Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Nancy, etc. do you really believe that Tablature, is for the novice lute player?........ when both the London and Dresden MS and all of Weiss's music is written in Tablature?
Do you really think the one fact disputes the other? Tablature is intuitive, and has few mysteries to be explained to one who would master it. Music notation ca 1500 was in transition, several conventions were in use that are since discarded. The theory of music was published in Latin, with snatches of greek and hebrew. Mastery of the staff notation of 1500 was a great deal harder than modern staff notation, and in both cases more difficult than tablature; one studied it with the help of a teacher, one who (hopefully) had mastery of the mysteries. The cost of publishing was high in 1500. Once printed, the works had to be stored until sold, perhaps transported to remote market places; slow sales could bring on bankruptcy. Lots of risk, and smart printers did what they could to ensure the investment was safeguarded. Printers who had influence arranged for monopolys, which sometimes were notation- specific. Tablature was the choice of notation for editions marketed for players of plucked strings during the renaissance, often the music in those editions could be found in other editions in staff notation as well, intended for singers or windband players. It was reasonable for the 16c publisher of music to presume a plucked string player would be or could quickly become proficient in reading tablature, no sales would be lost to those fewer players who also read staff. Yes, tablature was an easier notation to teach and to learn. No, that did not prejudice the quality of the music published in tablature notation. -- dana emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
