Concur your last (showing I still speak Navy talk), but my point is still valid. The ability to print more copies, even if they were in part form, allowed a larger ensemble.
And I concur on the difficulty of working with a table book, but I do think that was the earlier version of the music - I've looked at vocal scores from before the Renaissance. All I can say is they must have had damned fine eyesight, a hell of a director, or didn't care who came in when. More likely the music part, or score, was a reminder of what they had already been taught. Best, Jon ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:52 PM Subject: Re: Music Stands > Jon Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > But I'm sure that I've seen in a scholarly account that point made. The > > ability for the musicians to have their own copy of the music allowed a > > larger group. I'll look for the reference. > > I know from personal experience that it is a good thing to put paper in the hands > of each singer in modern groups; but, when printing of music became technically > feasible during the 1500's, books were not cheap, not as they are now; it has been > the modern copy machine that makes that truely affordable. Many more renaissance > editions were published in parts than in score, the table book was a fairly late > concept, and (haveing experimented with them), not the easiest thing to play from > especially when one is myopic. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >
