Avoiding definitive categorical strikes me as usually a good plan. Eugene
-----Original Message----- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Mayes, Joseph Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 10:25 AM To: Roman Turovsky; Jarosław Lipski; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: [LUTE] Bach¹s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted I have an issue whenever I hear a blanket statement like "He never wrote for it," and "JSB never played the trumpet." It strikes me as similar to "there is no God" or "there is a God." We know JSB liked the sound of the lute - he invented a keyboard instrument to imitate that sound. We can guess that he didn't like the sound of the guitar or the piano because, although both instruments were around during his lifetime, he wrote nothing for either. Further studies may reveal a Back letter that states his feelings about/writing for lute but absent that, we're just guessing. Categorical statements like Romans' or Paul O'Dette's are not all that helpful. JM On 4/30/12 9:19 AM, "Roman Turovsky" <r.turov...@verizon.net> wrote: > JSB never played trumpet either, but he wrote for it competently. > There is sufficient grounds to assume he would have approached lute > with equal consideration he afforded any other instrument he wrote > for, given his diligence and meticulousness. > The lute is the only instrument he showed no understanding of - > because he never wrote for it. > RT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jarosław Lipski" <jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> > To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 5:13 AM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted > > >> Roman, >> >> Yes , no one questions that. Lute Suites are not well written for >> lute, for sure. Weather they are playable or not can be discussed. >> However we are not talking about this. The question is if Bach >> intended them to be performed on a lute. I can tell you something >> from my own experience. Many years ago when I studied in London there >> was a Polish composer who wanted to write a guitar piece which was >> commissioned for a special occasion. >> Because I was asked to perform it he consulted me several times on >> playability of some passages. In spite he was obviously aware of the >> range of classical guitar, the way he structured his music was very >> unintuitive. >> If he hadn't had a guitarist to consult during a compositional >> process probably he would have written something unplayable for >> someone who would try to take the score literally. Now, could you >> imagine that Bach being probably one of the most prolific composer in >> history of music, but being mostly as we say nowadays a keyboard player ! >> would have time to study possibilities of an instrument that he did >> not play himself? Possibly he knew the range of this instrument and >> how it sounds, but the idea that he would have cared about every note >> to be played comfortably on a lute seems to me not tenable. In fact >> it is quite possible that being fond of lute's sound (as we know from >> some writings and his love for lute-harpsichord and clavichord) and >> being asked by Mr Schouster he made an arrangement of his work with a >> real intention of editing it for lute players. >> Anyway, it's just a speculation, but it shows that one can interpret >> the same data in many different ways. Until more evidence is found it >> is better to refrain from making up new theories, I suppose. >> All best >> >> JL >> >> >> isticWiadomość napisana przez Roman Turovsky w dniu 30 kwi 2012, o godz. >> 04:42: >> >>> Jarek, >>> I thinks the available evidence pretty much points where Clive >>> thinks it does, and I am inclined to agree with him, notwithstanding >>> Vasily Antipov, an excellent Russian player who actually can perform >>> "Lute Suites" as written (he knows no technical difficulties). >>> The "Lute Suites" are simply not performable by an average >>> professional player (unlike the rest of JSB's works), and that is >>> the ultimate giveaway (besides being out of lutenistic character). >>> RT >>> >>> From: "Jarosław Lipski" <jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> Roman, I do not share >>> your dislike for musicology. It pays really big service to all of us >>> I suppose. It has its rules and trespassing them creates the effect >>> you are talking about. I am just saying that the available evidence >>> on so called Lute Suites does not entitle us to make very definite >>> statements that Bach never ever wrote anything with a lute in mind >>> apart from 2 small movements in his Passions. It would be not too >>> difficult to create a contradictory theory, but this kind of >>> speculation seems to be rather a waste of time. >>> JL >>> >>> Wiadomość napisana przez Roman Turovsky w dniu 29 kwi 2012, o godz. >>> 23:01: >>> >>>> a geetar then. >>>> Phrases like "there is some likelihood that item X might very well >>>> could have been item Y" >>>> may work in some musicological situations, but not in the case of >>>> our "Lute Suites". >>>> RT >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jarosław Lipski" >>>> <jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> >>>> To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 4:50 PM >>>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Re: Re: Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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" >>>>>> <jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> >>>>>> To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >>>>>> 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: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] on >>>>>>>> behalf of Jarosław Lipski [jaroslawlip...@wp.pl] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 3:06 PM >>>>>>>> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu >>>>>>>> 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 t...@heartistrymusic.com 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: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Stephan Olbertz Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:35 AM >>>>>>>>>> Cc: >>>>>>>>>> lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: [LUTE] Re: Re: Bach´s >>>>>>>>>> Lute >>>>>>>>>> Suites: This Myth is Busted >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am 25.04.2012, 22:27 Uhr, schrieb Daniel Winheld >>>>>>>>>> <dwinh...@lmi.net>: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] >>>>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of t...@heartistrymusic.com Sent: Wednesday, April 25, >>>>>>>>>>>> 2012 11:58 AM To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > >
