> Paris Ms. Fonds Conservatoire National Rés. 1106 has another marking on
it's
> front page: R 1575 (41035)
> 
> David - one down, one to go

Thank you, David! I only have the xeroxes. The other one possibly is Paris
BN Vm7-6265. 86 pages, many concordances with Saizenay, some of them
deviating, two concordances with R 1575 (Rés. 1106). Two courantes for the
baroque lute on the last two pages (La belle homicide by Gaultier, and one
by Dubut par. Barbe p. 43). and the D-major section was wrongly inserted
before the ms. was page-numbered, now dividing an allemande by LeMoine (p.
46-7 and p. 57). Perhaps these data will do to identify the manuscript?

Mathias



> On 12 August 2011 18:02, David Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Searching at the BnF catalog
> > http://catalogue.bnf.fr/jsp/recherchemots_simple.jsp?nouvelleRecherche
> > =O&nou veaute=O&host=catalogue I see no results that match 1575 or
> > 25391.
> > Any suggestions on finding them or help in clarifying what the numbers
> > refer to?
> >
> > Regards
> > David
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: R. Mattes [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 12:42 AM
> > To: David Smith; 'Mathias Rösel'; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
> >
> > 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> On Behalf Of Mathias Rösel Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:46 PM
> >> To: [email protected] 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
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *******************************
> David van Ooijen
> [email protected]
> www.davidvanooijen.nl
> *******************************
> 




Reply via email to