Discussion:
"Prelude - pour la Luth. o Cembalo par J.S.Bach
(too old to reply)
d***@gmail.com
2008-10-31 19:24:02 UTC
Permalink
There seems to be quite a few rumors being spread around these days
by self appointed musicologists, concerning Bach's original intentions
for the instruments it was written for. I just thought I'd ask a few
questions, and hopefully some intelligent conversation might follow.

Nigel North asserts BWV 998 was written for the Lautenwercke. A self
proclaimed Bach expert who didn't know when the Gallant started and
baroque ended, and can't tell the difference between a suite, and
Sonata is echoing North's hypothesis in our noble news group.

North's only argument supporting his hypotheses can be summed up in
his quote below.
"Of all these doubtful lute pieces the G minor Fugue BWV 1000/1001 and
the G minor Suite BWV 995/1011 feel natural and satisfying to me to
play on the lute; the others feel less like real lute pieces and are
more awkward to play, even though I adore them as music."

The original MS says "Prelude - pour la Luth. o Cembalo par
J.S.Bach. The first so called lute suite includes the tiltle "Aufs
Lautenwerk,". Bach clearly knew the difference between a luth, and a
Lautenwercke, as I have demonstrated, yet North insists it was not
"pour a Luth" simply because it doesn't feel good under the fingers
like other lute pieces, even though Bach writes "pour a Luth".

However, I think the answer is self arising after this question.
Why did Bach feel it necessary to distinguish between _two_ keyboard
instruments, a Lautenwercke and a Harpsichord?

Tashi
Andrew Schulman
2008-10-31 19:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Nigel North asserts BWV 998 was written for the Lautenwercke.   A self
proclaimed Bach expert who didn't know when the Gallant started and
baroque ended, and can't tell the difference between a suite, and
Sonata is echoing North's hypothesis in our noble news group.
We must find this person and have him banned from the RMCG! They
banned Michael Thames from the Acoustic Guitar Forum and it worked
wonders for them!

As far as the Galant "period" of music, that takes place during the
3rd quarter of the 18th century, after the end of the Baroque period
which is universally given as 1750, tied to the death of J.S. Bach.

http://members.tripod.com/~dorakmt/music/classic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galant

The term "Galant" as a general description extends back to the 17th
century, describing a "transitional style characterized by simplified
technique, pleasing manner, and superficial expression".

http://www.jstor.org/pss/932212
  However, I think the answer is self arising after this question.
Why did Bach feel it necessary to distinguish between _two_  keyboard
instruments, a  Lautenwercke and a Harpsichord?
A Lautenwerke is a type of harpsichord, strung with gut strings, in
fact often called a lute-harpsichord:
http://www.baroquemusic.org/barluthp.html

Andrew
Robert Crim
2008-10-31 20:03:50 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:43:46 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Nigel North asserts BWV 998 was written for the Lautenwercke.   A self
proclaimed Bach expert who didn't know when the Gallant started and
baroque ended, and can't tell the difference between a suite, and
Sonata is echoing North's hypothesis in our noble news group.
We must find this person and have him banned from the RMCG!
Indeed!!! Get the torches and pitchforks, men. The nerve of anyone
agreeing with Nigel North on an early music topic......it's
disgraceful. He should be sentenced to extensive empfindsamkeit
therapy.

Spruce forever.

Robert
Andrew Schulman
2008-10-31 20:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Indeed!!!  Get the torches...
Spruce forever.
Is it OK if we use Cedar for the torches?

Andrew
d***@gmail.com
2008-10-31 20:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Robert Crim
Spruce forever.
Is it OK if we use Cedar for the torches?
Andrew
I had asked for some intelligent conversation, just as I had
expected. Thank you for confirming it's better to talk politics here,
than any guitar related subjects. capecing
Slogoin
2008-10-31 20:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Robert Crim
Spruce forever.
Is it OK if we use Cedar for the torches?
Come on guys, please try not to over analyze this. Turn off your
brain and the answer will suddenly appear before you, like magic.
d***@gmail.com
2008-10-31 21:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Robert Crim
Spruce forever.
Is it OK if we use Cedar for the torches?
 Come on guys, please try not to over analyze this. Turn off your
brain and the answer will suddenly appear before you, like magic.
Perhaps you could have a go at it Larry. Why do think Bach wrote
Prelude - Pour a keyboard o keyboard, why the redundancy? Larry apply
some of your world famous "math" and let me know what you come up with.
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 02:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Prelude - Pour a keyboard o keyboard, why the redundancy?
Your problem, at least here, is that Bach never wrote (in
translation), keyboard or keyboard. Luth o Cembalo translates as Lute/
Keyboard.

Andrew
Slogoin
2008-11-01 02:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
Prelude - Pour a keyboard o keyboard, why the redundancy?
Your problem, at least here, is that Bach never wrote (in
translation), keyboard or keyboard.  Luth o Cembalo translates as Lute/
Keyboard.
Andrew
Kinda looks like Cembal without the "o" at the end on that
autograph. It's also looks like "la" not "a" and then there is that
squiggle before the 22. What's that? There are other marks on the
score that look interesting too.

It's tough to read this autograph. The Organ TAB at the bottom is
also interesting. I love the inclusion of the autograph. Lorimer
thanks Ueno Gakuen College, Tokyo for the autograph and talks about
the corrected errors in the Bach Gesellshaft.
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 03:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
Prelude - Pour a keyboard o keyboard, why the redundancy?
Your problem, at least here, is that Bach never wrote (in
translation), keyboard or keyboard.  Luth o Cembalo translates as Lute/
Keyboard.
Andrew
I know that you moron! I was making a point by asking why the
redundancy.
Slogoin
2008-11-01 03:44:20 UTC
Permalink
I know that you moron! I was making a point by asking why the redundancy.
Redundancy?
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 03:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Slogoin
I know that you moron! I was making a point by asking why the redundancy.
Redundancy?
Yes!
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 04:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Slogoin
I know that you moron! I was making a point by asking why the redundancy.
Redundancy?
Yes!
Thames is stating a redundancy, Bach didn't. Apparently Thames thinks
"Luth O Cembalo" means keyboard and keyboard. It means lute and
harpsichord.

Andrew
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 07:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Slogoin
I know that you moron! I was making a point by asking why the redundancy.
Redundancy?
Yes!
Thames is stating a redundancy, Bach didn't.  Apparently Thames thinks
"Luth O Cembalo" means keyboard and keyboard.  It means lute and
harpsichord.
Andrew
Dumb ass, I know what it means for the second time. If we assume
North is correct and this piece is for the Lautenwercke instead of the
lute, why would Bach state in the MS it is for two keyboard
instruments? It's like he is saying it is for keyboard and keyboard,
thus rendering his intention redundant! Can you find one other
example where Bach wrote a similar entitlement?
Richard Yates
2008-11-01 15:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Slogoin
I know that you moron! I was making a point by asking why the redundancy.
Redundancy?
Yes!
Thames is stating a redundancy, Bach didn't. Apparently Thames thinks
"Luth O Cembalo" means keyboard and keyboard. It means lute and
harpsichord.
Andrew
Dumb ass, I know what it means for the second time. If we assume
North is correct and this piece is for the Lautenwercke instead of the
lute, why would Bach state in the MS it is for two keyboard
instruments? It's like he is saying it is for keyboard and keyboard,
thus rendering his intention redundant! Can you find one other
example where Bach wrote a similar entitlement?
The Pepto Bismol ad (
) claims
many uses for that product. Why should 18th century advertising be any
different?
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 16:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Slogoin
I know that you moron! I was making a point by asking why the redundancy.
Redundancy?
Yes!
Thames is stating a redundancy, Bach didn't. Apparently Thames thinks
"Luth O Cembalo" means keyboard and keyboard. It means lute and
harpsichord.
Andrew
Dumb ass,  I know what it means for the second time. If we assume
North is correct and this piece is for the Lautenwercke instead of the
lute, why would Bach state in the MS it is for two keyboard
instruments?  It's like he is saying it is for keyboard and keyboard,
thus rendering his intention redundant!  Can you find one other
example where Bach wrote a similar entitlement?
The Pepto Bismol ad http://youtu.be/LCdUed-TFgY claims
many uses for that product. Why should 18th century advertising be any
different?
Richard my dear friend I always thought you were the logical one in
this group. People like you who make broad sweeping disclaimers, or
endorsements, worry me, this is a weakness in the ability to
discriminate properly, grasping for extremes is most unbecoming of the
logical and intelligent man you portray yourself as. There exist in
Youtube true things, and there exist false things. This is true as
well in your neighborhood, town, and country, television, books, etc.
This is also true on the liner notes of CD's. The problem with most
people and I include you, and Shulmann, in this troubling trend, is
you believe whatever you read in print without question. You guys
need to ask more questions...... new things are being discovered every
day.

Not to bore you Richard with trivial info, but in the notes on Hoppy
Smiths transposition of Bach's G minor lute suite to the Key of A
minor, one of the reasons given was the tablature required a lute with
14 courses. Hoppy states baroque lutes only had 13. Since then there
have been a few 14 course baroque lutes discovered. I have a book
with very nice photos of some. This makes Hoppy's statement rather
out dated.

Call me fucking crazy but the fact that it is stated on the
Manuscript that the piece is " pour a Luth" is quite a huge clue.
Larry Deack would agree with me here as he is fond of Occam's Razor.
The simplist explanation is the best.
Richard Yates
2008-11-01 17:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Call me fucking crazy
Been there; done that.
Richard Yates
2008-11-01 17:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Slogoin
I know that you moron! I was making a point by asking why the redundancy.
Redundancy?
Yes!
Thames is stating a redundancy, Bach didn't. Apparently Thames
thinks "Luth O Cembalo" means keyboard and keyboard. It means lute
and harpsichord.
Andrew
Dumb ass, I know what it means for the second time. If we assume
North is correct and this piece is for the Lautenwercke instead of
the lute, why would Bach state in the MS it is for two keyboard
instruments? It's like he is saying it is for keyboard and keyboard,
thus rendering his intention redundant! Can you find one other
example where Bach wrote a similar entitlement?
The Pepto Bismol ad http://youtu.be/LCdUed-TFgY
claims many uses for that product. Why should 18th century
advertising be any different?
Richard my dear friend I always thought you were the logical one in
this group. People like you who make broad sweeping disclaimers, or
endorsements, worry me, this is a weakness in the ability to
discriminate properly, grasping for extremes is most unbecoming of the
logical and intelligent man you portray yourself as. There exist in
Youtube true things, and there exist false things. This is true as
well in your neighborhood, town, and country, television, books, etc.
This is also true on the liner notes of CD's. The problem with most
people and I include you, and Shulmann, in this troubling trend, is
you believe whatever you read in print without question. You guys
need to ask more questions...... new things are being discovered every
day.
Not to bore you Richard with trivial info, but in the notes on Hoppy
Smiths transposition of Bach's G minor lute suite to the Key of A
minor, one of the reasons given was the tablature required a lute with
14 courses. Hoppy states baroque lutes only had 13. Since then there
have been a few 14 course baroque lutes discovered. I have a book
with very nice photos of some. This makes Hoppy's statement rather
out dated.
Call me fucking crazy but the fact that it is stated on the
Manuscript that the piece is " pour a Luth" is quite a huge clue.
Larry Deack would agree with me here as he is fond of Occam's Razor.
The simplist explanation is the best.
And the simplest explanation of my post is that it is an "out-of the-box"
question to consider, not a stance on which to waste valuable sarcasm.
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 18:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Slogoin
I know that you moron! I was making a point by asking why the redundancy.
Redundancy?
Yes!
Thames is stating a redundancy, Bach didn't. Apparently Thames
thinks "Luth O Cembalo" means keyboard and keyboard. It means lute
and harpsichord.
Andrew
Dumb ass, I know what it means for the second time. If we assume
North is correct and this piece is for the Lautenwercke instead of
the lute, why would Bach state in the MS it is for two keyboard
instruments? It's like he is saying it is for keyboard and keyboard,
thus rendering his intention redundant! Can you find one other
example where Bach wrote a similar entitlement?
The Pepto Bismol ad http://youtu.be/LCdUed-TFgY
claims many uses for that product. Why should 18th century
advertising be any different?
Richard my dear friend I always thought you were the logical one in
this group. People like you who make broad sweeping disclaimers, or
endorsements, worry me, this is a weakness in the ability to
discriminate properly, grasping for extremes is most unbecoming of the
logical and intelligent man you portray yourself as.  There exist in
Youtube true things, and there exist false things.  This is true as
well in your neighborhood, town, and country, television, books, etc.
This is also true on the liner notes of CD's.  The problem with most
people and I include you, and Shulmann, in this troubling trend, is
you believe whatever you read in print without question.  You guys
need to ask more questions...... new things are being discovered every
day.
  Not to bore you Richard with trivial info, but in the notes on Hoppy
Smiths transposition of Bach's G minor lute suite to the Key of A
minor, one of the reasons given was the tablature required a lute with
14 courses.  Hoppy states baroque lutes only had 13.  Since then there
have been a few 14 course baroque lutes discovered.  I have a book
with very nice photos of some.  This makes Hoppy's statement rather
out dated.
 Call me fucking crazy but the fact that it is stated on the
Manuscript that the piece is " pour a Luth" is quite a huge clue.
Larry Deack would agree with me here as he is fond of Occam's Razor.
The simplist explanation is the best.
And the simplest explanation of my post is that it is an "out-of the-box"
question to consider, not a stance on which to waste valuable sarcasm.
Perhaps to you! I happen to take a great interest in this kind of
thing. For instance when performing or arranging this piece one could
look at lute ornamentation and "feel" or keyboard ornamentation.
Little things like that.
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 15:56:21 UTC
Permalink
 It's like he is saying it is for keyboard and keyboard,
thus rendering his intention redundant!  Can you find one other
example where Bach wrote a similar entitlement?
Actually, it's not like that at all. The inscription says for Lute or
Keyboard and there is conjecture by some very knowledgeable people
including Nigel North that the Keyboard it was intended for was the
lautenwerke. This is very straightforward.

I realize that an idea that doesn't correspond with your idea makes
you very angry to the point that you can't think straight; but this is
really pretty simple stuff.

Andrew
Slogoin
2008-11-01 16:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Actually, it's not like that at all.  The inscription says for Lute or
Keyboard and there is conjecture by some very knowledgeable people
including Nigel North that the Keyboard it was intended for was the
lautenwerke.  This is very straightforward.
Maybe this thread a red herring intended as a diversion from analysis
of Bath's music.
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 16:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Slogoin
Actually, it's not like that at all.  The inscription says for Lute or
Keyboard and there is conjecture by some very knowledgeable people
including Nigel North that the Keyboard it was intended for was the
lautenwerke.  This is very straightforward.
Maybe this thread a red herring intended as a diversion from analysis
of Bath's music.
Well, the opening post certainly needed a bath :-)

Andrew
Slogoin
2008-11-01 16:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Well, the opening post certainly needed a bath :-)
He's pressing all the right buttons to keep this thread going. It's
working. We are just pawns in his game.
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 16:56:14 UTC
Permalink
thus rendering his intention redundant!  Can you find one other
example where Bach wrote a similar entitlement?
Actually, it's not like that at all.  The inscription says for Lute or
Keyboard and there is conjecture by some very knowledgeable people
including Nigel North that the Keyboard it was intended for was the
lautenwerke.  This is very straightforward.
I realize that an idea that doesn't correspond with your idea makes
you very angry to the point that you can't think straight; but this is
really pretty simple stuff.
Andrew
If it was as you say, written for the Lautenwercke then why does it
say "pour a Luth" ? Can you give me one other example where Bach
accidentally did this? Can you find another MS that were Bach wrote
"pour a Luth" when in fact it was intended for a Lautenwerck? His
Lute suites go like this.... 1st lute suite for Lautenwercke, 2nd lute
suite for launtenwercke , as well as the first three movements appear
in lute tablature, 3rd lute suite for lute, musical notation and it
also was published in lute tablature, 4th lute suite no indication of
instrument, and a MS for violin. In all these cases Bach is very
clear about his intended instruments. Why then did he screw up in the
the PFA and get it wrong? This is a clear cut case where Bach
specifies the the two instruments for which the PFA were for.

Your even out there on the web promoting the ridiculous idea that
ALL the lute suites were in fact intended for the Arclute......when
the evedience is plain for all to see, in the form of D minor baroque
lute tuning..... Ha Ha!

BTW, Andy I'm not the least bit angry, I just enjoy roasting you in
public.... your nothing more than a half cocked dilettante, you should
stick to arrangements of Pinball Wizard and leave the other stuff to
those who know what they are talking about. You might be able to fool
some of the people here on the RMCG, but that about as far as it
goes. Have a nice day Andy!

Your friend Tashi
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 17:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
If it was as you say, written for the Lautenwercke then why does it
say "pour a Luth" ?
One more time, it says for Lute or Keyboard. Some people conjecture
that the keyboard it was intended for was the Lautenwerke, in part
because of the Lute specification.
Post by d***@gmail.com
 BTW, Andy I'm not the least bit angry...
Oh, good.

Andrew
John R.
2008-11-01 20:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
 It's like he is saying it is for keyboard and keyboard,
thus rendering his intention redundant!  Can you find one other
example where Bach wrote a similar entitlement?
Actually, it's not like that at all. The inscription says for Lute or
Keyboard and there is conjecture by some very knowledgeable people
including Nigel North that the Keyboard it was intended for was the
lautenwerke. This is very straightforward.
I realize that an idea that doesn't correspond with your idea makes
you very angry to the point that you can't think straight; but this is
really pretty simple stuff.
Andrew
Not for the demented and obsessed, Andrew.

John
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 20:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Not for the demented and obsessed, Andrew.  
John
Yes, we have a poster child for that and other disorders among us.

Andrew
John R.
2008-11-01 20:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
ote
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
Prelude - Pour a keyboard o keyboard, why the redundancy?
Your problem, at least here, is that Bach never wrote (in
translation), keyboard or keyboard.  Luth o Cembalo translates as Lute/
Keyboard.
Andrew
I know that you moron! I was making a point by asking why the
redundancy.
Your lack of syntax makes the above sentence read as if spoken by a moron.
Funny, eh?

John
Robert Crim
2008-10-31 23:17:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:07:38 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Indeed!!!  Get the torches...
Spruce forever.
Is it OK if we use Cedar for the torches?
Andrew
No. Cedar stinks. Use oak or some other hard wood.

Robert
c***@att.net
2008-11-01 03:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:07:38 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Indeed!!! Get the torches...
Spruce forever.
Is it OK if we use Cedar for the torches?
Andrew
No. Cedar stinks. Use oak or some other hard wood.
Robert
Nero used prisoners for the torches.

Bob
thomas
2008-10-31 22:00:00 UTC
Permalink
  The original MS says  "Prelude - pour la Luth. o Cembalo par
J.S.Bach.  
Is there a photo of the original online somewhere?
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 01:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
  The original MS says  "Prelude - pour la Luth. o Cembalo par
J.S.Bach.  
Is there a photo of the original online somewhere?
I don't know.
David Kilpatrick
2008-11-01 02:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by thomas
Post by d***@gmail.com
The original MS says "Prelude - pour la Luth. o Cembalo par
J.S.Bach.
Is there a photo of the original online somewhere?
I don't know.
What language is that? 'O' is Provençal or Catalan. 'Pour' is Langue
d'Oi French (Northern). Was this title written in Toulouse or Barcelona
or somewhere equally vague in Romance spelling? I know sod-all about
this stuff but I go on holiday to these places and observe the shifts in
language (the same basic tongue is spoken all the way from Lombardy to
Murcia, it just changes gradually town by town).

David
John Nguyen
2008-11-01 00:44:39 UTC
Permalink
  There seems to be quite a few rumors being spread around these days
by self appointed musicologists, concerning Bach's original intentions
for the instruments it was written for.  I just thought I'd ask a few
questions, and hopefully some intelligent conversation might follow.
Nigel North asserts BWV 998 was written for the Lautenwercke.   A self
proclaimed Bach expert who didn't know when the Gallant started and
baroque ended, and can't tell the difference between a suite, and
Sonata is echoing North's hypothesis in our noble news group.
North's only argument supporting his hypotheses can be summed up in
his quote below.
"Of all these doubtful lute pieces the G minor Fugue BWV 1000/1001 and
the G minor Suite BWV 995/1011 feel natural and satisfying to me to
play on the lute; the others feel less like real lute pieces and are
more awkward to play, even though I adore them as music."
  The original MS says  "Prelude - pour la Luth. o Cembalo par
J.S.Bach.  The first so called lute suite includes the tiltle "Aufs
Lautenwerk,".  Bach clearly knew the difference between a luth, and a
Lautenwercke, as I have demonstrated, yet North insists it was not
"pour a Luth" simply because it doesn't feel good under the fingers
like other lute pieces, even though Bach writes "pour a Luth".
  However, I think the answer is self arising after this question.
Why did Bach feel it necessary to distinguish between _two_  keyboard
instruments, a  Lautenwercke and a Harpsichord?
Tashi
I thought the BWV 998 was written in E-flat originally, and that would
be a hell of a fingering on the lute. Did he use capo back then?

John
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 01:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Nguyen
  There seems to be quite a few rumors being spread around these days
by self appointed musicologists, concerning Bach's original intentions
for the instruments it was written for.  I just thought I'd ask a few
questions, and hopefully some intelligent conversation might follow.
Nigel North asserts BWV 998 was written for the Lautenwercke.   A self
proclaimed Bach expert who didn't know when the Gallant started and
baroque ended, and can't tell the difference between a suite, and
Sonata is echoing North's hypothesis in our noble news group.
North's only argument supporting his hypotheses can be summed up in
his quote below.
"Of all these doubtful lute pieces the G minor Fugue BWV 1000/1001 and
the G minor Suite BWV 995/1011 feel natural and satisfying to me to
play on the lute; the others feel less like real lute pieces and are
more awkward to play, even though I adore them as music."
  The original MS says  "Prelude - pour la Luth. o Cembalo par
J.S.Bach.  The first so called lute suite includes the tiltle "Aufs
Lautenwerk,".  Bach clearly knew the difference between a luth, and a
Lautenwercke, as I have demonstrated, yet North insists it was not
"pour a Luth" simply because it doesn't feel good under the fingers
like other lute pieces, even though Bach writes "pour a Luth".
  However, I think the answer is self arising after this question.
Why did Bach feel it necessary to distinguish between _two_  keyboard
instruments, a  Lautenwercke and a Harpsichord?
Tashi
I thought the BWV 998 was written in E-flat originally, and that would
be a hell of a fingering on the lute. Did he use capo back then?
John
Weiss wrote in that key for lute, and in his method for baroque lute
Toyohito Sotoh arranges the 1st cello suite for lute in the key of E-
flat major, it's a good key for lute. It's not as difficult as you
would imagine on guitar, because one can re tune the basses to match
the key.

The 3rd lute suite also has some impossible chords and is difficult in
the key of G minor. Hoppy Smith has solved the problem by transposing
it to the key of A minor. He writes" Inconveniences include an
awkward chord at the beginning pf m.2 of the prelude and one which is
impossible to play at the beginning of m.25 of the Allemande". The
point being is, all of Bach's lute music is difficult on the lute in
the same way that modern composers for guitar, that don't play guitar
face. Rodrigo is a perfect example very awkward fingerings!

I also imagine the first time a competent violinist approached
Bach's violin Sonatas and Partitas, they would have found these works
quite challenging, the same goes for the Bach Cello suites nothing
like them appeared before. Why then should it be different for Bach's
lute works?

Just because Nigel North believes this does not make it so! The
fact prove otherwise.

BTW, with all this analysis of PFA no one seems to be the slightest
bit interested in what this piece was originally written for....
shameful!....... but is all to typical for guitarists these days all
play and no work. Larry asked me to start using my brain so I did.

Tashi
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 04:20:49 UTC
Permalink
  Just because Nigel North believes this does not make it so!  The
fact prove otherwise.
It will be helpful for those interested in what Nigel North, an expert
in the lute and its history, has to say about BWV 998. Especially the
last sentence.

"The three-movement Italianate partita known as the Prelude,
Fugue and Allegro in E-flat Major, BWV 998, survives in an
autograph manuscript, now in a collection in Japan, and has the
fascinating title of Prelude pour la Luth. o Cembalo par J.S.
Bach. Like all the pieces on this recording, it inhabits that
ambiguous ground between the lute and harpsichord. As a
lutenist, I can confirm that the Prelude is certainly feasible,
even successful, but the other two movements, particularly the
Allegro, contain too much that is impossible on the lute. The
lautenwerk seems to me to be the intended and ideal instrument.
Incidentally, Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."

Andrew
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 07:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
fact prove otherwise.
It will be helpful for those interested in what Nigel North, an expert
in the lute and its history, has to say about BWV 998.  Especially the
last sentence.
"The three-movement Italianate partita known as the Prelude,
Fugue and Allegro in E-flat Major, BWV 998, survives in an
autograph manuscript, now in a collection in Japan, and has the
fascinating title of Prelude pour la Luth. o Cembalo par J.S.
Bach. Like all the pieces on this recording, it inhabits that
ambiguous ground between the lute and harpsichord. As a
lutenist, I can confirm that the Prelude is certainly feasible,
even successful, but the other two movements, particularly the
Allegro, contain too much that is impossible on the lute. The
lautenwerk seems to me to be the intended and ideal instrument.
Incidentally, Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
Andrew
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
Richard Yates
2008-11-01 15:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Nigel North believes this does not make it so! The
Post by d***@gmail.com
fact prove otherwise.
It will be helpful for those interested in what Nigel North, an expert
in the lute and its history, has to say about BWV 998. Especially the
last sentence.
"The three-movement Italianate partita known as the Prelude,
Fugue and Allegro in E-flat Major, BWV 998, survives in an
autograph manuscript, now in a collection in Japan, and has the
fascinating title of Prelude pour la Luth. o Cembalo par J.S.
Bach. Like all the pieces on this recording, it inhabits that
ambiguous ground between the lute and harpsichord. As a
lutenist, I can confirm that the Prelude is certainly feasible,
even successful, but the other two movements, particularly the
Allegro, contain too much that is impossible on the lute. The
lautenwerk seems to me to be the intended and ideal instrument.
Incidentally, Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
Andrew
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
That's right. If it's not on YouTube you can't trust it.
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 15:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by d***@gmail.com
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
That's right. If it's not on YouTube you can't trust it.
I thought that if it's not in Wikipedia you can't trust it...

Andrew
Richard Yates
2008-11-01 15:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Richard Yates
Post by d***@gmail.com
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
That's right. If it's not on YouTube you can't trust it.
I thought that if it's not in Wikipedia you can't trust it...
YouTube is IN Wikipedia.
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 16:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Richard Yates
Post by d***@gmail.com
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
That's right. If it's not on YouTube you can't trust it.
I thought that if it's not in Wikipedia you can't trust it...
YouTube is IN Wikipedia.
Ah, but of course!

Andrew
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 15:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?

Andrew
Robert Crim
2008-11-01 16:30:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
concludes:

"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece. The
degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the case of
the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"

Journal of the Lute Society, 1973

Just another misguided lute player, I suppose.

Robert
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 17:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece.  The
degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the case of
the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"
Journal of the Lute Society, 1973
Just another misguided lute player, I suppose.
Robert
With all due respect to Mr. Dombois, that was written in 1973. The
pesky little fact remains the MS states "pour a Luth".
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 17:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
Richard Yates
2008-11-01 17:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece. The
degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the case of
the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"
Journal of the Lute Society, 1973
Not a very useful comment, though. "more a lute-harpsichord piece than a
lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can, predictably, be
interpreted here to fit anyone's position.

"more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece"could mean lots of thing,
such as:

1. It's just harder to play on the lute.
2. It was not intended to be played, primarily, on the lute but "lute" was
included in the title because it was possible although more difficult.
3. It was intended to be played on the lute but was composed by a
non-lutenist.
4. Bach wrote it for a lutenist who told him it was too hard, so he added "o
cembalo."
5. Bach wrote it for keyboard, keeping it in a smaller scale and range so
students could play it, and a lutenist said "Hey, that almost works on the
lute" so "pour lute" was added.
6. Bach wrote it to be difficult to play on the lute because he had a grudge
against the lutenist who was going to perform it.
7. Bach wrote and titled it as he did so that 300 years later a newsgroup
could argue about it.

Some of these possibilities are plausible, some are whimsical, but Dombois'
comment, and any other availabel evidence, does not help discriminate among
the possibilities.
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 17:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Not a very useful comment, though. "more a lute-harpsichord piece than a
lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can, predictably, be
interpreted here to fit anyone's position.
Makes no difference anyway. You either have an instrument you can
play it on well or you don't. If you do, you have a wonderful piece
to play.

Bach used the forces available to him and also arranged his and other
composers music. The medium was not the message, the music was.

Andrew
Richard Yates
2008-11-01 17:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Richard Yates
Not a very useful comment, though. "more a lute-harpsichord piece
than a lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can,
predictably, be interpreted here to fit anyone's position.
Makes no difference anyway. You either have an instrument you can
play it on well or you don't. If you do, you have a wonderful piece
to play.
Bach used the forces available to him and also arranged his and other
composers music. The medium was not the message, the music was.
Andrew
Yep.
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 18:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can, predictably, be
interpreted here to fit anyone's position.
Makes no difference anyway.  You either have an instrument you can
play it on well or you don't.  If you do, you have a wonderful piece
to play.
Yea like Pinball Wizard or something! So let me see here, it makes
no difference for which instrument Bach wrote this for? Your a damn
genius Gump!
Bach used the forces available to him and also arranged his and other
composers music.  The medium was not the message, the music was.
Andrew
So St. Mathews Passion would sound just as good on Ukulele?
Professor Andy are you for real? I love the extremist conclusions you
and a few others reach, quite typical and truly entertaining.
Richard Yates
2008-11-01 18:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Richard Yates
Not a very useful comment, though. "more a lute-harpsichord piece than a
Post by Richard Yates
lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can, predictably, be
interpreted here to fit anyone's position.
Makes no difference anyway. You either have an instrument you can
play it on well or you don't. If you do, you have a wonderful piece
to play.
Yea like Pinball Wizard or something! So let me see here, it makes
no difference for which instrument Bach wrote this for? Your a damn
genius Gump!
Post by Richard Yates
Bach used the forces available to him and also arranged his and other
composers music. The medium was not the message, the music was.
Andrew
So St. Mathews Passion would sound just as good on Ukulele?
Please read Andrew's sentence again, slowly: "You either have an instrument
you can play it on well or you don't."

Now explain how you think that implies "St. Mathews Passion would sound just
as good on Ukulele"
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 19:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Please read Andrew's sentence again, slowly: "You either have an instrument
you can play it on well or you don't."
Now explain how you think that implies "St. Mathews Passion would sound just
as good on Ukulele"
Well yes, Richard, you seem to be indicating that the replacement
would have to have, at the very least, the range of the lute used in
BWV 244. A careful analysis reveals that a ukulele doesn't not have
this range, therefore would not be a good choice.

Good work.

Andrew
Richard Yates
2008-11-02 00:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Richard Yates
Please read Andrew's sentence again, slowly: "You either have an
instrument you can play it on well or you don't."
Now explain how you think that implies "St. Mathews Passion would
sound just as good on Ukulele"
Well yes, Richard, you seem to be indicating that the replacement
would have to have, at the very least, the range of the lute used in
BWV 244. A careful analysis reveals that a ukulele doesn't not have
this range, therefore would not be a good choice.
My researches into Bach's possessions reveal a little known item that was
found under the stairs when he was getting thimgs together for a garage
sale. The instrument was undoubtedly the intended one for the St. Matthew
Passion as Mr. Schulman has cleverly deduced: the ArchUke:

Loading Image...
Richard Yates
2008-11-02 00:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Richard Yates
Please read Andrew's sentence again, slowly: "You either have an
instrument you can play it on well or you don't."
Now explain how you think that implies "St. Mathews Passion would
sound just as good on Ukulele"
Well yes, Richard, you seem to be indicating that the replacement
would have to have, at the very least, the range of the lute used in
BWV 244. A careful analysis reveals that a ukulele doesn't not have
this range, therefore would not be a good choice.
My researches into Bach's possessions reveal a little known item that
was found under the stairs when he was getting thimgs together for a
garage sale. The instrument was undoubtedly the intended one for the
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/ArchUke.jpg
The continued development of the ArchUke led inevitably to the addition of
strings until, late in the Baroque Era instruments such as this rare
GigaArchUke were made. Notice the proliferation of tuning pegs. Few have
survived as most of them collapsed under the tension of their own strings,
sometimes severing the fingers of the player in the process. it is possible
that the Donaghue Tuning that was popular at the time was also a factor.

Loading Image...
John Nguyen
2008-11-02 06:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Richard Yates
Please read Andrew's sentence again, slowly: "You either have an
instrument you can play it on well or you don't."
Now explain how you think that implies "St. Mathews Passion would
sound just as good on Ukulele"
Well yes, Richard, you seem to be indicating that the replacement
would have to have, at the very least, the range of the lute used in
BWV 244.  A careful analysis reveals that a ukulele doesn't not have
this range, therefore would not be a good choice.
My researches into Bach's possessions reveal a little known item that
was found under the stairs when he was getting thimgs together for a
garage sale. The instrument was undoubtedly the intended one for the
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/ArchUke.jpg
The continued development of the ArchUke led inevitably to the addition of
strings until, late in the Baroque Era instruments such as this rare
GigaArchUke were made. Notice the proliferation of tuning pegs. Few have
survived as most of them collapsed under the tension of their own strings,
sometimes severing the fingers of the player in the process. it is possible
that the Donaghue Tuning that was popular at the time was also a factor.
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/ArchUke2.jpg-
Oh, man! Im gonna get me one of those! Is it spruce, cedar, or
laminated?

John
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-02 00:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
My researches into Bach's possessions reveal a little known item that was
found under the stairs when he was getting thimgs together for a garage
sale. The instrument was undoubtedly the intended one for the St. Matthew
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/ArchUke.jpg
Interesting. It was the instrument of choice of the ArchDuke:

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/duke.htm

Legend has it that he was whacked because of trying to play the PFA on
it (he figured it sounded so good in the St. Matthew Passion it would
work in BWV 998 too).

Andrew
Richard Yates
2008-11-02 01:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Richard Yates
My researches into Bach's possessions reveal a little known item
that was found under the stairs when he was getting thimgs together
for a garage sale. The instrument was undoubtedly the intended one
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/ArchUke.jpg
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/duke.htm
Legend has it that he was whacked because of trying to play the PFA on
it (he figured it sounded so good in the St. Matthew Passion it would
work in BWV 998 too).
Here is a vintage photo confirming the legend:

Loading Image...
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-02 01:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Andrew Schulman
Legend has it that he was whacked because of trying to play the PFA on
it (he figured it sounded so good in the St. Matthew Passion it would
work in BWV 998 too).
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/ArchDukeArchUke.jpg
Richard,

You da bomb!

Andrew
Alain Reiher
2008-11-01 22:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Richard Yates
Not a very useful comment, though. "more a lute-harpsichord piece than a
Post by Richard Yates
lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can, predictably, be
interpreted here to fit anyone's position.
Makes no difference anyway. You either have an instrument you can
play it on well or you don't. If you do, you have a wonderful piece
to play.
Yea like Pinball Wizard or something! So let me see here, it makes
no difference for which instrument Bach wrote this for? Your a damn
genius Gump!
Post by Richard Yates
Bach used the forces available to him and also arranged his and other
composers music. The medium was not the message, the music was.
Andrew
So St. Mathews Passion would sound just as good on Ukulele?
Please read Andrew's sentence again, slowly: "You either have an
instrument you can play it on well or you don't."
Now explain how you think that implies "St. Mathews Passion would sound
just as good on Ukulele"
Ha! Now we are getting closer to the "implied" theme!
But ... Luth is du genre masculin, so ... Can we find out now if the word
luth was du genre féminin in Bach's time? Anyone has a dictionary dating
from the 18th century?
Maybe he ment "Prélude pour faire la lutte aux cymbales"? Ce qui ne
manquerait pas de faire de ce titre un corps à corps assez cacophonique.
Alain
David Kilpatrick
2008-11-02 01:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Reiher
Ha! Now we are getting closer to the "implied" theme!
But ... Luth is du genre masculin, so ... Can we find out now if the word
luth was du genre féminin in Bach's time? Anyone has a dictionary dating
from the 18th century?
Maybe he ment "Prélude pour faire la lutte aux cymbales"? Ce qui ne
manquerait pas de faire de ce titre un corps à corps assez cacophonique.
Alain
The cymbalo is presumably a cimbalom and therefore a precursor of the
piano - a hammered harpsichord. The hand-hammered cimbalom is still
played widely in Eastern Europe and its orchestral form became the
keyboard-played Pantaleon, invented by a guy called Pantalon or
Pantaleo, as a sort of proto-piano - between the harpsichord and the
fortepiano in date.

Assuming Bach did not mean a cimbalom - two hammers can do amazing
things but only two notes at one time - and the term harpsichord was
already widely enough used, perhaps he intended an intermediate form of
hammer-action keyboard.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantalon

Though Wiki does not credit it, Pantalon developed his keyboard by
adapting a Czech (Bohemian) cimbalom, which is is in turn a baroque
orchestral version of the santur or hammered dulcimer.

See also:

http://www.hora.ro/pages/others.htm

The harpsichord is very affordable as an export, as is the baroque
cimbalom. However, playing this is a conservatoire training exercise; I
have a great CD by Pernica, a group I saw twice in Prague, and the
cimbalom playing is virtuosity in the extreme.

I have only got the large hammered dulcimer, and I have never been able
to find even from the maker what pitch range it should be tuned to - as
a result, I have never tuned it...

David
Robert Crim
2008-11-01 17:38:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:23:44 -0700, "Richard Yates"
Post by Richard Yates
Not a very useful comment, though. "more a lute-harpsichord piece than a
lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can, predictably, be
interpreted here to fit anyone's position.
Well, one thing is for sure.....it wasn't written for a guitar.

I'm out.

Robert
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 17:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
Well, one thing is for sure.....it wasn't written for a guitar.
I'm out.
But sounds great on the guitar, especially in D on an 8-string with
7th/D and A/8th.

Andrew
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 18:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:23:44 -0700, "Richard Yates"
Post by Richard Yates
Not a very useful comment, though. "more a lute-harpsichord piece than a
lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can, predictably, be
interpreted here to fit anyone's position.
Well, one thing is for sure.....it wasn't written for a guitar.
I'm out.
Robert
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
Robert Crim
2008-11-01 21:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:23:44 -0700, "Richard Yates"
Post by Richard Yates
Not a very useful comment, though. "more a lute-harpsichord piece than a
lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can, predictably, be
interpreted here to fit anyone's position.
Well, one thing is for sure.....it wasn't written for a guitar.
I'm out.
Robert
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
Ouch!! That hurt,

Robert
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-01 17:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece.  The
degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the case of
the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"
Journal of the Lute Society, 1973
Not a very useful comment, though. "more a lute-harpsichord piece than a
lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can, predictably, be
interpreted here to fit anyone's position.
"more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece"could mean lots of thing,
1. It's just harder to play on the lute.
2. It was not intended to be played, primarily, on the lute but "lute" was
included in the title because it was possible although more difficult.
3. It was intended to be played on the lute but was composed by a
non-lutenist.
4. Bach wrote it for a lutenist who told him it was too hard, so he added "o
cembalo."
5. Bach wrote it for keyboard, keeping it in a smaller scale and range so
students could play it, and a lutenist said "Hey, that almost works on the
lute" so "pour lute" was added.
6. Bach wrote it to be difficult to play on the lute because he had a grudge
against the lutenist who was going to perform it.
7. Bach wrote and titled it as he did so that 300 years later a newsgroup
could argue about it.
Some of these possibilities are plausible, some are whimsical, but Dombois'
comment, and any other availabel evidence,  does not help discriminate among
the possibilities.
Nice the most intelligent things said so far!
Richard Yates
2008-11-01 17:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece.
The degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the
case of the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"
Journal of the Lute Society, 1973
Not a very useful comment, though. "more a lute-harpsichord piece
than a lute piece" is a terribly ambiguous phrase. It can,
predictably, be interpreted here to fit anyone's position.
"more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece"could mean lots of
1. It's just harder to play on the lute.
2. It was not intended to be played, primarily, on the lute but
"lute" was included in the title because it was possible although
more difficult.
3. It was intended to be played on the lute but was composed by a
non-lutenist.
4. Bach wrote it for a lutenist who told him it was too hard, so he
added "o cembalo."
5. Bach wrote it for keyboard, keeping it in a smaller scale and
range so students could play it, and a lutenist said "Hey, that
almost works on the lute" so "pour lute" was added.
6. Bach wrote it to be difficult to play on the lute because he had
a grudge against the lutenist who was going to perform it.
7. Bach wrote and titled it as he did so that 300 years later a
newsgroup could argue about it.
Some of these possibilities are plausible, some are whimsical, but
Dombois' comment, and any other availabel evidence, does not help
discriminate among the possibilities.
Nice the most intelligent things said so far!
Thanks. Ignore my other post.
John R.
2008-11-01 20:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece. The
degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the case of
the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"
Journal of the Lute Society, 1973
Just another misguided lute player, I suppose.
Robert
It does not seem to be a problem on guitar... at least not for Isaac
Bustos.

John
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 21:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John R.
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece.  The
degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the case of
the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"
Journal of the Lute Society, 1973
Just another misguided lute player, I suppose.
Robert
It does not seem to be a problem on guitar... at least not for Isaac
Bustos.
One of the best pieces by Bach played on guitar IMO. It also works in
E, I played it there for a while, but really better in D.

Andrew
Dick Muldoon
2008-11-02 04:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John R.
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece. The
degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the case of
the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"
Journal of the Lute Society, 1973
Just another misguided lute player, I suppose.
Robert
It does not seem to be a problem on guitar... at least not for Isaac
Bustos.
John
Nor for Jason Vieaux, who played it tonight in NYC.
His Bach CD is allegedly due out early in 2009.
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-02 02:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece.  The
degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the case of
the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"
Journal of the Lute Society, 1973
Just another misguided lute player, I suppose.
Robert
What a strange coincidence...... wasn't Dombois, Nigel North's
teacher? I wonder where the hell Nigel came up with his hypothesis?
Is there an echo in the room?
Robert Crim
2008-11-02 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece.  The
degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the case of
the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"
Journal of the Lute Society, 1973
Just another misguided lute player, I suppose.
Robert
What a strange coincidence...... wasn't Dombois, Nigel North's
teacher? I wonder where the hell Nigel came up with his hypothesis?
Is there an echo in the room?
No, Dombois was not North's teacher. Nigel is pretty much self taught
a la Julian Bream. See
http://www.nigelnorth.com/biography-chronology.html for details. I
suppose he made up the idea from his own experience.

Robert
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-02 15:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Crim
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
On the instrumental possibilities of BWV 998, Eugen M. Dombois
"I have considered the question separately for all three movements,
and in all three cases I have come to the conclusion that the whole
work is probably more a lute-harpsichord piece than a lute piece.  The
degree of probability differs, however: it is highest in the case of
the allegro and lowest in that of the prelude"
Journal of the Lute Society, 1973
Just another misguided lute player, I suppose.
Robert
What a strange coincidence...... wasn't Dombois, Nigel North's
teacher?   I wonder where the hell Nigel came up with his hypothesis?
Is there an echo in the room?
No, Dombois was not North's teacher.  Nigel is pretty much self taught
a la Julian Bream.  Seehttp://www.nigelnorth.com/biography-chronology.htmlfor details.  I
suppose he made up the idea from his own experience.
Robert
North credits a Dombois recording of Weiss L'Infadel as a pivotal
point in his career, causing him to take up the lute. North also
studied with Michael Schaffer on who's CD Eugen Dombois wrote the
liner notes. Anyone who is anyone in the lute world during those years
studied with Dombois. Segovia also claims to be self taught, but can
be seen kneeling at Migel Llobet's feet.

So other than Dombois, and North's echoing of Dombois hypothesis,
what other evidence can you provide that Bach actually screw up when
writing "Pour a Luth"?

The key fits the lute. The prelude is very Lute-like reminiscent of
many of Weiss's preludes. The fugue is not that difficult, and Weiss
again wrote a number of fugues. The Allegro is challenging by
anyone's standard. Including guitarists. All of Bach's solo stringed
instrument Suites Sonata, and Partitas, pushed the envelope and
established new realms of possibilities........ why would it be any
different for the lute.

Sorry you are asking us to suspended the facts ( pour a Luth ), and
instead believe a shaky hypothesis based solely on the "feeling"
something is hard to play. Robert Barto won't play any Bach on the
lute because it is hard to play.

Nigel North's "feelings" do not negate the title and designated
mediums Bach ascribed to the piece!
r***@savageclassical.com
2008-11-01 11:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
fact prove otherwise.
It will be helpful for those interested in what Nigel North, an expert
in the lute and its history, has to say about BWV 998.  Especially the
last sentence.
"The three-movement Italianate partita known as the Prelude,
Fugue and Allegro in E-flat Major, BWV 998, survives in an
autograph manuscript, now in a collection in Japan, and has the
fascinating title of Prelude pour la Luth. o Cembalo par J.S.
Bach. Like all the pieces on this recording, it inhabits that
ambiguous ground between the lute and harpsichord. As a
lutenist, I can confirm that the Prelude is certainly feasible,
even successful, but the other two movements, particularly the
Allegro, contain too much that is impossible on the lute. The
lautenwerk seems to me to be the intended and ideal instrument.
Incidentally, Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
Andrew
It is possible that everyone has created separation where Bach may
have intended none. OR doesn't always have to be OR. Sometimes an OR
is an OF. Whoo...that would just be too simple :-)
Germans using French....ach....a friend of mine cracked me up last
night. In a snide German voice...."do you have your papers".

Rich
www.savageclassical.com
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-01 16:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@savageclassical.com
It is possible that everyone has created separation where Bach may
have intended none.  OR doesn't always have to be OR.  Sometimes an OR
is an OF.  Whoo...that would just be too simple  :-)
Germans using French....ach....a friend of mine cracked me up last
night.  In a snide German voice...."do you have your papers".
Richard, answer the question, do you have your papers? And if not, VY
NOT!!

Andrew
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-02 02:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@savageclassical.com
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
fact prove otherwise.
It will be helpful for those interested in what Nigel North, an expert
in the lute and its history, has to say about BWV 998.  Especially the
last sentence.
"The three-movement Italianate partita known as the Prelude,
Fugue and Allegro in E-flat Major, BWV 998, survives in an
autograph manuscript, now in a collection in Japan, and has the
fascinating title of Prelude pour la Luth. o Cembalo par J.S.
Bach. Like all the pieces on this recording, it inhabits that
ambiguous ground between the lute and harpsichord. As a
lutenist, I can confirm that the Prelude is certainly feasible,
even successful, but the other two movements, particularly the
Allegro, contain too much that is impossible on the lute. The
lautenwerk seems to me to be the intended and ideal instrument.
Incidentally, Bach ran out of space toward the end of the
Allegro, so he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature,
not lute tablature ... another clue that this is keyboard music."
Andrew
It is possible that everyone has created separation where Bach may
have intended none.  OR doesn't always have to be OR.  Sometimes an OR
is an OF.  Whoo...that would just be too simple  :-)
Germans using French....ach....a friend of mine cracked me up last
night.  In a snide German voice...."do you have your papers".
Richwww.savageclassical.com
Well it just gets a little tiring to hear Schulmann expound his
bullshit like he knows what he's talking about. After all it took
quite awhile for him to finally come clean and admit Weiss wrote
sonatas, and wasn't a 3rd rate composer.

What is he going to claim next, that a caveman flew a jet through the
most restricted air space in the world while everyone watched, pulled
84 G's and hit the target without incident, miraculously shape
shifting his 757 into a 16 foot hole? I mean who would believe such a
thing.......... Oh yea sorry I forgot.
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-02 03:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by d***@gmail.com
You have a nasty habit of believe everything you read.
Post by Andrew Schulman
So, you don't believe Bach used keyboard tablature instead of lute
tablature in the last few bars?
Andrew
Steve Freides
2008-11-01 02:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
There seems to be quite a few rumors being spread around these days
by self appointed musicologists, concerning Bach's original intentions
for the instruments it was written for. I just thought I'd ask a few
questions, and hopefully some intelligent conversation might follow.
Nigel North asserts BWV 998 was written for the Lautenwercke. A self
proclaimed Bach expert who didn't know when the Gallant started and
baroque ended, and can't tell the difference between a suite, and
Sonata is echoing North's hypothesis in our noble news group.
North's only argument supporting his hypotheses can be summed up in
his quote below.
"Of all these doubtful lute pieces the G minor Fugue BWV 1000/1001 and
the G minor Suite BWV 995/1011 feel natural and satisfying to me to
play on the lute; the others feel less like real lute pieces and are
more awkward to play, even though I adore them as music."
The original MS says "Prelude - pour la Luth. o Cembalo par
J.S.Bach. The first so called lute suite includes the tiltle "Aufs
Lautenwerk,". Bach clearly knew the difference between a luth, and a
Lautenwercke, as I have demonstrated, yet North insists it was not
"pour a Luth" simply because it doesn't feel good under the fingers
like other lute pieces, even though Bach writes "pour a Luth".
However, I think the answer is self arising after this question.
Why did Bach feel it necessary to distinguish between _two_ keyboard
instruments, a Lautenwercke and a Harpsichord?
Tashi
I don't have an answer to the question, but it's worth noting that the
guitar/lute is not unique in this regard, e.g., brass players regularly
search for, and don't find, definitive answers about what instrument to
use for parts labeled "horn" in Bach's music and, I think, other music
of that time period. While most people debate on how to play the very
high horn parts, I just read something that suggested it was convention
at the time to play them an octave lower than written - go figure!

What little I know on this subject would lead me to think that Bach
wasn't always particular about the instrument(s) used to perform his
compositions. A composer's "original intentions" were, as I understand
it, much less specific back then than they were 100 years or so later,
and before Bach's time, they were often even less specific.

So I guess my rambling is by way of asking you why you are asking this
question - is there something about modern transcriptions of this piece
that you think is wrong?

-S-
Paul Magnussen
2008-11-03 15:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
North insists it was not
"pour a Luth" simply because it doesn't feel good under the fingers
like other lute pieces, even though Bach writes "pour a Luth".
Does he? It seems like a poor argument. Segovia had to modify many of
the pieces written for him by modern nonguitarist composers (or get them
to modify, which comes down to the same thing) to make them playable.
If Bach wasn't himself a lutenist, why shouldn't the same thing have
happened in his case?

Paul Magnussen
Slogoin
2008-11-03 15:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Does he?  It seems like a poor argument.
Par for the course.
 Segovia had to modify many of
the pieces written for him by modern nonguitarist composers (or get them
to modify, which comes down to the same thing) to make them playable.
If Bach wasn't himself a lutenist, why shouldn't the same thing have
happened in his case?
Maybe Bach was trying to write for an instrument that had not been
invented yet and had a sound between the two instruments... I wonder
what that instrument could be?
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-03 16:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Slogoin
Does he?  It seems like a poor argument.
Par for the course.
 Segovia had to modify many of
the pieces written for him by modern nonguitarist composers (or get them
to modify, which comes down to the same thing) to make them playable.
If Bach wasn't himself a lutenist, why shouldn't the same thing have
happened in his case?
   Maybe Bach was trying to write for an instrument that had not been
invented yet and had a sound between the two instruments... I wonder
what that instrument could be?
Keep dreaming Larry!
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-03 16:14:52 UTC
Permalink
 North insists it was not
"pour a Luth" simply because it doesn't feel good under the fingers
like other lute pieces, even though Bach writes "pour a Luth".
Does he?  It seems like a poor argument.  Segovia had to modify many of
the pieces written for him by modern nonguitarist composers (or get them
to modify, which comes down to the same thing) to make them playable.
If Bach wasn't himself a lutenist, why shouldn't the same thing have
happened in his case?
Paul Magnussen
Paul, the point is that yes to play any of Bach's so-called lute
suites one has to "modify" them, even the ones that are "non-disputed"
original pieces for lute, such as the G minor, 3rd lute suite. Some
parts of the 3rd lute suite are impossible to play on the lute, even
though it appears in a published version in tablature!

Hoppy Smith's solution to play this on a 13 course baroque lute, is to
transpose the G minor suite to A minor. I've played through both
original tablatures and can say the A minor version by Hoppy is a
breeze compared to the original G minor tablature version.

So North's claim that the Prelude ,Fugue and Allegro are not real lute
pieces based on the fact he has to modify them, or the allegro is too
hard to play, despite the obvious FACT that the title CLEARLY says
"pour a Luth" is poppycock! One should not throw out the baby with
the bath water, or ignore the elephant in the room.

Robert Barto won't play any Bach on the lute because he feels they
are not lute like and very difficult. This however does not negate
the FACT that they are real lute pieces by Bach, it is just his
preference.
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-03 16:58:44 UTC
Permalink
 North insists it was not
"pour a Luth" simply because it doesn't feel good under the fingers
like other lute pieces, even though Bach writes "pour a Luth".
Does he?  It seems like a poor argument.  Segovia had to modify many of
the pieces written for him by modern nonguitarist composers (or get them
to modify, which comes down to the same thing) to make them playable.
If Bach wasn't himself a lutenist, why shouldn't the same thing have
happened in his case?
Paul,

There is room to maneuver in the Prelude and Allegro but not much in
the Fugue. As you know a Fugue is the most highly organized form of
music. If you can play it and strictly maintain the counterpoint you
can argue it was intended for the Lute as well as Cembalo. As we know
it is marked for more than one instrument.

If the Fugue is really disrupted though than, as Bach wasn't a
lutanist, it could be he wrote it with lute-like qualities, marked
"Luth" in the title page not knowing at the time whether it actually
worked well for that instrument, but also wrote Cembalo which was
clearly his original intention as there is some keyboard tablature in
the autograph score. After all, he was not a lute player, he was a
keyboard player and violinist (and loved playing the viola as well).

So, a close examination of the lute performance in the Fugue would
reveal a lot. As North and Dombois have already done so, there is
good evidence that it is not suitable as written for the lute. Now,
if you can rework it so the fugue, let alone the outer movements, work
well, and you can play it on a lute, fine.

As I remarked earlier, we all know it generally works well on guitar.
However, there are a few places in the fugue that don't, not enough
bass range with a 6-string guitar. Those places are OK though on 8 or
10-string guitar.

Andrew
Robert Crim
2008-11-03 19:07:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:58:44 -0800 (PST), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
As I remarked earlier, we all know it generally works well on guitar.
However, there are a few places in the fugue that don't, not enough
bass range with a 6-string guitar. Those places are OK though on 8 or
10-string guitar.
Does the fact that they work much better on the guitar (8 or10) string
than on the d minor lute make some sort of argument for the archlute
theory? After all, it has 14 courses with a tuning "almost" like the
guitar.

Robert
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-03 19:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:58:44 -0800 (PST), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
As I remarked earlier, we all know it generally works well on guitar.
However, there are a few places in the fugue that don't, not enough
bass range with a 6-string guitar.  Those places are OK though on 8 or
10-string guitar.
Does the fact that they work much better on the guitar (8 or10) string
than on the d minor lute make some sort of argument for the archlute
theory?  After all, it has 14 courses with a tuning "almost" like the
guitar.
An argument? Yes, it does. Knowledgeable and respected people like
Jerry Willard think it's a possibility. Neither he nor anyone else
claims it as a fact, just a possibility.

Andrew

P.S. Here's more info about Jerry:

http://www.jerrywillard.com/
Robert Crim
2008-11-03 20:12:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:33:06 -0800 (PST), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Robert Crim
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:58:44 -0800 (PST), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
As I remarked earlier, we all know it generally works well on guitar.
However, there are a few places in the fugue that don't, not enough
bass range with a 6-string guitar.  Those places are OK though on 8 or
10-string guitar.
Does the fact that they work much better on the guitar (8 or10) string
than on the d minor lute make some sort of argument for the archlute
theory?  After all, it has 14 courses with a tuning "almost" like the
guitar.
An argument? Yes, it does. Knowledgeable and respected people like
Jerry Willard think it's a possibility. Neither he nor anyone else
claims it as a fact, just a possibility.
Andrew
http://www.jerrywillard.com/
I don't think there are many guitar players around that does't have a
copy of the "Guitar Classics" and/or the Sanz book. The gig book has
come in handy over the years as well.

He is one of those old school icons that we seem to be missing these
days. Too much specialization I guess.

Robert
Andrew Schulman
2008-11-03 20:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
I don't think there are many guitar players around that does't have a
copy of the "Guitar Classics" and/or the Sanz book.  The gig book has
come in handy over the years as well.
He is one of those old school icons that we seem to be missing these
days.  Too much specialization I guess.
He was my teacher in college, and a great teacher at that. We have
stayed good friends over the years. Jerry is one of the most active
early music players in NY, has been for years.

Andrew
d***@gmail.com
2008-11-03 21:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:33:06 -0800 (PST), Andrew Schulman
Post by Robert Crim
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:58:44 -0800 (PST), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
As I remarked earlier, we all know it generally works well on guitar.
However, there are a few places in the fugue that don't, not enough
bass range with a 6-string guitar.  Those places are OK though on 8 or
10-string guitar.
Does the fact that they work much better on the guitar (8 or10) string
than on the d minor lute make some sort of argument for the archlute
theory?  After all, it has 14 courses with a tuning "almost" like the
guitar.
An argument?  Yes, it does.  Knowledgeable and respected people like
Jerry Willard think it's a possibility.  Neither he nor anyone else
claims it as a fact, just a possibility.
Andrew
http://www.jerrywillard.com/
I don't think there are many guitar players around that does't have a
copy of the "Guitar Classics" and/or the Sanz book.  The gig book has
come in handy over the years as well.
He is one of those old school icons that we seem to be missing these
days.  Too much specialization I guess.
Robert
The "Barbarism of Specialization" has sunk it's ugly teeth into the
guitar world as well......

d***@gmail.com
2008-11-03 19:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Crim
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:58:44 -0800 (PST), Andrew Schulman
Post by Andrew Schulman
As I remarked earlier, we all know it generally works well on guitar.
However, there are a few places in the fugue that don't, not enough
bass range with a 6-string guitar.  Those places are OK though on 8 or
10-string guitar.
Does the fact that they work much better on the guitar (8 or10) string
than on the d minor lute make some sort of argument for the archlute
theory?  After all, it has 14 courses with a tuning "almost" like the
guitar.
Robert
I have a book called "The Lute in Europe a History to Delight" by
Andreas Schiegl. In this book are pictured two baroque lutes with 14
courses. One is a swan neck lute by Hoffman, the other a triple head
modified by Schelle. Contrary to popular belief there were 14 course
German baroque lutes!

Weiss states this here in his famous letter to Mattheson.

"I now have converted one of my instruments for accompaniment in
orchestra and in Church. It has the size length, power and resonance
of the genuine Italian Theorbo , and has the same effect, only that
the tuning is different".

So as you can see Weiss didn't use the Italian tuning even on his
Italian theorbo!!!! Baron mentions the same thing that no one used
the old Italian Therobo and archlute tuning. They all used the D
minor tuning! The 3rd Lute suite as well as the MS by Weyrauch were
writen for a lute in D minor tuning!

I know Schulmann is fond of promoting this crap, but really Monsieur
Crim de la Cremona you should know better!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...