If I remember correctly the first copyright law appeared in England ca.
1714. Pirated editions made the bread and butter of many printers before
then. But, it is only when copyrights were in force that authors started
to make a living out of their published works. Before that it was a
system of sponsorship and patronage (cf the lavish dedications in most
works of the 16th and 17th century). On a somewhat ironic note,
Alexander is supposed to have met secretly with the publisher who had
systematically pirated his editions, to provide him with a "stolen" copy
of his own forthcoming poetry. Being pirated was good publicity.
Dowland bitched quite a bit about incorrect versions of his pieces being
in circulation, but I don't think this really affected his bottom line.
I can be wrong.
On 02/20/2018 12:45 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote:
They could be derived from a common model, such as a recercar by
Giulio Segni (da Modena). A more explicit case of this is Ness 88,
which is very close to no.16 in DaCrema's 1548 book, where it is
attributed to Julio da Modena. It appears in Ness as Appendix 15.
Julio Segni (1498-1561) was a highly regarded organist who worked at
St Mark's in Venice from 1530-1533, and subsequently worked in Rome.
Very little of his music survives, but his works had a considerable
influence on many lutenists.
Ness 84 also has some passages in common with Ness 51 and Ness 73 as
well - some ideas seem to be common currency.
On 19/02/2018 22:35, Leonard Williams wrote:
I’ve just been playing through some recent da Crema recercars
(Lutezine Supp 123) and found No. 11 (p 37) remarkably similar to
Francesco da Milano's (Ness) No. 84 (Lute News 107 Supp). I believe
the only difference is barring and the last couple of measures.
Could someone more musicologically savvy than I put ears and eyes
to these and tell me whose compositions they are?
Thanks and regards,
To get on or off this list see list information at
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.