Discussion is always a good thing, the problem begins when someone makes very definite statements like- the evidence would be that Bach did not write any music specifically intended for solo lute - or -You know what I am going to say nextperhaps you should sit down I understand that it was addressed to guitar players, but still we need more evidence before trying to convince someone that A or B is true. Musicology is a tricky bussiness and there is a lot of speculation on lute pieces by Bach. I'd rather use some arguments from available scholarly literature than made ad hoc theories, unless the reason for this was to stir a discussion.
jl Wiadomoæ napisana przez [email protected] w dniu 26 kwi 2012, o godz. 20:02: >> ... It's obviously a bit of >> popular-press fluff, not even quite "gray literature," but that stuff >> tends to reach much more of the general public than scholarly >> literature ever will. > Eugene > I agree. > The interesting thing to me on this topic is the response it is getting > from the Lute list. Yes, you lutenists who have been at it for 20 - 30 > years already know this, but I think that in all likelihood, the rest of the > music world does not. An article like this on a "guitar site" (nose > upturned?) > will probably reach a lot more people, and therefore could be a good thing, > bringing more attention to lutes from other musical disciplines. Something > I have noticed in reading liner notes to CDs / LPs is that, for example, > keyboard afficianodos sometimes seem to be unaware that a Bach piece > was also arranged by the man himself for other instruments. The same is > true for violin, etc. > "Any press is good press - even bad press." I personally think that the > more > people write about these things, the better. And if you have pertinent info > that > this writer doesn't seem to have, maybe they would like to know about it? > Knowledge, especially accurate knowledge, is best shared with the world. > And anything done to place the word Lute in front of a wider audience is > going > to be good for lutes and lutenists. > I'll look forward to future responses. > Tom >> However, there is at least a fair amount of reference to primary >> source material (the manuscripts themselves). It's obviously a bit of >> popular-press fluff, not even quite "gray literature," but that stuff >> tends to reach much more of the general public than scholarly >> literature ever will. >> >> Eugene >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Stephan Olbertz Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:35 AM Cc: >> [email protected] Subject: [LUTE] Re: [LUTE] Re: Re: Bach´s Lute >> Suites: This Myth is Busted >> >> Am 25.04.2012, 22:27 Uhr, schrieb Daniel Winheld <[email protected]>: >> >>> The article was aimed at the guitar crowd, >> >> And that's probably why the article is a bit superficial. ;-) A real >> contribution would need to be in scholarly style. No references here, >> no mentioning of newer literature (e.g. by Negwer, Dierksen, Hofmann, >> Ledbetter), lots of statements without evidence. >> >> Regards >> >> Stephan >> >> >> >> >> >> still clinging to illusions >>> of lute. It's tough letting go. >>> But he put it all together very nicely, I thought. >>> >>> On Apr 25, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Braig, Eugene wrote: >>> >>>> While I enjoyed this read, I didn't see anything particularly new >>>> here. For example, Hopkinson Smith specifically named all the >>>> sources of Bach's original "lute" music in the liner notes he >>>> drafted for his recording of this music around 30 years ago. He >>>> also stated their evident non-lute provenance. I have heard Paul >>>> O'Dette unequivocally state on more than one occasion something >>>> like "Sorry, Bach did not write for the lute." Etc. I suspect >>>> that anybody who is still clinging to the notion that Bach >>>> knowingly composed lute music after having had some exposure to >>>> some reference of the source material either really, really wants >>>> to believe so to somehow legitimize the lute or is a fan of modern >>>> classical guitar who wants to somehow legitimize the perceived >>>> ancestor of his/her own instrument. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Eugene >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, >>>> 2012 11:58 AM To: [email protected]; Luca Manassero Subject: >>>> [LUTE] [LUTE] Bach´s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted >>>> >>>> A very interesting article. I can't wait to see the responses >>>> from >>>> the rest of the list! I am reminded that Walther Gerwig did an >>>> arrangement of Bach's Cello Suite No.1 in G major, BWV1007. Very >>>> nice and beautifully played - in Renaissance tuning! >>>> Tom >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> To get on or off this list see list information at >>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >> >> -- >> Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: >> http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> >> >> >> > > > Tom Draughon > Heartistry Music > http://www.heartistrymusic.com/artists/tom.html > 714 9th Avenue West > Ashland, WI 54806 > 715-682-9362 > > > --
