The thing I really don't like about tablature is that it's hard to measure intervals and in general to get a spatial sense of the music by looking at it. I've often read that tab was necessary given the many different lutes in different tunings that one might write for. But most lute tablature, at least in modern editions/transcriptions is usually identified as being for one instrument or another, e.g. "for renaissance lute" or even "for renaissance lute in G." If that's the case, why not just use staff notation? Or is it to help the PLAYERS, not the composers, players who might have to play many different lutes in different tunings, and who reasonably can't learn all those fingerboards? Sorry if this seems obvious, but to me tab seems to have so much going AGAINST it vis-a-vis staff notation, that there must be one incontestable reason for its survival.
Jim On 11/14/06, Stewart McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Neil, > > In my message of 14th November I encouraged you to go ahead and play > guitar/lute duets, but advised taking care that there was a > satisfactory balance between the two instruments. I assumed (perhaps > erroneously) that you and your friend were planning on playing lute > duets, reading from tablature, and that the guitar was acting as a > substitute for a lute. I didn't mention the word polyphony, at least > not in that message. > > Polyphony (literally many sounds) is the word used for music where > there are lots of different melodies all going on at once, like in a > Bach fugue, where each voice part moves independently. If all the > voices move at the same time, like in a simple hymn tune, it isn't > polyphony. A round, where people start singing one after the other, > is a form of polyphony, but in 16th-century polyphony the voices > don't necessarily copy each other exactly all the time, as they > would in a round. > > I think Mathias is right to contend that it is advantageous to learn > to read different notations, including staff notation. The sort of > music you want to play will determine the sort of notation which is > most suitable. For example, > > 1) If you have a single melodic line to play, especially one which > has complex rhythms, it would normally be easiest to read from staff > notation. > > 2) If you are trying to sustain more than one voice part > (polyphony), tablature may well prove easier to read. > > 3) If you want to play in lots of different tunings, tablature will > be easier than staff notation. > > 3) To play continuo, a figured bass line is generally the most > practical notation. > > 4) For strumming chords or improvising a simple chordal > accompaniment, just the chord name will often suffice (C, F G7, > etc.) > > It's all a question of horses for courses. Generally speaking, the > various notations which evolved over the years did so to satisfy a > need: to enable the musician to reproduce a piece of music, with > optimum efficiency of reading. > > I think lutenists should try to become familiar with different > notations, and try to learn new skills: reading from staff notation > and from different tablatures, improvising divisions around a > melody, descanting over a ground, providing a suitable chordal > accompaniment, reading figured and unfigured bass, improvising an > accompaniment from a short score and even a full score, coping with > different clefs, reading staff notation for lutes of different > pitches and even different tunings, understanding harmony, and so > on. > > One interesting aspect of notation is how the r=F4les of tablature and > staff notation can gradually swap places: > > 1) Staff notation tells you the pitch of a note, but you have to > learn how to play the note at that pitch on your instrument, be it > lute, guitar, or sousaphone. After a while, when you read a note, > instead of thinking of it in terms of pitch, you learn to associate > it with a position on the neck of your lute. Staff notation thus > becomes a kind of tablature. > > 2) Tablature does not tell you the pitch of a note. Instead it tells > you where to find that note on the fingerboard of your instrument. > After a while, when you read a note, instead of thinking of it in > terms of a position on the fingerboard, you learn to associate it > with a particular pitch. Tablature thus becomes a kind of staff > notation. > > People differ in how well they learn to read music. By and large, if > you are a good reader, you'll be lazy about memorising music. If you > are a poor reader, you are likely to be good at memorising, if only > out of necessity. > > Best wishes, > > Stewart McCoy. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Are Vidar Boye Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jim Abraham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "LUTE-LIST" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:50 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: New Lutenist Question > > > > I hope Stewart will explain it himself! > > > > > > Are > > > > > I'm a novice, which explains why I don't understand Mr. McCoy's > assertion. > > > Can you explain it? > > > > > > On 11/14/06, Are Vidar Boye Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Well, if that's the case, why use tablature? Really. Is there > any other > > >>> reason? > > >> > > >> I think Stewart McCoy claimed that tabulature is an excellent > way of > > >> notating polyphonic music for a plucked instrument. > > >> > > >> Anyway, lutenists did play from score, just think of continuo > playing. > > >> I am certain that you will find that its not difficult to play > from score > > >> if you practice a little. > > >> > > >> > > >> mvh > > >> Are > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
