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, > sometimes over two bars. > It doesn't look like lute music. > > Anyway, the music as presented is playable on three equal G lutes. But > Jon Banks thinks it would have been played on different-sized lutes. > I'mespecially interested in the possibilities for a bass lute and what > is known about large/bass lutes (and vihuelas) around 1500. Looking > all > through the Odhecaton (and other music of the time) I can't see a note > lower than D. Presumably an instrument of the time couldn't have gone > lower than D? Banks mentions a tuning by Virdung but I wonder what > other > possibilities there are? > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
