Discussion:
Goran Sollscher 11 string Baroque
(too old to reply)
Tashi
2006-05-19 19:01:13 UTC
Permalink
I just received " 11 String Baroque" and "The Renaissance Guitar"
Cd's. Best thing I've heard in years! Sollscher's technique seems
second to none, even though he is rather modest about it.
The Pachelbel suite for guitar is sublimely gorgeous, as well as the
Logy.

I have always thought pre Baroque lute music doesn't come off well on
guitar, not light and quick enough as the lute, but this "Ren guitar "
cd is in my opinion better than any lute recordings I've heard soooo
much more dynamic range!

I'm glad to see Pachelbel, and Logy, actually wrote pieces for the
guitar, this helps in establishing the guitar as a historically correct
Baroque instrument.
Michael Thames
Steven Bornfeld
2006-05-19 20:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
I just received " 11 String Baroque" and "The Renaissance Guitar"
Cd's. Best thing I've heard in years! Sollscher's technique seems
second to none, even though he is rather modest about it.
The Pachelbel suite for guitar is sublimely gorgeous, as well as the
Logy.
I have always thought pre Baroque lute music doesn't come off well on
guitar, not light and quick enough as the lute, but this "Ren guitar "
cd is in my opinion better than any lute recordings I've heard soooo
much more dynamic range!
I'm glad to see Pachelbel, and Logy, actually wrote pieces for the
guitar, this helps in establishing the guitar as a historically correct
Baroque instrument.
Michael Thames
Shameless troublemaker. ;-)
I too, love Sollscher's playing. I'd love to hear him doing some music
at least somewhat more obscure.

Steve
Tashi
2006-05-19 21:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Shameless troublemaker. ;-)
I too, love Sollscher's playing. I'd love to hear him doing some music
at least somewhat more obscure.
Steve
Pachelbel and Logy.... that's pretty obscure even by lute standards.
MT
Arthur Ness
2006-05-20 07:13:10 UTC
Permalink
The Pachelbel suite was composed for lute, not guitar. The orignal nmanuscript in the Nuremberg Stadbibliothek from the Graf Harrach Collection attributes it just to "Pachelbel," and accordingly there is some confusion about its composer. It may actually have been composed by Pachelbel's son.
Post by Tashi
I just received " 11 String Baroque" and "The Renaissance Guitar"
Cd's. Best thing I've heard in years! Sollscher's technique seems
second to none, even though he is rather modest about it.
The Pachelbel suite for guitar is sublimely gorgeous, as well as the
Logy.
I have always thought pre Baroque lute music doesn't come off well on
guitar, not light and quick enough as the lute, but this "Ren guitar "
cd is in my opinion better than any lute recordings I've heard soooo
much more dynamic range!
I'm glad to see Pachelbel, and Logy, actually wrote pieces for the
guitar, this helps in establishing the guitar as a historically correct
Baroque instrument.
Michael Thames
Shameless troublemaker. ;-)
I too, love Sollscher's playing. I'd love to hear him doing some music
at least somewhat more obscure.

Steve
Arthur Ness
2006-05-20 10:59:33 UTC
Permalink
As for the Logy Suite in G, if that is the manuscript found in an attic inSweden, it tooisfior lute. Logy wrote for and played gutar, but hisguitar music is ignored for some reason, even by guitrists.

Incidengally the Pachelbel suiteyou mention isnowhere to be found in the Pachelbel Works Catalogue. That is, neither for lute orany other iunstrument. Sollcher leaves off the descrptiove subtitles for those pieces. He probably had trouble reading the old handwriting.
"Arthur Ness" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:akzbg.263$***@trndny07...
The Pachelbel suite was composed for lute, not guitar. The orignal nmanuscript in the Nuremberg Stadbibliothek from the Graf Harrach Collection attributes it just to "Pachelbel," and accordingly there is some confusion about its composer. It may actually have been composed by Pachelbel's son.
Post by Tashi
I just received " 11 String Baroque" and "The Renaissance Guitar"
Cd's. Best thing I've heard in years! Sollscher's technique seems
second to none, even though he is rather modest about it.
The Pachelbel suite for guitar is sublimely gorgeous, as well as the
Logy.
I have always thought pre Baroque lute music doesn't come off well on
guitar, not light and quick enough as the lute, but this "Ren guitar "
cd is in my opinion better than any lute recordings I've heard soooo
much more dynamic range!
I'm glad to see Pachelbel, and Logy, actually wrote pieces for the
guitar, this helps in establishing the guitar as a historically correct
Baroque instrument.
Michael Thames
Shameless troublemaker. ;-)
I too, love Sollscher's playing. I'd love to hear him doing some music
at least somewhat more obscure.

Steve
Tashi
2006-05-20 12:37:01 UTC
Permalink
The Pachelbel suite was composed for lute, not guitar. The orignal nmanuscript in the Nuremberg Stadbibliothek >from the Graf Harrach Collection attributes it just to "Pachelbel," and accordingly there is some confusion about >its composer. It may actually have been composed by Pachelbel's son.
Arthur here we go again, I read an album cover by a very reputable
person who said it was for guitar.
MT
Roman Turovsky
2006-05-20 13:11:03 UTC
Permalink
You read as well as you spell.
RT
Post by Tashi
Post by Arthur Ness
The Pachelbel suite was composed for lute, not guitar. The orignal
nmanuscript in the Nuremberg Stadbibliothek >from the Graf Harrach
Collection attributes it just to "Pachelbel," and accordingly there is
some confusion about >its composer. It may actually have been composed
by Pachelbel's son.
Arthur here we go again, I read an album cover by a very reputable
person who said it was for guitar.
MT
Tashi
2006-05-20 13:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roman Turovsky
You read as well as you spell.
RT
Trying to establish your intellectual superiority by siting my non
use of spell check is pure genius. Do you have anything of real
interest to say, besides your tiresome one liners?
MT
Arthur Ness
2006-05-20 14:16:13 UTC
Permalink
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)."

GET LOST.

==================================================
The Pachelbel suite was composed for lute, not guitar. The orignal nmanuscript in the Nuremberg Stadbibliothek >from the Graf Harrach Collection attributes it just to "Pachelbel," and accordingly there is some confusion about >its composer. It may actually have been composed by Pachelbel's son.
Arthur here we go again, I read an album cover by a very reputable
person who said it was for guitar.
MT
Tashi
2006-05-20 15:28:36 UTC
Permalink
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)."
GET LOST
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......

Perhaps
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
guitaristic idiom

Julio da Modena, Byrd, Bull, Couperin, Chambonieres, >J.S.Bach,
Vivaldi, three
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
staff

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.

MIchael Thames
Roman Turovsky
2006-05-20 15:45:41 UTC
Permalink
You may do this to your black heart's content, because JSBach wrote these
neither for lute nor for guitar, but for Lautenwerck.
RT
ps.
Surprise, you wrote your own name correctly.
Post by Tashi
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.
MIchael Thames
Tashi
2006-05-20 16:05:11 UTC
Permalink
You may do this to your black heart's content, because JSBach wrote >these
neither for lute nor for guitar, but for Lautenwerck.
RT
Bull roar Bach's "lautenwerck music" was written for guitar. See
Arthur Ness's writings on the subject. BTW, Trovorsky, were you on top
or bottom?
MT
Larry Deack
2006-05-20 16:09:49 UTC
Permalink
TW, Trovorsky, were you on top or bottom?
All of you in this flame war are on the bottom right now.
Roman Turovsky
2006-05-21 00:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
Post by Roman Turovsky
these
neither for lute nor for guitar, but for Lautenwerck.
RT
Bull roar Bach's "lautenwerck music" was written for guitar. See
Arthur Ness's writings on the subject. BTW, Trovorsky, were you on top
or bottom?
MT
Behind the camera.
RT
Tashi
2006-05-21 05:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roman Turovsky
Behind the camera.
RT
Yea, I bet you smell like a pervert!

It's time now to go back to your side of the tracks, your a self
proclaimed hater of guitar. What are you doing here? No one to fight on
the lutenet thesedays? everyone has you pegged dude. It seems such a
shame to waste all that amazing intellect, and E -temper, for just a
couple of people hanging around the bar, but I guess the 2 or 3 people
here out number your fans on the lutenet. I start a conversation
about 11 string guitar and you and Arthur are just beside yourselves
I know from experience when you try to assert you intellectual
superiority buy correcting my spelling you've hit rock bottom. It
might have been funny the first time, but the more you repeat yourself
the more juvenile you appear. Don't you have bigger fish to fry? Go
on now, just go! shoo shoo, go on.... go.............
MT
Arthur Ness
2006-05-21 11:06:16 UTC
Permalink
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)."
GET LOST
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......

Perhaps
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
guitaristic idiom

Julio da Modena, Byrd, Bull, Couperin, Chambonieres, >J.S.Bach,
Vivaldi, three
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
staff

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.

MIchael Thames
Tashi
2006-05-21 15:18:48 UTC
Permalink
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.
These pieces were the bare bones used by Byrd, they were not
intended as finished perfected pieces. Just as lute MS contain a small
portion of the toy or dance and one was expected to improvise the
rest.The same way a Jazz guitarist uses a chart as a basis to
improvise. All you need to do Arther is look at Byrd's perfected
examples and compare them to lute music.
Claiming that you informed Paul Odette about improvising on small
fragments of peices such as Toys etc. is another bogus claim. Any semi
inteligent musican instictivly understands this, and has understood it
for decades, if not half a millineum.

Your ridiculous claim that "Byrd wrote lute music in grand staff"
reveals the poverty of your thinking.
The fact Byrd wrote contemporary lute music on keyboard is the same
thing as Albeniz arranging flamenco folk music for piano, NO
DIFFERENT! yet your the only so called Scholar who claims Albeniz wrote
guitar music!
The plain and obvious fact that Byrd played lute music on keyboard,
makes it keyboard music, I'm sorry but which part of this mind boggler
don't you get?
Why would a lutenist transcribe or arrangge an original lute peice by
Byrd and play it on the lute if the exact same piece is in tablature?
Doesn't really make any sense now does it Arthur.


BTW, Arthur any luck producing a quote from me saying lutenists
COUNLDN'T read pitch?
MT
Arthur Ness
2006-05-21 20:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Nope. You still don't get it. That's two strikes.

Your belief that lute music when notated on the grand staff is no longer lute music is the most absurd, of the many absurd suggestions you've made. Where did you and Mataya pick up this crazy idea of non-music music?

I didn't know that Albeniz played guitar, and certainly never made the suggestion that he did. Surely you're mistaken. I've never said anything about Albeniz on this or any other list. (I did engrave some of his guitar pieces for one of my clients.)

You have once again misrepresented what I wrote. Either you deliberately do so, or perhaps you have some kind of visual disorder that effects your ability to read. Is that the case? A toy is not a fragment of a piece. You just don't get it!

It was Paul O'Dette (at a BEMF master class) (NOT ME--CAN'T YOU READ?) who spoke about improvising on a short piece such as a "toy," and turning a one minute piece into a three minute piece. His discussion stemmed from that banjo player who improvised in Elizabethan style on a ballad tune. 'member?

Although you spoke disparagingly about his performance (you weren't even there), it was quite good because he had come to know the style of Elizabethan ornamentation, so well. As Paul pointed out, there are many examples to study that will permit one to master the style in improvisations.

As for Byrd's version of Johnson's "Delight Pavan" being "bare bones," you're coming close. If Byrd's version in pitch notation is bare bones, but a performannce version, and the lute version are more elaborate, then what?

You have a hard time understanding, don't you? Maybe if you think through some of these matters, you'll learn something potentially useful. And I do understand that many luthiers just build instrumments, and do not take performance seriously.
=========================================
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.
These pieces were the bare bones used by Byrd, they were not
intended as finished perfected pieces. Just as lute MS contain a small
portion of the toy or dance and one was expected to improvise the
rest.The same way a Jazz guitarist uses a chart as a basis to
improvise. All you need to do Arther is look at Byrd's perfected
examples and compare them to lute music.
Claiming that you informed Paul Odette about improvising on small
fragments of peices such as Toys etc. is another bogus claim. Any semi
inteligent musican instictivly understands this, and has understood it
for decades, if not half a millineum.

Your ridiculous claim that "Byrd wrote lute music in grand staff"
reveals the poverty of your thinking.
The fact Byrd wrote contemporary lute music on keyboard is the same
thing as Albeniz arranging flamenco folk music for piano, NO
DIFFERENT! yet your the only so called Scholar who claims Albeniz wrote
guitar music!
The plain and obvious fact that Byrd played lute music on keyboard,
makes it keyboard music, I'm sorry but which part of this mind boggler
don't you get?
Why would a lutenist transcribe or arrangge an original lute peice by
Byrd and play it on the lute if the exact same piece is in tablature?
Doesn't really make any sense now does it Arthur.


BTW, Arthur any luck producing a quote from me saying lutenists
COUNLDN'T read pitch?
MT
Roman Turovsky
2006-05-21 20:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Ness
You have once again misrepresented what I wrote. Either you deliberately do
so, or perhaps you have some >kind of visual disorder that effects your
ability to read. Is that the case?
I believe so. Corroborated by people who know him.
RT
Roman Turovsky
2006-05-21 20:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Tourette's I think.
RT
Post by Roman Turovsky
Post by Arthur Ness
You have once again misrepresented what I wrote. Either you deliberately
do so, or perhaps you have some >kind of visual disorder that effects
your ability to read. Is that the case?
I believe so. Corroborated by people who know him.
RT
Tashi
2006-05-22 15:23:37 UTC
Permalink
I think Roman Turovsky got it right, Michael. You read the words, but understand them as you would like them to >be.
Nice spin Arthur. We are all getting a glimpse into how you
operate. The image of a shape -shifter comes to mind..... a more
accurate description however would be word-shifter.
Since we all are using the medium of the written word, I suggest you
fine tune your wording.
How convenient for you Arthur...... blaming us for mistreating your
written word, once you realize you've been caught in truth imaging
mismanagement crisis.
MT

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...