Dear David, Antonio, and Everyone, My preference is to go along with David's suspension, but tablature is ambiguous, so both interpretations are possible. There are two factors which cause problems:
1) Tablature doesn't tell us how long each note lasts. So in this passage, |\ |\ | |\ | | | | | _________________________ _d________|_a_________||_ _a__b__d__|____c__d___||_ _a________|_c_________||_ __________|_______a___||_ __________|___________||_ The first d3 could as well be a minim or a semibreve. In other words the inner part could be |\ |\ | |\ | | | | | _________________________ __________|_a_________||_ _a__b__d__|____c__d___||_ __________|___________||_ __________|___________||_ __________|___________||_ or |\ | |\ | |\ | | | | | | | _________________________ __________|___________||_ _a__b__d__|(d)_c__d___||_ __________|___________||_ __________|___________||_ __________|___________||_ 2) Apart from a few instances (e.g. a3 + e4), tablature does not show unisons. This means that the passage above could consist of three voices right to the end, or three voices only as far as the first chord. An extreme example of tablature failing to show unisons would be this cadence, where three voices are notated by one letter: |\ | | | | | ________________ __a_____|____||_ __d__c__|_d__||_ __c_____|____||_ ________|____||_ ________|____||_ All three voices end with d3. About a year ago I took part in the Lute Society's competition, which was to reconstruct the missing voice of William Byrd's "Look and Bow Down", which survives in an incomplete form in one of Edward Paston's lute books. The top voice part is missing, and the lowest parts (originally for a second voice and four viols) survive as an intabulation for one lute. The problem was not composing the missing part. That may have its difficulties, but it's nothing compared with the job of disentangling the notes of the lowest voices, which may overlap each other in pitch, which occasionally sound as unisons, the length of which cannot easily be deduced, and which might even be omitted for technical reasons (e.g. you can't get two notes sounding simultaneously on the same string). Once you have sorted out what those lowest voices are doing, and you have a score, you can then start thinking about composing the missing voice, completing triads, using imitation, and narrowing one's choice of note by avoiding parallel fifths and octaves. Paston's tablature may be a right old dog's dinner, but for this song it's all we've got. At least Byrd's consort song has a fixed number of voices. Luis Milan's tablature has an extra level of complication, because he adds extra notes to fill out the texture (adding vertical considerations to horizontal ones), he may have a melodic line which runs through the texture so that one voice merges into another, and pseudo-voices creep in briefly to give an impression of polyphony. It is very much an instrumental style rather than a vocal one, and it is extremely effective on the lute and vihuela. I regard Luis Milan (vihuela) and Francesco da Milano (lute and viola da mano) as the experts in the art of suggestion. It is possible that to some readers identifying voice-leading may seem a waste of time - an academic exercise for its own sake - yet one cannot perform a piece meaningfully, if thought is not given to details of voice-leading. Best wishes, Stewart. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Antonio Corona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 6:33 AM Subject: Re: Rubato and rolling chords - Milan > Dear David, > > > > > Given the preceding nearly identical passage: > > _a________________________a____________ > > ____________|_d_______b_|_a_ _____|____ > > ____a__b____|_a__b__d___|______c__|_d__ > > __________c_|_a_________|_c_______|____ > > ____________|___________|_________|_a__ > > ____________|___________|_________|____ > > > > I have been interpreting the "d" in the second > > measure of both passages as > > the beginning of a suspension. > > > In my view, the "d"2 in the second measure is part of > the melody which comes from the first course "a" in > the preceding bar, thus: > > _a_____________________________________ > ____________|_d_______b_|_a_ _____|____ > ____________|___________|_________|_d__ > ____________|___________|_________|____ > ____________|___________|_________|____ > ____________|___________|_________|____ > > playing in counterpoint to: > > _______________________________________ > ____________|___________|___ _____|____ > ____a__b____|_a__b__d___|(d)___c__|_d__ > __________c_|___________|_________|____ > ____________|___________|_________|____ > ____________|___________|_________|____ > > where the d3 (I suppose this is the one you meant)is > indeed the biginning of a suspension. The "a"4 in the > second bar would be an isolated bass, while the "a"1 > in the third would be a fill-in note, as you righly > point out. > > The second case is even more interesting: > > > _________________________a____________ > > _b__a_______|_d________|_a_ _____|____ > > _______d__b_|_a__b__d__|______c__|_d__ > > _c__________|_a________|_c_______|____ > > _a__________|__________|_________|_a__ > > ____________|__________|_________|____ > > > > Here, in my opinion, you have only two voices: > > ______________________________________ > _b__a_______|__________|_a_ _____|____ > _______d__b_|_a__b__d__|______c__|_d__ > ____________|_A________|_C_______|____ > _A__________|__________|_________|_A__ > ____________|__________|_________|____ > > The remaining notes would be fill-ins. Even though it > is quite tempting to think of the "d"3 as the > beginning of a suspension, as in the previous case, I > tend to prefer the above interpretation. It could be > feasible, of course, to consider it as similar to the > other one: in this case you would have two filling > notes at the beginning of bar 3. Now, considering the > possibility that my hypothesis about the index upward > stroke could have some substance, this could be a > possible interpretation: > > roll roll > _________________________a____________ > _b__a_______|_d________|_a_ _____|____ > _______d__b_|_a__b__d__|______c__|_d__ > _c__________|_a________|_c_______|____ > _a__________|__________|_________|_a__ > ____________|__________|_________|____ > > > Best wishes, > Antonio > > P.S. I should like to thank Stewart for forwarding my > previous messaage. > > > > > thus making the open first course in the third > > measure of both passages as a > > "bonus" note. > > Is this not the correct interpretation? Is this > > type of thing open to > > conjecture? > > It would take some adjustment for me to think of > > these passages as strict > > 3-part harmony. > > Thanks, > > David To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
