>> > I wasn't only thinking of the recercars. The Lute News supplement has > published some reconstructions of Pesaro by John Robinson including, > for > example, a long sprawling Bassadanza which doesn't seem to make a lot > of > sense.
Dear Stuart, From our vantage point I'd say most of the Bassadanza settings are sprawling and, at times, nonsensical but it's being in so many sources we have to put it somewhere in our understanding of the music. We look at Spin's setting and it seems to go on forever with a seeming relation with the Spagna (see the Otto Gombosi chapter on his study of Capirola). What, indeed, is the purpose of this music? > > But I'm still sceptical. Why has it taken 500 years for someone to > reveal this repertoire? As Jon admits on p.161, "it would be convenient > if a wealth of literary and iconographical evidence could be produced" > to support the plucked-trio thesis. And there isn't. There are a few knowns and many unknowns. We see iconography showing lute in consort and the only consort music extant are the sources of many single line pieces, eg. the Odhecatons, Segovia, Fl. 229 etc. Often these are from manuscripts lacking all texts (often, too, the foreign titles are so mangled that we can be certain they were only titles to instrumental texts). That leads us to believe they were instrumentally based. Now, why should we assume they _could_ have been played on a plectrum trio? One, simply because that it works. Of course it isn't compelling enough to say they _would_ have played it this way but we do know from iconographic sources and written accounts that there were many ways to instrumentalize a piece of music and reasons to choose this arrangement or that. In an era when one couldn't just "turn it up" the easier way would be to choose the instrments to do so. Outdoors? A large occasion? Shawms and sackbuts and maybe doubled parts if necessary. Medium volume? The viol consort is said to have made its debut about the late 1490's. And, of course, the wind consort too. And finally if you want to cut down on the noise or have something to talk over, the lute trio. Quieter still and more intimate would be the lute duo or the soloist. There is another angle too to this. A court would get rather tired of hearing the same pieces played identically and this is where the intimate setting and the many variations on pieces become more efficient. A competent luter who could play a decorated counterpoint would be an asset to a small consort. And his job would be the more secure if he could also play the soloist if needs be. When I look at the ricercars of Bossenensis, Capirola and Spinacino, I still get the feeling of a counterpunctualist being his own tenorista too (but without having to agree on anything in advance). Adding a creative lutenist to a consort certainly increases the varietal possibilities but it had generally be a lute consort or his talents are wasted. When we look at the varieties of long involved pieces like the Tandernaken the lute (and its consort) makes a lot of sense. (Btw, I hope JB will include Tandernaken in Volume II). Getting back to the Bassadanza, there are times when one may want to have the music drift into the background and _not_ have to pay attention to it. Just an occasional drift into a different tempo, mode or character is enough to keep it going. At times like this we're not interested in the counterpoint, or the genius behind it. All we want is lute's texture in the room and the fewer starts and stops the better. I may be alone in this but I don't think all music should be purpose-driven. I remember hearing the Sex Pistols ala 101 Strings in a supermarket in Japan. And no, this doesn't support the notion of lute trios but let's hammer at it from a different angle again. If you were employing a fixed number of musicians for your court, wouldn't it be the most efficient to hire those whose talents are the most versatile? And then I notice that the violas da mano and de arco so close in design, tuning and (if we accept the possibilities of the lute trio) repertory. I would think the musician who learns the bowed and plucked vihuela would be as valuable as the lutenist who makes his solo instrument the center of his study. Thus a person versatile in instruments _and_ volume is even more efficient in choice. Why do we see the bowed consort so much more prevelant than the plucked for 500 years? It's obvious to me that the bowed consort _never_ went out of favor. When musicologists over the last century and a half went looking at the consort of this period they simply saw the bowed instruments, found the rep of the day and considered that the purpose of the instrumental consort. The same could be said of the winded instruments. But the lute has a broken past up to the present and almost everything we know of it has had to be pieced together. If there was a lute consort it would need to be argued for. And this is what JB is doing. And this is where I need to stop since I haven't read his book. In a sense I feel like a certain mathematician who says there isn't enough space in this margin to prove what I want to say. By the way, I'd love to see an argument against lute trios. I'm glad, Stuart, you're taking this seriously enough to do it and see for yourself. It's a wonderful repertory that only barely made it into the age of print and then no further. But up to that point it had found many forms for expression both in vocal forms --I'm constantly amazed at the permeability between the liturgical and secular uses of the _same_ musics--, the instruments available and that no two mss. are alike. Or ficta! The variable liberties that could be taken w/ the most popular tunes (say, De tous biens playne) far exceed what was ever done with _any_ piece of Dowland's. (What remained comparable was the various reworkings of the 4-part chanson rep.) This again leads me to believe that the 15th century musicians searched out new ways of presenting music and prefered to leave the orchestration open rather that writing for specific groups. > > Have any reviews of Jon Bank's emerged yet. It would be interesting to > read what David Fallows says about it. I want to start hearing some concerts and seeing more CDs. Think we could coax Andy Summers and Stuart Copeland into picking up the lute? Dare we? Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
