On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:05:19 +0200, Mathias Rösel wrote > > > 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. >
Even so with "here" I clearly refered to this mailing list and the editor of the 1716 edition is not paticipating in this exchange, I have to agree with him: the music was published I three editions, two of them (the much earlier ones) contain both score and guitar version, none contains theorbo or lute versions. Clearly the are guitar music published by the composer. I would object to the idea that some version is a "rewrite" of another version. I take all three version (guitar/theorbo/score) as renderings of the same compositional idea. > > 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. Or the violin etc. > > > 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. You know of any source earlier than 1682? Would you mind sharing? > > 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. Nowhere did I say this. > 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. Why? It might well be a written down version of the "core" composition. The instrument-specific versions adapt to the resp. instruments range. > > 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. But who claimed that? The statement I questioned (and still do) was that since the scored version is a forth higher that implies a theorbo tuned a forth higher. > > There's also > > astonishing little evidence for Theorbos in D from french sources. > > None, to put it straight. Indeed! ;-) That's what I wanted to imply. Cheers, RalfD -- R. Mattes - Hochschule fuer Musik Freiburg [email protected] To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
