Gamba Partita in G minor (Kühnel, August)

		Movements/Sections 5 sections Preluda Allemande Corrente Sarabande Giga First Publication 1698 in 14 Sonate ò Partite ad una o due viole da gamba, con il basso continuo Genre Categories Partitas; For viol; Scores featuring the viol; For 1 player; For viol, continuo; Scores with basso continuo; For 1 player with continuo

Sheet Music

• Parts (2)

Parts

 Viola da Gamba
*#272677 - 0.04MB, 2 pp. -  0.0/10 2 4 6 8 10 (0) - !N/!N/!N - 284x⇩

PDF typeset by editor
Jsaez1 (2013/3/9)

 Continuo
*#276522 - 0.05MB, 2 pp. -  0.0/10 2 4 6 8 10 (0) - !N/!N/!N - 60x⇩

PDF typeset by editor
Jsaez1 (2013/4/9)

Editor:

José Ramón Sáez

Publisher Info.:

José Ramón Sáez

Copyright:

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 [tag/del]

Purchase:

Javascript is required for this feature.

Javascript is required to submit files.

General Information

Work Title	Viola da Gamba Partita in G mimor
Alternative Title	Partita XIV

Composer	Kühnel, August
Key	G minor
Movements/Sections	5 sections Preluda Allemande Corrente Sarabande Giga
First Publication	1698 in 14 Sonate ò Partite ad una o due viole da gamba, con il basso continuo
Piece Style	Baroque
Instrumentation	Viola da Gamba, Continuo (ad lib.)

Misc. Comments

Re all these works from "Kassel 1698":
I see no copies in modern libraries of first editions dated 1698 (or with no dates on them but estimated to have been published in 1698), and confusingly a modern printed edition says

"Facsimile reprint of the manuscript found in the Gesamthochschul-Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel published 1698".

So was it "published 1698" or is it a manuscript produced in 1698, but not actually typeset and published by any late-17th-century printer (... or even, that I can tell, before 1965?) The mind swirls in confusion... - Schissel (to phrase my question briefly- ok, fine, this was composed ca.1698. RISM even lists a few things from that 1698 manuscript copy. But it seems to be just that, a -manuscript copy-. When was it actually first -published-? Those really are two separate questions.)

The Montezuma decision has made it much more difficult for those inclined to make absurd copyright claims to do so with works like this. They basically have to prove something was not published (in the legal definition of the term) in order to make an editio princeps claim. Even if a library made a single "transcription" (a manuscript copy) and sent it to another library, the work is considered to have been published. Carolus

Hrm-- interesting and positive (from my biased pov) (so long as for the "everyday" reader it is clear what "first publication" means :) ) Thanks- Schissel