Exactly indeed.

Eugene
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of 
Jarosław Lipski [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [LUTE] Re:  Re:     Bach’s Lute Suites: This Myth is Busted

Exactly!


Wiadomość napisana przez David Tayler w dniu 1 maj 2012, o godz. 18:02:

>    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
>
>





Reply via email to