Johann Gottfried Conradi published the pieces in "his" lute book. But he wasn't the composer. Perhaps his name was a pseudonym.
Greetings Rainer > Rainer Waldeck > Hauptstraße 52 > 2020 Raschala > Österreich > > > An der Villa 7 > 27628 Hagen im Bremischen > OT Offenwarden > Deutschland > >> Am 17.09.2018 um 21:22 schrieb Mathias Rösel <[email protected]>: >> >> Well, it does have to do a bit with lute music. >> >> There was a theory that the music published by Le Sage de Riche >> (Breslau, 1695) was not composed by him because the author of that >> theory couldn't find further evidence for the existence of Le Sage. >> >> I objected that according to a remark in Emil Vogl's article on the >> angélique (Die Angelika und ihre Musik, 1974), one of Falkenhagen's >> sons studied the lute with Le Sage in Breslau. But the conspiracy >> author dismissed my objection, saying that Vogl's remark was "not >> authoritative" (nicht belastbar). >> >> The same pattern of thinking was applied to another lute composer, >> Jacques Bittner (Jakob Büttner), by the same conspiracy author. No >> evidence for Bittner's existence, so no Bittner at all. The true >> composer, he said, was the dedicatee of Bittner's lute book, Pierre de >> Treyenfels who purportedly hadn't wished to publish his compositions >> under his own name, as he belonged to the nobility. >> >> Mathias >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________________________________ >> >> Gesendet mit der [1]Telekom Mail App >> --- Original-Nachricht --- >> Von: T.J. Sellari >> Betreff: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language >> Datum: 17.09.2018, 19:36 Uhr >> An: [email protected] >> >> I hope we might include Shakespeare scholars in the group of "thinking" >> people who have considered this question; they indeed have made the >> relevant scholarship a focus of their careers. As I'm sure many on this >> list know already, no scholar proposes that Shakespeare wrote every >> word of the plays attributed to him. On many plays, he had >> collaborators, and scholars continue to dedicate considerable effort to >> trying to figure out the scope and nature of his collaborations. (See, >> for example, Sir Brian Vickers' _Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical >> Study of Five Collaborative Plays_.) To argue that the case for >> Shakespeare as the sole author of all of his works is yet to be proven >> misses the point entirely; nobody is trying to prove it, because nobody >> believes it. But that is not to accept the far-fetched idea that a >> group of collaborators wrote all the works. There's only "thinking" >> behind this idea, and absolutely no evidence. It is literally a >> historical conspiracy theory. Shapiro's book explains why. >> Perhaps this issue has nothing to do with lute music, but I assume that >> members of this list are interested in historical accuracy in any case. >> The "informed belief" that Shakespeare's works were written by a >> committee is actually very poorly informed. Since I have learned a >> great deal from this list, I thought I should contribute a small bit of >> more reliable information when I got the chance. >> Tom >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:41 AM Ron Andrico >> <[1][2][email protected]> >> wrote: >> I'm familiar with Shapiro's work. The authorship question >> indeed. It >> is a question and not a given. Some like to say the man from >> Stratford >> was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works of >> Shakespeare. That is a theory that has yet to be proven, no >> matter >> what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like to >> propose. >> A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it >> against the physical reality of the amount of time required to >> produce >> all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William >> Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. Then a >> thinking >> person considers how persons of noble rank would refrain from >> publishing their work (Sidney's work was published posthumously). >> And >> a thinking person observes how authors and musicians would >> participate >> in a salon atmosphere under the patronage of someone like Lucy >> Countess >> of Bedford. >> I have had the opportunity to delve into the subject, and the >> evidence >> points to work produced by more than one author that retains a >> consistent voice due to a collaborative effort with a common >> goal. >> Like the collaborative effort that produced the King James Bible. >> What does this have to do with lute music anyway? >> __________________________________________________________________ >> From: [2][3][email protected] <[3][4][email protected]> >> on behalf >> of T.J. Sellari <[4][5][email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:19 PM >> To: [5][6][email protected] >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language >> Re: Shakespeare authorship question >> There are many theories that purport to cast doubt on >> Shakespeare's >> authorship of the plays attributed to him, but scholars of >> English >> Renaisssance literature consider them largely nonsense. I >> suggest >> you >> take a look at _Contested Will_ by James Shapiro. A review of >> the >> book >> can be found here: >> [1][6][7]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-w >> ho-wro >> te-shakespeare >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ron Andrico >> <[2][7][8][email protected]> >> wrote: >> Absolument, Alain. Many forget that the English court >> was >> actually >> French until the upstart Henry Tudor slaughtered his way >> to the >> throne. Even then, French was spoken at court through >> much of >> the 16th >> century. >> As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare, >> it's just >> plain >> silly to think he actually wrote the canon commonly >> attributed >> to >> his >> name. He was a player, a station lower than that of a >> professional >> musician. We can support various theories of who wrote >> the >> works >> commonly attributed to Shakespeare, but my informed >> belief is >> that they >> were written by committee, just like the King James Bible >> was a >> few >> years hence. >> I think there is strong evidence that the plays arose >> from the >> circle >> surrounding Lucy Countess of Bedford, including the >> likes of >> John >> Donne, Ben Jonson, Edmund Spenser, Samuel Danyel. >> There is >> also >> a >> theory that the very literate Countess of Pembroke, Sir >> Philip >> Sidney's >> sister, may have dipped her quill in. >> William Shakepeare the playwright is a successful bit of >> propaganda >> that paved the way for other enormous lies that the >> public >> buys. >> It's >> really very easy for those in a position of power to >> promote an >> idea >> with PR and make the public believe it. Like A=415 was >> historical >> baroque pitch, for instance. >> __________________________________________________________________ >> From: [3][8][9][email protected] >> <[4][9][10][email protected]> >> on behalf >> of Alain Veylit <[5][10][11][email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:37 AM >> To: howard posner; Lute net >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language >> If you really want to have a blast at the awful English >> language, >> look >> for something called "law French", a language understood >> only >> by >> English >> lawyers and very much alive until at least the 18th >> century. It >> makes >> modern legaleeze sound simple, although still difficult >> to read >> because >> in very small letters. Many poor people sent to the >> gallows had >> no idea >> what was said at court... >> Joke aside, given the introduction of many French words >> into >> English >> (500 words from Montaigne's translator alone) and the >> still >> fairly >> strong presence of French as a an aristocratic language >> for the >> few and >> the famous still in the 16th century, I am wondering if >> Shakespearian >> English did not sound quite a bit more French than one >> might >> think. >> Which could mean that to study Elizabethan English, you >> might >> have to >> study Quebecois French, supposedly much closer to 17th >> century >> French >> than Paris French... Or also study modern English >> pronunciation >> of >> Latin, which to my ears sounds quite painful - specially >> the >> diphtongs... >> For example: modern English "Sir", from the French >> "sieur" (as >> in >> monsieur) might have sounded closer to the original >> French >> "sire" >> (lord/majesty : monsieur = mon sire = my lord); the word >> "court" >> might >> have sounded closer to the French "cour". >> I vaguely remember something about the great diphtong >> shift in >> English >> phonetics - that might account for the split from the >> French >> word >> "Sire" >> (same "i" as Apple's "Siri") to the modern "Sir" and >> "Sire". >> One >> diphtonguized the other not. But the French is ambiguous >> since >> we >> have >> both the word "sieur" (Pronounced pretty close to "sir" >> and >> meaning >> "lord" ) and "sire" (pronounced close to "Siri" and >> meaning >> Majesty). >> Americans might want to check this video to speak proper >> modern >> English: >> [1][6][11][12]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU and learn about >> diphtongs... >> It's quite >> scientific, you know... >> On 09/16/2018 01:27 PM, howard posner wrote: >>>> On Sep 16, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Matthew Daillie >> <[7][12][13][email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> You might be interested in this video which summarizes >> some >> of >> the >> research carried out by David Crystal et al on English >> pronunciation at >> the time of Shakespeare (and Dowland) and the productions >> of >> his >> plays >> at the Globe theatre using 'Original Pronunciation': >>>> [2][8][13][14]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >>> Indeed, I was interested enough to have seen it >> already. It >> explores >> the differences between modern Received Pronunciation >> that >> London >> stage >> actors traditionally use, and the London stage accent of >> 400 >> years ago, >> which is in many ways similar to the way English sounds >> in >> Bristol >> now. Of course, it's all a little peripheral to the >> question >> of >> whether Shakespeare might have spelled differently in a >> letter >> to >> his >> wife in Stratford than he would in a play to be spoken in >> London, >> or >> whether anyone would have cared. >>> >>> >>> >>> To get on or off this list see list information at >> [3][9][14][15]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> -- >> References >> 1. [10][15][16]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 2. [11][16][17]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 3. >> [12][17][18]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> -- >> References >> 1. >> [1][18][19]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will >> - >> who-wro >> te-shakespeare >> 2. [2]mailto:[19][20][email protected] >> 3. [3]mailto:[20][21][email protected] >> 4. [4]mailto:[21][22][email protected] >> 5. [5]mailto:[22][23][email protected] >> 6. [6][23][24]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 7. [7]mailto:[24][25][email protected] >> 8. [8][25][26]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 9. >> [9][26][27]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 10. [10][27][28]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 11. [11][28][29]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 12. >> [12][29][30]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> -- >> References >> 1. >> [30][31]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-wh >> o >> -wrote-shakespeare >> 2. mailto:[31][32][email protected] >> 3. mailto:[32][33][email protected] >> 4. mailto:[33][34][email protected] >> 5. mailto:[34][35][email protected] >> 6. [35][36]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 7. mailto:[36][37][email protected] >> 8. [37][38]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 9. [38][39]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 10. [39][40]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 11. [40][41]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 12. [41][42]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> -- >> References >> 1. mailto:[43][email protected] >> 2. mailto:[44][email protected] >> 3. mailto:[45][email protected] >> 4. mailto:[46][email protected] >> 5. mailto:[47][email protected] >> 6. >> [48]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wr >> o >> 7. mailto:[49][email protected] >> 8. mailto:[50][email protected] >> 9. mailto:[51][email protected] >> 10. mailto:[52][email protected] >> 11. [53]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 12. mailto:[54][email protected] >> 13. [55]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 14. [56]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 15. [57]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 16. [58]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 17. [59]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 18. >> [60]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wr >> o >> 19. mailto:[61][email protected] >> 20. mailto:[62][email protected] >> 21. mailto:[63][email protected] >> 22. mailto:[64][email protected] >> 23. [65]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 24. mailto:[66][email protected] >> 25. [67]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 26. [68]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 27. [69]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 28. [70]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 29. [71]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 30. >> [72]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wr >> ote-shakespeare >> 31. mailto:[73][email protected] >> 32. mailto:[74][email protected] >> 33. mailto:[75][email protected] >> 34. mailto:[76][email protected] >> 35. [77]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 36. mailto:[78][email protected] >> 37. [79]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 38. [80]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 39. [81]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 40. [82]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 41. [83]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >> -- >> >> References >> >> 1. >> https://kommunikationsdienste.t-online.de/redirects/email_app_android_sendmail_footer >> 2. mailto:[email protected] >> 3. mailto:[email protected] >> 4. mailto:[email protected] >> 5. mailto:[email protected] >> 6. mailto:[email protected] >> 7. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-w >> 8. mailto:[email protected] >> 9. mailto:[email protected] >> 10. mailto:[email protected] >> 11. mailto:[email protected] >> 12. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 13. mailto:[email protected] >> 14. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 15. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 16. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 17. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 18. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 19. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will >> 20. mailto:[email protected] >> 21. mailto:[email protected] >> 22. mailto:[email protected] >> 23. mailto:[email protected] >> 24. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 25. mailto:[email protected] >> 26. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 27. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 28. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 29. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 30. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 31. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who >> 32. mailto:[email protected] >> 33. mailto:[email protected] >> 34. mailto:[email protected] >> 35. mailto:[email protected] >> 36. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 37. mailto:[email protected] >> 38. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 39. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 40. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 41. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 42. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 43. mailto:[email protected] >> 44. mailto:[email protected] >> 45. mailto:[email protected] >> 46. mailto:[email protected] >> 47. mailto:[email protected] >> 48. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wro >> 49. mailto:[email protected] >> 50. mailto:[email protected] >> 51. mailto:[email protected] >> 52. mailto:[email protected] >> 53. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 54. mailto:[email protected] >> 55. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 56. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 57. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 58. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 59. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 60. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wro >> 61. mailto:[email protected] >> 62. mailto:[email protected] >> 63. mailto:[email protected] >> 64. mailto:[email protected] >> 65. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 66. mailto:[email protected] >> 67. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 68. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 69. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 70. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 71. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 72. >> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wrote-shakespeare >> 73. mailto:[email protected] >> 74. mailto:[email protected] >> 75. mailto:[email protected] >> 76. mailto:[email protected] >> 77. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 78. mailto:[email protected] >> 79. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 80. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 81. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU >> 82. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s >> 83. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
