If playing this polyphonic music on lute consort was standard in the 15th century, then it was a huge evolutionary (and technical!) leap to put it onto a solo instrument. Any ideas on how the process happened? Was there a sudden leap forward in playing standards at the end of the 15th century? A new age of the virtuoso, a switch from amateur to professional players?
Also, Stewart, you have hit the nail on the head about tablature vs staff notation. Tablature is frequently treated by non-lute playing musicologists as a simplified system of notation, inferior to staff notation, suitable for amateurs, and with the implication that the music itself is at an amateur level. This is completely the wrong way round: actually, tablature implies musical complexity. As well as being practical to read, it neatly sidesteps a lot of the problems found when trying to render complex solo music into staff notation. For an entertaining account of the staff notation challenge, see Matanya Ophee's article in The Lute, 2003. P 2007/2/13, Stewart McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Dear Sean, Stuart and Peter, > > Reiterating notes on the lute is a basic aspect of lute-playing, > because the lute cannot sustain long notes. The practice is > ubiquitous. It may sound odd to us today, but that's what players > did in the past. One of the pieces in Jon Banks' repertory for lute > trios, is a piece by Alexander Agricola, called "Cecus". The first > half of this piece appears, attributed to Alexander Agricola, but > without any title, in Hans Newsidler's _Ein Newgeordent Kunstlich > Lautenbuch_ (Nuremberg, 1536), g4v. Only two voices of three are > intabulated by Newsidler, which suggests that the "missing" voice > was still readily available in the 1530s. The piece begins like > this: > > __ __ __ __ > | | | |\ |__| | |__|__|__| > | | | | | | | | | | | > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > 5 5 | 5 5 o d | 4 4 d o 4 | > g g | g g | g g | > > or transcribed into French tablature: > > | |\ |\ | |\ > | | |\ | |\ > | | | | | > _a__a_____a__a___________________________ > _______|________d__b__|_a__a__b__d__a__|_ > _______|______________|________________|_ > _c__c__|__c__c________|_c__c___________|_ > _______|______________|________________|_ > _______|______________|________________|_ > > This shows that two voices of Cecus were intabulated and played on a > lute. It also shows that long notes were reiterated on the lute to > make them last. It also shows that fingers are a valid alternative > to the plectrum. > > Why should Newsidler use tablature, while other sources of the piece > are in staff notation? For me the answer is obvious. A single > melodic line, with all its crazy syncopations, is extremely > difficult to read in tablature, so staff notation would be the > preferred notation; more than one voice is difficult to read in > staff notation, so tablature would be preferable for that. Horses > for courses, and all that. Newsidler wants the lutenist to play two > voices, so he notates the music in tablature. > > When music is notated in staff notation, a player will adapt it as > he thinks fit. There is no need to write two semibreves for every > breve. That would be especially irritating for a viol player, should > he want to play the music on his viol. Tablature is lute-specific, > and so re-iterations may be spelled out for the player. > > One important difference between staff notation and tablature is > that the former does not have bar lines. The first bass note in the > opening bars of Cecus, lasts for three bars. In staff notation that > would be a dotted long. How would you notate the rhythm in tablature > for that? There is no available sign in tablature, and even if there > were, it wouldn't fit into bars one breve in length. Rhythm signs > tied to each other is a possibility, but it would look mighty odd. > > In trying to persuade people that this late fifteenth- early > sixteenth-century repertory is for the lute, Jon Banks has been > faced with an unfortunate false syllogism: music notated in > tablature is for the lute; this music is not in tablature; therefore > this music is not for the lute. It's piffle, of course, but that > thinking is surprisingly widespread. > > I would encourage lutenists to read Jon's book. He argues > convincingly that there is a large repertory of music for lutenists > waiting to be discovered. The Lute Society has made some of it > available. > > Best wishes, > > Stewart McCoy. > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- Peter Martin Belle Serre La Caulie 81100 Castres France tel: 0033 5 63 35 68 46 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.silvius.co.uk http://absolute81.blogspot.com/ --
