Dear David,
Sorry I misunderstood you and the intended thrust of your comments.
Perhaps it would have under the circumstances been advisable to change the
subject heading, because I mistakenly saw your message as being directed at
my comments on the opening THREE notes of No. 33 in what is surely the
authentic version (without barlines) edited by Francesco's student Pierino
Fiorentino.
But you must realize that Francesco's music does not survive in multiple
versions. The section in the preface, pages 17-29, is labeled
"Concordances," not "Concordances and Cognates." His works tend to be
copied over and over without change, that is, except for mistakes that creep
in. Because the mistakes are hardly ever corrected in subsequent
editions/copies they are cumulative. And so after a century of copying the
piece might have a mistake in almost every measure. There are examples of
these in English sources and in the Thysius Lute Book. Your digital file of
640 Francesco pieces is not only cumbersome but it's going to be filled with
corrupt music, as Paul Beier remarked in regard to the Gardane 1547 Libro
Terzo. It's pirated directly from the Dorico print of 1546 which has two
mistakes, in all of the Francesco pieces, whereas the Gardane has 20 in all.
The Cavalcanti lute book from ca. 1590, which has the "correct" opening,
nevertheless has 27 mistakes in Ricercar 33 ALONE.
If you would take a look at the HUP edition you will discover that I did not
"relegate the cognates to
the scrap heap of history." Mine is one of the first critical editions of
lute music to
bring together all known concordant and cognate versions. There aren't
many, but what there are appear in the Appendix as items
Nos. 1-16. They are of mixed quality, and alas have been ignored by many.
But you can lead a horse, . . . The variant from the Marsh lute book and
the one by Sixt Kargel deserve the attention of performers and those who
might want to understand how to ornament a Francesco work. Others are not
too satisfactory, namely "No. 33 rasgueado" by Diomedes Cato in the
Hainhofer Lautenbücher, and the long-winded variant of No. 33 in the Cosens
Lute Book (mentioned by Jean-Marie).
Arthur.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Tayler" <[email protected]>
To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 6:02 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Francesco da Milano - Ness 33
Snip
David Tayler is mistaken when he claims that I "evened up" uneven passages
in Francesco's music. No serious editor of early music would ever do
something like that.
Snip
Actually, I never said anything of the sort, nor would I. All of the
material in your edition is in the critical commentary.
In fact, what I did say was "I defer to Arthur in all things
Francesco"--I don't think I can make it clearer than that.
If you use a citation, when making such a claim, then I could
cheerfully eat my words.
That doesn't mean I don't have any opinion at all.
Quote
"His polyphony depends more on Josquin's sacred polyphony,
rather than the informal contrapuntal style of the Josquin's chansons."
End quote
As for points of imitation being different in the chansons of Josquin
compared to the sacred music, you can see shortened imitation in
Josquin's masses, for example Hercules dux Ferrariae, (Gloria), and
many other works by Josquin, Isaac, and other composers of both
sacred and secular music. And of course, the hundreds of masses and
motets based on chansons which rework the motivic material. Standard
compositional practice, in my opinion, also that composition of
sacred music usually begin with a long note.
I have a different opinion than some about some aspects of editing
renaissance music. I think any piece can begin on a long. I think
original note values should be used in editions, and so on. I think
all of the source versions should be digitized and hyperlinked, with
no urtext. That's just my opinion, and others may have a different
opinion. And each individual piece represents a unique set of
circumstances, which is why my initial reaction is to defer the
expert, the person who has spent years on one repertory or composer.
There's many ways to make an edition, and I myself, as an editor have
changed my mind several times over the last forty years.
However, "I defer to Arthur in all things Francesco"
He's the expert.
dt
At 02:09 PM 12/4/2010, you wrote:
David Tayler is mistaken when he claims that I "evened up" uneven passages
in Francesco's music. No serious editor of early music would ever do
something like that.
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
