Hi Rainer, Diana Poulton's commentary remains unchanged in the 1981 edition.
I find your conclusion quite convincing but why then remove the diminished bar (31) rather than the repeat of bar 15 (bar 32)? Best, Matthew Le 19 mai 2019 à 14:54, Rainer <rads.bera_g...@t-online.de> a écrit : > Dear lute netters, > > today I had a closer look at CLM90 - the version of the Frog Galliard in > 3056, 42v-43r. > > There is a strange error apparently not understood by Diana Poulton (I have > the 1974 edition) nor by John Robinson (Music supplement 113, April 2015): > > Apparently the second strain is too long - it ends on bar 33. > > Diana Poulton writes "an extra bar is introduced" > > I think it is quite clear what really happened here. > > Bar 31 is a division of bar 15. > Then the scribe of 3056 copied bar 15 once again - in its original state. > > Later he noticed that there was an extra bar. > He tried to solve the problem and made things much worse. > He tried to join bars 32 and 33 into a single bar. > This is obvious from the digital version of 3056 - probably not from a > microfilm. > > I think there is only one feasible solution: Remove bar 31 or 32. To my ears > removing bar 31 sounds better. > > Any ideas anybody? > > Has Poulton changed her mind in later editions? > > Rainer > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
