Dear Stuart,
I also have this book and have been playing out of it w/ friends. He
does cite reasons for why he thinks it is appropriate for lutes. But...
I'm not entirely sold on these were for lute trio either. Maybe I
need to read more of his work on the subject. Some of the music is
originally vocal although many sources are missing the texts which
gives a strong hint to their instrumental use. Comparing sources of the
first piece, Isaac's Benedictus, I don't see any variations from
Isaac's original (beside the missing 4th part) that would suggest
anything idiomatic for any particular instrument. But look at what we
see when a lutenist like Spinacino intabulates it. Here is the first
concrete evidence of the piece set for lute and the liberties he takes
with it are many and varied: ficta, passaggi, texture. What it lacks in
text it certainly repays in bold composition and character. If this
piece as JB presents it were truly set for lutes I would expect some
lutenistic idiom somewhere.
On the other hand, I played it the other day w/ lutes and it's
delightful music. And yesterday I played it w/ lute, recorder and viol
and all three of us equally enjoyed it. I played the bass voice mostly.
If I played w/ a strong attack it held its own, I think. And the
octaves only add to the texture. Every instrument (and voice) has its
own idiosyncracies -- the clickclack of the organ keys, rasp of the
viol string, voice of the recorder, etc. This isn't a bug, it's a
feature. As long as the fundamental note is there and confident all the
rest is icing on the cake.
Btw, the pairing of the fundamental w/ the 8ve reminds me of the
inclusion of both the bandora AND the cittern in the English consort.
They make up one complete sound: the fundamental and the overtones that
one generally hears on any instrument. W/ a modern wire wound string
you magically get both; w/ a low, fat gut it lacks the overtones that
the octave thankfully offers.
No, it doesn't look like the lute music we know but I do support the
idea that the lute should be seen in a different perspective for this
period. In a 15th century trio the lute is both versatile and
expressive. A player w/ a 5 or 6 course lute could play at least any
two single voices of a composition and would have been useful in
consort (as well as part of a duo or a soloist and would probably have
been expected to be all three).
The Odhecatons were an excellent minilibrary for any instrumental
consort of the time. When we look at the trio by Mantegna (the picture
on the Crawford Young/K-E Schroeder duo disc where the fiddler is
curiously edited out) we see a perfect vehicle for most of this
repertoire. And a singer singing the cantus with a luter on either side
playing the tenor and countertenor works very effectively, too.
Learning to read mensural notation has been a bumpy learning curve and
my next nightmare will be to read for the descant lute at pitch and
then get all those sycopated rhythms going. (And then the recorder
player brings out his Machaut book and my brain explodes!) I still
can't read as smoothly as tab but it's coming along.
all the best,
Sean Smith
On Feb 16, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Stuart Walsh wrote:
I've just got a copy of the Lute Society's 'Music for Lute Consort
.c.1500' edited by Jon Banks. Many thanks to
the Lute Society for producing it.
I like just about everything that Jon Banks said in his talk a few
years
ago, as reported in the Lute Society's magazine.
Yet although there's lots of evidence - cited by many people - for
professional lute duos c.1500 and earlier, Jon Banks
appears to the only one claiming the existence of amateur lute trios.
Whatever the matter, I'm sure it would be musically worthwhile
playing this music on lutes. It will certainly be a challenge - for
me,
anyway.
I got hold of some of the music that Jon Banks talked about; for
example, the Odhecaton. In the modern edition of this, the lowest part
is presented in the bass clef. In the Lute Society edition, the lowest
part is always in the treble clef, an octave lower. A bit surprising.
Maybe he thought more people would be able to read that than the bass
clef. Generally, I think this lowest part is going to give the most
trouble - playing fast-moving lines on the lower strings.( And octave
stringing seems quite intrusive.)
It's great fun just trying to read through the individual parts.
Players
of other single-line instruments like recorders probably have no
trouble
with this music. But we lute players just aren't used to this sort of
thing. For example the second part of Byblis has eight bars of minims
(half notes) consistently off the beat. I find this almost impossible
to
do.And when the other parts are going I think it will be even more
difficult.
I still can't quite believe this is genuinely lute music as opposed to
music that is multiply realisable. There are many sustained notes,
