I have to say for me I think the available evidence points nowhere.
People can't even agree on whether the pieces are playable on the lute,
and not only that, "playability" is not an indicator of authorship or
orchestration, so who cares? All this stuff about the "original intent"
of the composer is really about the intent about the people who write
the articles.
Shorter Bach: Can't play it? Please practice. Don't like it? Make an
arrangement.
--- On Sun, 4/29/12, Roman Turovsky <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Roman Turovsky <[email protected]>
Subject: [LUTE] Bach's Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted
To: "lutenet" <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, April 29, 2012, 7:42 PM
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: "JarosAA'aw Lipski" <[1][email protected]>
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
WiadomoAA>Ae/= 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: "JarosAA'aw Lipski"
<[2][email protected]>
> To: <[3][email protected]>
> 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
>>
>>
>> WiadomoAA>Ae/= 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: "JarosAA'aw Lipski"
<[4][email protected]>
>>> To: <[5][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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WiadomoAA>Ae/= 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: [6][email protected] [[7][email protected]]
on behalf of JarosAA'aw Lipski [[8][email protected]]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 3:06 PM
>>>>> To: [9][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 nextaEUR"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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WiadomoAA"A| napisana przez [10][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: [11][email protected]
[mailto:[12][email protected]] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Stephan Olbertz Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:35
AM Cc:
>>>>>>> [13][email protected] Subject: [LUTE] Re: [LUTE] Re: Re:
BachA's Lute
>>>>>>> Suites: This Myth is Busted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 25.04.2012, 22:27 Uhr, schrieb Daniel Winheld
<[14][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: [15][email protected]
[mailto:[16][email protected]]
>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of [17][email protected] Sent: Wednesday,
April 25,
>>>>>>>>> 2012 11:58 AM To: [18][email protected]; Luca Manassero
Subject:
>>>>>>>>> [LUTE] [LUTE] BachA'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
>>>>>>>> [19]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Erstellt mit Operas revolutionACURrem E-Mail-Modul:
>>>>>>> [20]http://www.opera.com/mail/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Draughon
>>>>>> Heartistry Music
>>>>>> [21]http://www.heartistrymusic.com/artists/tom.html
>>>>>> 714 9th Avenue West
>>>>>> Ashland, WI 54806
>>>>>> 715-682-9362
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
References
1. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
2. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
3. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
4. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
5. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
6. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
7. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
8. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
9. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
10. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
11. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
12. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
13. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
14. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
15. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
16. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
17. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
18. file://localhost/mc/[email protected]
19. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
20. http://www.opera.com/mail/
21. http://www.heartistrymusic.com/artists/tom.html
