but in this case a spade is not a spade :) JL
Wiadomość napisana przez Roman Turovsky w dniu 29 kwi 2012, o godz. 22:32: > Yes, > but - > sometimes we have to give up the musicological mumbo-jumbo, > and just call a spade a spade. > RT > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jarosław Lipski" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 4:24 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted > > >> Eugene, >> >> Well, saying that "the evidence would be that Bach did not write any music >> specifically intended for solo lute" sounds to me (do correct me if I'm >> wrong) a little bit like a definite statement or a final argument, doesn't >> it? There is nothing wrong in having doubts and expressing them publicly, >> but making new theories is another matter. I greatly recommend David >> Ledbetters book "Unaccompanied Bach" (as mentioned) which deals with all >> available data concerning this subject in detail. There are many question >> marks and unfortunately no simple answers so far, I am afraid. >> However it can be agreed that there are no so called Bach lute suites if we >> understand them the same way that some guitarists used to believe in past, >> but then the question is what guitarist and how can we judge someones >> knowledge. It's much better to present bare facts letting people decide >> what they can make of it, IMHO. >> My 2 cents >> >> Best regards >> >> Jaroslaw >> >> >> >> Wiadomość napisana przez Braig, Eugene w dniu 26 kwi 2012, o godz. 22:01: >> >>> I wholeheartedly agree, jl. Fortunately, I don't believe the little >>> article discussed here did make any such definitive statements. I think it >>> did a fair job of presenting evidence with relative objectivity. >>> >>> Eugene >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of >>> Jarosław Lipski [[email protected]] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 3:06 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted >>> >>> 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 next–perhaps 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 >>> >>> >>> Wiadomoœæ 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
