Discussion:
De Visee's Suite in d minor
(too old to reply)
IslandStorm
2006-06-26 01:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?
John Philip Dimick
2006-06-26 10:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by IslandStorm
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?
You might Google "Robert Strizich."

Here's a good discussion of the difficulties of transcribing music of
the baroque guitar:
http://guitar.canzona.com/baroque.shtml

The main points involve the tuning of the 4th and 5th courses of the
baroque guitar. Not knowing if the 4th and 5th courses were tuned in
octaves or unison makes it hard to say when a "deviation" has occurred,
I think.
Kent Murdick
2006-06-26 11:33:39 UTC
Permalink
It appears from the version I have that the 4th and 5th were tuned an
octave higher. If you play it straight from the tab, you constantly
see 2nd inversion chords that were probably meant to be in root
position. The choice is to bring down the 3rd string voice an octave
or transpose the 4th/5th up and octave or eliminate the 4th/5th string
voice altogether. i ended doing all three depending on what sounds
best and where the lines are heading. what to do wiht strums is tough
too since a stum is an inversionless chord, so to speak. Hey, I'm no
expert, I'll go read the the articles.
Post by John Philip Dimick
Post by IslandStorm
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?
You might Google "Robert Strizich."
Here's a good discussion of the difficulties of transcribing music of
http://guitar.canzona.com/baroque.shtml
The main points involve the tuning of the 4th and 5th courses of the
baroque guitar. Not knowing if the 4th and 5th courses were tuned in
octaves or unison makes it hard to say when a "deviation" has occurred,
I think.
Tom Sacold
2006-06-26 11:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by IslandStorm
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?
I've always played the version in the Noad books. Might not be
'musicologically correct' but seems nicely arranged for the guitar.
Tom Sacold
2006-06-26 11:30:33 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Tom Sacold
I've always played the version in the Noad books. Might not be
'musicologically correct' but seems nicely arranged for the guitar.
That's the version in the earlier editions. The last edition seems to have
been through a process of historically aware negative improvement!
Kent Murdick
2006-06-26 12:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sacold
The last edition seems to have
been through a process of historically aware negative improvement! >>

That's always a problem. You want the piece to sound good, not just
authentic. Parkening has a the prelude and Bouree in his book 2 and
they do sound good. It looks like he took them from somewhere else.
rcspross
2006-06-26 17:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Murdick
Post by Tom Sacold
The last edition seems to have
been through a process of historically aware negative improvement! >>
That's always a problem. You want the piece to sound good, not just
authentic. Parkening has a the prelude and Bouree in his book 2 and
they do sound good. It looks like he took them from somewhere else.
I've always played Karl Scheit's version which was developed using the
figured bass process. I believe he had access to a manuscript which
illustrated
the melody with the figured bass below.

Bream used Pujol's version ( I think ) which was a bit more
complicated.
Robert Strizich transcribed the complete gutiar works into notation and
Heugal published them years ago. Nice edition. However it is notated as

if one had a baroque guitar in hand. ( Not arranged for the modern
guitar ).

Richard Spross
Lare
2006-06-26 21:23:59 UTC
Permalink
I have a version by Julio Prol published in 1967 by O. Pagani & Bro. Anyone
ever heard of this one? I paid a whopping $1.75 for it in 1977. I hope I
didn't waste my money.

Larry McDonald
Post by rcspross
Post by Kent Murdick
Post by Tom Sacold
The last edition seems to have
been through a process of historically aware negative improvement! >>
That's always a problem. You want the piece to sound good, not just
authentic. Parkening has a the prelude and Bouree in his book 2 and
they do sound good. It looks like he took them from somewhere else.
I've always played Karl Scheit's version which was developed using the
figured bass process. I believe he had access to a manuscript which
illustrated
the melody with the figured bass below.
Bream used Pujol's version ( I think ) which was a bit more
complicated.
Robert Strizich transcribed the complete gutiar works into notation and
Heugal published them years ago. Nice edition. However it is notated as
if one had a baroque guitar in hand. ( Not arranged for the modern
guitar ).
Richard Spross
virtual
2006-06-26 21:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by rcspross
Post by Kent Murdick
Post by Tom Sacold
The last edition seems to have
been through a process of historically aware negative improvement! >>
That's always a problem. You want the piece to sound good, not just
authentic. Parkening has a the prelude and Bouree in his book 2 and
they do sound good. It looks like he took them from somewhere else.
I've always played Karl Scheit's version which was developed using the
figured bass process. I believe he had access to a manuscript which
illustrated
the melody with the figured bass below.
Bream used Pujol's version ( I think ) which was a bit more
complicated.
Robert Strizich transcribed the complete gutiar works into notation and
Heugal published them years ago. Nice edition. However it is notated as
if one had a baroque guitar in hand. ( Not arranged for the modern
guitar ).
Richard Spross
I am using the Scheit edition as well. It is balanced and coherent.

Have fun
--
Resources to play the guitar for fun and relaxation

http://www.virtualguitarcenter.com

***@virtualguitarcenter.com
IslandStorm
2006-06-26 22:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Bream's recording follows the Karl Scheit edition almost perfectly,
note-for-note and slur-for-slur. Scheit also recorded this same suite
on Vanguard in the late 1950s.

When you stop to consider the exceptional editorial lineage this modest
Suite has gathered -- Coste, Pujol, Presti, Segovia (with help from
Ponce perhaps?), Bream, Noad, Scheit, and others, plus Alexandre
Tansman's orchestration of it -- it seems remarkable to me that no
enterprising grad student has yet compiled a paper
comparing/contrasting these very different published versions.
Post by rcspross
Bream used Pujol's version ( I think ) which was a bit more
complicated.
Robert Strizich transcribed the complete gutiar works into notation and
Heugal published them years ago. Nice edition. However it is notated as
if one had a baroque guitar in hand. ( Not arranged for the modern
guitar ).
Richard Spross
IslandStorm
2006-06-26 22:51:49 UTC
Permalink
I'm not a big fanatic of authenticity. Music played in 2006 is being
heard by people in 2006 with ears accustomed to the modern guitar
sound, not the genteel tinklings of the baroque guitar (nice as they
might be in some contexts).
Post by Kent Murdick
Post by Tom Sacold
The last edition seems to have
been through a process of historically aware negative improvement! >>
That's always a problem. You want the piece to sound good, not just
authentic. Parkening has a the prelude and Bouree in his book 2 and
they do sound good. It looks like he took them from somewhere else.
Tashi
2006-06-26 13:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by IslandStorm
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?
Check this out
MT


http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html
IslandStorm
2006-06-26 22:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Very interesting, thank you for this. He doesn't discuss this
particular Suite very much, but it is good general information on De
Visee. He lived to be almost 100? Very impressive by modern
standards, and nearly miraculous in the 17th century.
Post by Tashi
Check this out
http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html
Alain Reiher
2006-06-27 08:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by IslandStorm
Very interesting, thank you for this. He doesn't discuss this
particular Suite very much, but it is good general information on De
Visee. He lived to be almost 100? Very impressive by modern
standards, and nearly miraculous in the 17th century.
Post by Tashi
Check this out
http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html
A very good book indeed. The information pertaining to the interpretation of the tablature, the ornaments and the style "des batteries" is very helpful for anyone who wish to interpret the music of Robert de Visée with a "semblant" of truth.
I was fortunate enough to be able to consult and work from it.
This is what came out of it : 2-Sarabande (Robert de Visee) 732
I am no expert so I cannot really tell if I was true to the interpretative style ... but I wanted to try!
Alain
John D. Rimmer
2006-06-27 09:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by IslandStorm
Very interesting, thank you for this. He doesn't discuss this
particular Suite very much, but it is good general information on De
Visee. He lived to be almost 100? Very impressive by modern
standards, and nearly miraculous in the 17th century.
Post by Tashi
Check this out
http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html
A very good book indeed. The information pertaining to the interpretation of the tablature, the ornaments and the style "des batteries" is very helpful for anyone who wish to interpret the music of Robert de Visée with a "semblant" of truth.
I was fortunate enough to be able to consult and work from it.
This is what came out of it : 2-Sarabande (Robert de Visee) 732
I am no expert so I cannot really tell if I was true to the interpretative style ... but I wanted to try!
Alain

I liked that, no matter what the authenticity...good is good!

John
Alain Reiher
2006-06-27 14:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by IslandStorm
Very interesting, thank you for this. He doesn't discuss this
particular Suite very much, but it is good general information on De
Visee. He lived to be almost 100? Very impressive by modern
standards, and nearly miraculous in the 17th century.
Post by Tashi
Check this out
http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html
A very good bo