When I say Dowland's solo lute music is not by Dowland, all I mean is
that the sources which have come down to us are not published editions
by JD himself and may mostly be arrangements of his music by someone
else. Given his reputation as a performer, this is hardly surprising.
Very few of his pieces (as we have them) have a kind of "Urtext" feel -
which is a great disappointment, of course.
Similarly the idea that the pieces in Robert Dowland's VLL represented
Dowland's "final thoughts" on some of his great pieces (this was
apparently Diana Poulton's belief) must be questioned. I think that VLL
is essentially Robert's work, and the pieces by JD in that book are
Robert's versions, albeit heavily mangled by the printer. That still
leaves us without "proper" versions of most of JD's "solo" works. Most
of the rest are in Holmes' MSS, and he had his own fish to fry -
particularly making lute versions of ensemble pieces for his students
and even bandora versions of lute pieces for the same purpose.
I think JD was a well-educated musician who knew counterpoint and proper
voice leading as well as anyone. He was also a practical musician who
knew what the lute was good for and how to make the most of its
resources. So to the extent that he "wrote" for solo lute, he may well
have allowed the odd bare 5th chord, the odd place where an octave
string supplied the missing note, as did every other lutenist - but it
is hard to imagine him complaining about one of us "filling in" some
missing harmony or completing a point of imitation where it is possible
to do so, as long as the overall musical result is good. At the same
time is is easy to imagine him being unimpressed by one of us playing
note-for-note what some bungling amateur had written in a hastily
scribbled manuscript copy four hundred years earlier.
All the best,
Martin
On 16/11/2012 21:29, WALSH STUART wrote:
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
