Maybe we should think of much of the MS works for lute as Elizabethan
"fake books". As for appropriate reconstructions: how might a jazz
writer from the 30's view a 90's rendition of one of his old chestnuts?
(Just questions from an amateur--not trying to challenge anyone's educated
opinion). Of course, I prefer whatever "authenticity" we can dig up,
otherwise I'd probably just get a guitar!
As for the lack of consistency in signaling ornaments or rolled chords:
might it be a matter of who wrote the MS and for whom? A student who
copies out the tune wanting a hint for every embellishment; or an
accomplished player who knows what to do and where; or an instructor who
says "Let's see what you do with this?" Or even an amateur trying to make
a hard copy of something he just heard down at the pub?
Leonard Williams
On 11/16/12 3:56 PM, "Martin Shepherd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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
>>
>
>
