Dear Ron,
   Nice to hear from you, and thank you for further explanation. I was
   surprised with your reference to "many pieces." Perhaps it's more like
   "some pieces."
   I'll comment below.


   On 10/30/16, Ron Andrico<[1][email protected]> wrote:

   Hello Arthur:
   As you know, attributing music of questionable origin to a well-know
   composer, rightly or wrongly, can make things difficult for those of us
   who strive to untangle received ideas. Apparently, Josquin became a
   much less prolific composer after the New Josquin Edition was
   completed.
   <<ajn>> It's useful to understand that the music of Josquin and
   Francesco continued to be copied and printed for nearly a century after
   their deaths.   It is unfortunate that Victor Coehlo is of the belief
   that attributions to Francesco first appearing in the sources after
   about 1540 were composed by an amanuensis, a "lute virtuoso from the
   hills of Tuscany." In Victor's opinion, the lutenist composed pieces in
   Francesco's style and attributed them falsely in an effort to enhance
   Francesco's posthumous fame.  This is far-fetched since there are so
   few examples of such practice, usually undertaken for pecuniary
   interests, e.g., publishing Pleyel string quartets under the name of
   Haydn to increase their saleability.  Likewise with Galilei's
   "Francesco" ricerars which seem to be improvisations on Francesco-like
   musical motives. Or simply a mistaken identity, as Ruggiero Chiesa's
   No. LVIII below.  And literally tons of lute music has disappeared with
   the sands of time, so the singular pieces appearing late in the century
   are not as lonely as they appear today..
   As for examples in the music of Francesco, in Arthur Ness, _The Lute
   Music of Francesco Canova da Milano_, Harvard University Press,
   Cambridge, MA, 1970, your N. 11 was wrongly attributed to Francesco,
   and I think I recall that you have changed your mind and credited Marco
   Dal l'Aquila with the piece.
   <<ajn>> Yes, I knew too few pieces by Marco back then.  No. 11 has the
   "Marco signature motive" in several places: last note bar 4: (ii: 0 /
   -- 0 iii: 4 2)  = [d / dot d c# b]. (I suspect that the publisher of
   "sine datum" needed a ricercar in D and didn't have one by Francesco
   and used this one by Marco).  Also No. 45 based on the Calata alla
   Spagnola is surely by Marco as well.  That sine datum  print dates from
   before 1533 because it is the source a piece in Gerle's 1533 print.
   In Appendix D of your work, one can find
   several examples of questionable attribution.
   <<ajn>> That's why they're in the appendix.
   Then there are several
   pieces in the Siena ms. that Martin Shepherd thinks may be by
   Francesco, and I agree with some of his suggestions.
   <<ajn>> I think his suggestions are excellent choices. Of course adding
   pieces on stylistic features alone would have been especially dangerous
   back then, especially due to the uneven bibliographical control over
   the sources, a problem which we still face (albeit to a lesser extent).
   Respectable twentieth-century scholars have attributed a few works to
   Francesco. Ruggerio Chiesa thought the fantasia found in the Bottegari
   ms. and elsewhere was by Francesco.
   <<ajn>> Chiesa's No. LVIII.  There are two or three sources for that
   fantasia, one is attributed to "d'Incerto" in the source.  It's rather
   proper 3-voice 16th century counterpoint, but hardly in Francesco's
   style.  The rhythm is  rather square.  I don't recall who first
   attributed the work to Francesco.
   <<ajn>>There is another misattributed work in Chiesa's edition (not in
   the HUP edition).  No. LIX from Paris, Rés 429, fol. 135: "Recercar de
   F.M."  Chiesa and others misread the J for F.  The "J" has a line
   though the stem and looks like an "F".  It is by "JM," Julio da Modena
   (Segni), No. XI in Colin Slim's edition of Musica Nova.
   And Daniel Heartz made a case for
   the first prelude in Attaignant as another piece by Francesco, which
   was reinforced in the footnote 9 on page 3 of your Introduction:
   "Daniel Heartz argues convincingly that Francesco's music was known to
   France at least a decade before the visit to Nice. The first prelude
   in Pierre Attaignant's _Tres breve et familiere introduction (Paris,
   1529) shows unmistakable features of Francesco's style, as Professor
   Heartz points out in a comparison of the prelude with Fantasia No. 24
   (see Heartz's _Preludes, chansons and dances for lute [Neuilly-sur
   Seine, 1964], pp. xv-xvii). It is significant that this prelude also
   appears in the "Siena Lute Book" (fol. 17-17v) in an eminently better
   version than published by Attaignant. See Figs. 6 and 7."
   <<ajn>> Yes, it's included in facsimile of the Siena pages as Figs 6
   and 7.
   Perhaps I'll have more tomorrow.
   RA
   __________________________________________________________________
   From: AJN <[2][email protected]>
   Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 5:24 PM
   To: [3][email protected]; [4][email protected]
   Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Poulton #73 [was] dedillo
   Ron Andrico wrote:
   "There seems to
   be a tendency to attribute unascribed music to known composers simply
   because a given piece is good. This is certainly the case with many
   pieces attributed to Francesco da Milano."
   <<ajn>> I am unaware of any pieces attributed to Francesco that are
   unascribed in sources.
   <<ajn>> Can you provide some examples?
   On 09/29/16, Ron Andrico<[5][email protected]> wrote:
   From the archives...
   __________________________________________________________________
   From: Ron Andrico <[1][6][email protected]>
   Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2007 10:38 AM
   To: Are Vidar Boye Hansen; G.R. Crona
   Cc: [2][7][email protected]
   Subject: RE: [LUTE] Re: Poulton #73 [was] dedillo
   Dear Are:
   Diana Poulton attributed the piece (with reservation) to Dowland based
   on the fact that it contains several of Dowland's typical devices; the
   ascending scale passages with a repeated first note, and several
   tonic/dominant repetitions with inversions. The piece also appears in
   the manuscript (D9) following another fantasia more securely attributed
   to Dowland (Poulton #6). I have to agree with you that Poulton #73
   doesn't necessarily sound like Dowland, and the fact that the piece
   really needs reconstruction does not help the matter. There seems to
   be a tendency to attribute unascribed music to known composers simply
   because a given piece is good. This is certainly the case with many
   pieces attributed to Francesco da Milano.
   Best wishes,
   Ron Andrico
   [1][3][8]http://www.mignarda.com
   > Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 23:28:35 +0100
   > To: [4][9][email protected]
   > CC: [5][10][email protected]
   > From: [6][11][email protected]
   > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Poulton #73 [was] dedillo
   > Does any of you know why this piece is attributed to Dowland? It is a
   > great piece, but to me it doesn't sound like a Dowland piece...
   >
   >
   > Are
   __________________________________________________________________
   Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live
   OneCare! [2]Try now!
   --
   References
   1. [7][12]http://www.mignarda.com/
   2.
   [8][13]http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid
   =wl_
   hotmailnews
   To get on or off this list see list information at
   [9][14]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   --
   References
   1. [15]mailto:[email protected]
   2. [16]mailto:[email protected]
   3. [17]http://www.mignarda.com/
   4. [18]mailto:[email protected]
   5. [19]mailto:[email protected]
   6. [20]mailto:[email protected]
   7. [21]http://www.mignarda.com/
   8.
   [22]http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl
   _hotmailnews
   9. [23]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/

References

   1. mailto:[email protected]
   2. mailto:[email protected]
   3. mailto:[email protected]
   4. mailto:[email protected]
   5. mailto:[email protected]
   6. mailto:[email protected]
   7. mailto:[email protected]
   8. http://www.mignarda.com/
   9. mailto:[email protected]
  10. mailto:[email protected]
  11. mailto:[email protected]
  12. http://www.mignarda.com/
  13. http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_
  14. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/
  15. mailto:[email protected]
  16. mailto:[email protected]
  17. http://www.mignarda.com/
  18. mailto:[email protected]
  19. mailto:[email protected]
  20. mailto:[email protected]
  21. http://www.mignarda.com/
  22. 
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews
  23. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/

Reply via email to