Sorry for the delay, I had and have to busy in my profession. May I assure you that these two theorbo mss. do exist. I have contacted the person who gave the xeroxes to me some ten years ago. The shelf marks are okay, Paris Bibliotheque National, but I'm not sure about the current whereabouts of the original manuscripts. I shall inform you asap.
Mathias > The numbers 1575 and 25391 are the problem: > > If you have a look on this link from "Sources manuscrites en > tablature", you will find as theorbo sources F-B 279.152 (the famous > Saizenay, theorbo part) > F-Pn Rés. 1106 > F-Pn Rés. 1820 > F-Pn Vm7 6265 > F-AG > J-Tm is not in this list because the sources now preserved in Japanese > are not catalogued in SMT until now. > > http://w1.bnu.fr/smt/peruv.htm > > That's it. > > Gérard Rebours published in 2000 "Index thématique et tableau de > concordances" at Symétrie, ISBN 2-914373-00-7. From there we have a > work index for Visée - but without the transcriptions. > > Andreas > > Am 12.08.2011 um 09:41 schrieb R. Mattes: > > > > On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:57:08 -0700, David Smith wrote > >> Excuse me for what may be a stupid question but which manuscripts > >> are Paris BN 1575 and BN 25391? I have tried to search for these >> > using Google with no success. Where are they located, names, and are > >> they available? > > > > > Sorry, I'm far away from my reference works, but I think these would > > be F-BN ..., meaning "France, Bibliotheque National ..." > > > > HTH Ralf Mattes > > > > > >> Regards > >> David Smith > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] > >> On Behalf Of Mathias Rösel Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:46 PM > >> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for > theorbo >> > >>> 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 > > > > > > > -- > > R. Mattes - > > Hochschule fuer Musik Freiburg > > r...@inm.mh-freiburg.de > > > > > > > >
