> 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.
A bit more than that, no? Exact transpositions of the same pieces, I'd say. Perhaps we won't be able to tell which was first (as in Lessing's Ring Parable), but it's pretty clear that one _was_ first and the others are adaptations. > > 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. > > > You know of any source earlier than 1682? Would you mind sharing? Paris BN 1575 and BN 25391 are two theorbo mss. that abound with music by de Visee. Some concordances with Saizenay, but both mss. seem to be much earlier than 1699 and earlier than 1680, I'd say. > Why? It might well be a written down version of the "core" composition. > The instrument-specific versions adapt to the resp. instruments range. I for one have never heard of such a thing like a core composition, to be used for instrument-specific adaptations, in the 17th century. > 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. An idea that was positively maintained e. g. by Jose Moreno in the booklet to his CD with music by de Visee. I agree with you in doubting it. Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
