I think Roman Turovsky got it right, Michael. You read the words, but understand them as you would like them to be. The point you have conveniently ignored here is the element of transformation, expertly fitting the music of one instrument to another. That is the crucial element in lute intabulations, parodies, canzonas da sonare, glosas, etc. They demonstrate a kind of musical metamosphosis. There are loads of examples throughout the history of music, but take Albert de Rippe's intabulation of Sandrin's chanson "Doulce memoire" (You can hear it on Hoppy's de Rippe recording). De Rippe reworks the chanson, embellishing it in his own personal style, so that it becomes in effect a fanatsia "over" the chanson. It is a bonafide lute work. (Hoppy's recording captures its quality wonderfully.)
The essential element as in Julius Gold's watchword, "fit the music to the instrument."
It is not the same as Sollscher's playing a piece for 11-course lute on a 11-string guitar. Sollscher's music is not origial guitar music, as you claim, it is lute music played on an eccentric form of guitar. Just like Bach played on the piano is not piano music, but merely harpsichord music played on the piano. In both cases the target instruments are just substitutes, perhaps brought in for convenience.
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation. Which came first? The Byrd? Or the Egg? If Byrd's version of the "Delight Pavan" is simpler than any of the lute versions, what does that tell us about its transmission? Maybe that will help you understand.
I don't care what it says on the album cover. I have held the actual manuscript in my own hands. It is for lute, >NOT FOR GUITAR. Who is this "reliable person" who wrote the notes? Usually people like you and Matanya >only have contempt for writers of album notes, even when the author is Paul O'Dette.
YOU'RE EVEN LYING ABOUT IT.
That CD Eleven-String Baroque recorded by Sollscher cites the Pachelbel work as
"LUTE SUITE IN F SHARP MINOR (PACHELBEL)."
Forgive me Arthur, I was just applying your own standards, rather
conservativly I might add. You go so far as to say, if a well known
person arranges or adopts a piano piece for guitar, it then should be
considered an original guitar piece. Even I never used the word
original. Quite a stretch by any standards
Arther Ness said......
too much emphasis in music is placed on originality. In
some quarters it is a belief that somehow unless one is
"original" one's performance or composition is not
valid. An ingenious adaptation (arrangement) of a Ravel
piano piece surely classifies as an original guitar
piece. It depends on how well you transform it into a
Julio da Modena, Byrd, Bull, Couperin, Chambonieres, >J.S.Bach,
anonymous composers from the >18th-century (formerly in Bob Spencer's
collection) all wrote >lute music in pitch notation using two staves
On the other hand, composers like Byrd have also made
transcriptions of lute music. But it would be a mistake
to call these arrangements, as Thames would have us do,
because the process is one of writing a piece from
tablature notation into pitch notation on the grand
Arthur, a lute piece on keyboard is quite sparse, I highly doubt a
composer such as Byrd who was known to veiw the lute as not polyphonic
enough for his standards would have played lute music note for note on
keyboard, However, if he didn't play it note for note, this is known by
all as an arrangement.......... that's the same as saying.... Albeniz
wrote guitar music, Resphegi wrote lute music, Brahms wrote folk music.
Based on your standards Arthur , I proclaim all past and future Cd's
of Bach's lute suites, from this time forward to be known as BACH"S
GUITAR SUITES based on the president there are hundreds of CD's by
reputable performers playing this on guitar therefore trumping the hand
full of lute CD's.
Yet when I call Logy and Pachelbel's lute suites guitar music, you
have a freaking fit! Which is it Arthur, you can't have your cake and
eat it to.
BTW, Arthur I have Pachelbel's talblature as well.