they changed the rhythm > to a > >> very common pattern so the motif could now fit into one bar. > >> > >> Could that be possible? Maybe that happened with other > pieces > >> as well? > >> > >> Or maybe Francesco "had to" compose it like this because > no > >> piece like a fantasia or ricercar would start with an upbeat? > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> > >> Susanne > ===================================================== > > Dear Susanne and friends, > > > > Perhaps I might add a few comments appropriate to this discussion. > Err, about 800 words about two notes.<g> > > > > A few years back I completed a collected edition of the music of > Francesco da Milano, with which some of you are familiar. When I worked > on that edition I assembled all known sources for Francesco's music, > that is, altogether, some 640 pieces that were copied or printed into > 16th and early 17th sources. That is standard working procedure in > preparing a critical edition of music. To determine the very best > reading to use as a basic source, and to discover if other sources had > corrections that might be incorporated into the basic reading, I > collated all those 640+++ pieces. For No. 33 the best source I had at > that time was from the Intabolatura de Lauto, Libro Terzo (Venice; > Antonio Gardane, 1547). So I used it, although the rhythm of the first > three notes seemed to garble the opening musical idea, Francesco's > favored mi-fa-mi motive. The motive dominates the entire ricercar and > its companion No. 34. Why throw away a strong opening musical idea? > Surely it was intended to be the same as the later imitation, three > equal semibreves, rather than the semibreve-minim-minim of the Gardane > exemplar (which found its way into so many later printed editions and > manuscripts, as David van Ooijen showed us, in part). > > > > Six independent sources available to me at that time gave the reading > which I suspected was the correct one, three long notes (semibreves) as > in the answering points-of-imitation. These included one ms copied in > Florence and another in Lucca; a late, otherwise very corrupt > "homophonic" version attributed to Diomedes Cato in the Hainhofer > Lautenbuecher (ca. 1603), as well as the Cambridge manuscript cited by > Jean-Marie--the latter is published as Appendix 4 in the FdaM edition. > So I adopted the change, marking it with "[*]" to indicate the > emendation was found in contemporary sources. One source (the one from > Lucca) even confirmed Susanne Herre's suspicions about an "upbeat" by > inserting a rest before the first note. (Actually it's not quite an > "upbeat" rather than a piece beginning on the second beat in triple > meter, but as it comes down from Gardane falsely barred in duple.) > > > > One of the most lamented lost sources back then was an Intabulatura de > lauto di M. Francesco Milanese et M. Perino [sic] Fiorentino, Libro > Primo (Rome: Valerio Dorico & Lodovico fratello, M. D. LXVI). I only > had the first four folios (from an incomplete copy in a French > library). The original print run was probably about a thousand > copies! All thrown away when the music became outmoded. The incomplete > copy included the table of contents demonstrating that it had the same > contents as the later Gardane print. The preface explained that the > volume had been edited by Francesco student Pierino Fiorentino (d. > 1552) as a monument to his recently departed teacher. The fragmentary > copy included three Francesco fantasias (Nos. 30-32). From those three > pieces the importance of the Roman print was quite obvious. The pieces > were virtually without mistakes, were printed WITHOUT barlines (as > Susanne guessed, and as I suspect was Francesco's preferred notation), > and to show the polyphonic voice-leading, held notes were marked with > numerous +'s (omitted in the Gardane print). And the strange longas > with coronas (mentioned by David Tayler) at the END (but NOT at the > beginning) are another Gardane appendage, and not contained in the > authoritative Roman print. > > > > The Dorico publication surely represented the very best of Francesco's > output, prepared under the watchful eye of his most distinguished > student. It was an authoritative source, the only legitimate one to > come down to us. But I only had a fragment of the print. > > > > Before World War II there had been one complete copy of the Dorico > print in the Prussian State Library. (The original print run was > probably about 1000 copies--all gone now.) But as the bombs began to > fall, it was said to have been sent for safekeeping with about a third > of that library's rare music to the Fuerstenfeldbruck Castle in what is > now Poland. Rumors held that soldiers had found the cache, and after > the war locals reported that they had seen soldiers burning books to > keep warm (the cache had included the autograph finale to Beethoven's > Ninth, and an act of Magic Flute in Mozart's hand, etc.). > > > > The rumors were fortunately false. The collection was missing from the > castle where the Germans had stored it, but had been moved around into > various monasteries and castles, and finally came into the possession > of the Polish government in Cracow. The government considered the > collection to be war reparations, and the cache's existence was not > revealed until about 40 years after war's end. The saga is told in > Nigel Lewis, Paperchase: Mozart, Beethoven, Bach . . . The Search for > Their Lost Music (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1981), x + 246 pp. > > > > There were Francesco's Nos. 30-36, 38-42 in what must be considered > their most authoritative readings. (Gardane misattributed No. 37 to > Francesco, although it is correctly assigned to Pierino in the Dorico > print.) It was the direct source for Gardane's 1547 edition. Without > barlines the Dorico print has the correct note values at the beginning, > three semibreves, not the semibreve-minim-minim of Gardane's pirated > print, and all those which followed based on it. In drawing the > barlines, Gardane's editor or typesetter(?) misunderstood Susanne's > "upbeat," treating it as a "downbeat," shortening the second and third > notes to fit the notes to his perceived duple meter. So we even know > the culprit: a hack in Gardane's print shop. > > > > There is no valid authority for the semibreve-minim-minim beginning for > No. 33. > > > > -- > >References > > 1. mailto:[email protected] > 2. mailto:[email protected] > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html ========================================
