I �m always asking myself why people call the composer in question LUIS MILAN. On the title page of EL MAESTRO his name is clearly written: LUYS MILAN. (Advantage of a facsimile edition !!)
Albert TREE Stewart McCoy wrote: >Dear Tony, > >The first printed book of vihuela music (as far as we know) was Luis >Milan's _El Maestro_. There is often some confusion over the date, >because 1535 and 1536 appear in it. The tablature was what some >people call Spanish, with the top line representing the 1st course >(highest in pitch). All the other vihuela books were printed the >other way up in Italian lute tablature. > >Some vihuela pieces were pirated by Morlaye and Phalese, whose books >appeared later than the vihuela books they dipped into. For example, >the first piece in Phalese's _Hortus Musarum_ (Louvain, 1552) is a >Fantasia which had appeared in Valderrabano's vihuela collection in >1547. > >The Italian equivalent of the vihuela was the viola da mano, or >viola (for short). There is a book of music by Milano which was >printed in 1536, which mentions the lute and the viola on the title >page. You are right to think that the music for all these >instruments can be played on any of them, because the tuning is the >same. However, vihuela music often involves difficult chords high up >the neck, which would be easier to play on a vihuela with strings >(more or less) parallel, but awkward on the lute with fewer frets on >the neck, and with the strings spaced wider apart than they are at >the nut end. > >Best wishes, > >Stewart McCoy. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stewart McCoy" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:42 PM >Subject: Re: Vihuela > > >>Dear Stewart >> >><snip> >> >>>However, her evidence is drawn from a wide period of time, and >>>doesn't really explain why the Spanish should have printed music >>> >for > >>>the vihuela and not the lute, in the 40 years from Luis Milan >>> >(1536) > >>>to Estaban Daza (1576). >>> >>Does this mean that the books in that period contained pieces in >> >Spanish > >>tablature that were perfectly playable on the lute because of the >> >tuning, > >>but were entitled "Pieces for Vihuela"? (Sorry I don't do >> >Spanish). If so, > >>the difference seems a bit academic as presumably everyone would >> >know that > >>they could play it on either instrument. From what you say about >> >the > >>iconographic evidence that lutes were being played, it is >> >difficult to > >>imagine the lutenists going down to the local music shop and >> >saying "Oh > >>damn, they're still only churning out vihuela music". Does what >> >you say > >>mean that till 1535 (after 1576 is perhaps less important) they >> >_were_ > >>producing lute music. >> >>Going back to your earlier reply to Jon, how do we recognize a >> >vihuela piece > >>in a (later, non Spanish) lute collection? Is it because the >> >earliest known > >>version was published in that period in Spain? >> >>Yours, >> >>Tony >> > > > > --
