> > I was speaking of the "Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth, Mises en > > Partition Dessus et Basse", 1716 (facsimile Madrid, 1983). The guitar > > is not mentioned. > > I was speaking of the two printed guitar books from 1682 and 1686. No theorbo > mentioned in those.
That being so, it was off-topic, wasn't it. > > One might take this to suggest that de Visée himself viewed the pieces > > as theorbo and lute music. > > Not in 1680-something :-) No, I was speaking, as I said, of the "Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth, Mises en Partition Dessus et Basse", 1716. Guitar is off-topic in this context (see headline above). > > In his 1983 preface, Juan Marcos remarked that "many of these pieces > > had, years before, an edition of its guitar versions" (sic!). > > However, that it was "impossible to know for what instruments were > > they originaly conceived" > > (sic!). I for one cannot see good reasons why one should claim that > > what de Visee called music for the theorbo and the lute, in fact is > > guitar music (that must have been rewritten for the theorbo and the > > lute). > > Nobody here made such a claim. Yes, it has been made by means of implication. If a collection is labeled Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth without even mentioning the guitar, but you (the editor of the facsimile edition) state that it isn't possible to tell whether the pieces were originally conceived for the guitar, the lute or the theorbo, you do claim in that vein that the music was possibly conceived for the guitar. > Just that these pieces in score where published > in the context of a guitar publication ca. 30 year before the where published as > theorbo pieces. These pieces were not published in print as theorbo pieces at all. The publication of the Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth in 1716 suggests that the music previously existed as theorbo music, but it wasn't published in print. Saizenay is dated 1699, but R1575 (and its sister ms.) is considerably earlier, probably. > > As a matter of fact, pieces by de Visee that exist in versions for the > > theorbo, the lute, the guitar and / or in score (en partition), have > > in common that versions of a piece for lute, guitar and / or in score > > share the same key, whereas the respective theorbo version is a 4th > > lower. > > Maybe because they would be unplayable at the high pitch on a theorbo? > Given that the keys of pieces are clearly given in manuscripts I think there's little > to argue about. Yes, agreed. After all, the leading question can be turned into the opposite direction. Versions for the guitar and / or the lute stand a 4th higher because they'd be unfeasible at the low theorbo pitch. > > IMO it is safe to say about the 1716 score edition, that if pieces > > exists in versions for the theorbo as well as other versions, the > > theorbo version is original, nevertheless. > > I think that's a claim hard to be proven. The earliest sources are for guitar. A claim hardly to be proved. > I tend > to take these pieces as music published for a wide range of instruments (those > most popular at the time: guitar, harpsichord, violin/flute/recorder with BC or > lute / theorbo). You are in good company. That is what de Visée wrote himself. > It seems futile to claim that they are "originally" for one > instrument with the other versions being mere "Bearbeitungen"/arrangements. I was under the impression that you take them as original guitar music. And if we take into account the difference of pitch between versions of a piece for the lute (or guitar, for that matter) and versions of the same piece for the theorbo, we may safely conclude that one is the adaptation of the other. At least, I see no other explanation. The edition en partition clearly is an adaptation. > I don't think we need to assume equal pitch for the different scorings since there > seems to be no indication that these are meant to be used together. By different scorings you mean theorbo tablatures and the 1680ish / 1716 score editions, I take it? Then that's what I said, the score edition is not a version for the theorbo in D. > There's also > astonishing little evidence for Theorbos in D from french sources. None, to put it straight. Mathias > > > > The theorbo pieces of de Visée's publication en musique stand a > > > > 4th higher than the correspondent tablature versions. > > > > > Can the transposition of a 4th "en musique" be because de Visee was > > > using his guitar pieces as his reference point? Most of the solo > > > theorbo pieces that also exist in guitar versions are pitched down a > > > 4th from the guitar. This makes sense since the guitar with > > > re-entrant 5th course will have the 4th course as its lowest pitch, > > > so as to be really "in d." > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > Christopher Wilke > > > Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer > > > www.christopherwilke.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > -- > R. Mattes - > Hochschule fuer Musik Freiburg > [email protected] >
