Martin I know you are fully immersed in this music (as it were) and so I am amazed at your remarks! Just to repeat: I haven't listened to any Dowland in a very long time and have not tried to play any. But, of course, I have tried to play pieces, including songs, in the past. You say that "...Dowland's lute solos are mostly a mess, and mostly not by Dowland anyway...". (The latter part is a bit odd: Dowland's lute solos are mostly not by Dowland?) I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'a mess'. The guitar music of Foscarini is clearly a mess, and the only possible way to play it is to try and clear up the mess and recreate it. Monica Hall has had a go at providing performing editions. The recercars from the Pesaro MS are clearly a mess and John H. Robinson has had a go at reconstructions. There must be many examples of lute music, both MS and published, of lute music which is 'a mess' and in need of reconstruction (and informed reconstruction, if it is to be of any worth). None of the Dowland pieces I've ever encountered are anything like Foscarini or the pieces in Pesaro in terms of being a 'mess'. Until I read David's message which initiated this thread I'd never heard anyone complain about fundamental flaws in Dowland's lute music. (This could be just because I haven't taken an interest in the music). But all the top notch lute players, all the whizzo guitarists who have played this music over decades now have not, as far as I know, claimed that they are playing reconstructions/recreations.They may be playing from preferred sources or making a piece from an amalgam of sources but not, as far as I know, adding extra parts, changing voice leading etc etc. And I don't think audiences and listeners and reviewers have been blenching at the voice-leading or the crassness of the divisions. Anyway I find all this very interesting and surprising. Looks like 'the Golden Age of English lute music' should be 'the Golden Age of English lute raspberries'! One worry though, and a fact that just have to be accepted, is that the lute player who is 'reconstructing' Dowland (and I still don't understand what is being reconstructed - the music that JD actually intended and how could anyone know that? or how it 'ought' to be? Or what?)...anyway the would-be reconstructor has to be extremely well-informed unless it's a free-for-all. Despite David VO's mention of DIY and Martin's 'have fun', DT's analysis seems more accurate: Dowland 2012-style is strictly for the pros. Stuart
On 16 November 2012 10:25, Martin Shepherd <[1][email protected]> wrote: Hi All, I've been busy with lots of non-lute stuff, and hadn't quite got around to commenting on this. I agree with David T and David van O - Dowland's lute solos are a mostly a mess, and mostly not by Dowland anyway, so I think we should do what we can to clear up the mess and make our own versions, preferably informed by the songs and other more authoritative versions where they exist. I find it interesting that so much of the English lute music of this period has the character of an arrangement of ensemble music - think of the works of Cutting, Ferrabosco, Holborne, and even John Johnson. Modern editors have (quite rightly) given us their music in the form in which it appears in the manuscripts, but when we play it I think we have a duty to make musical sense out of it. Take Dowland's Lady Russell's Pavan (P17), for instance..... Or the famous "tremolo" fantasia (P73).... Have fun, Martin To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:[email protected] 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
