Stewart McCoy wrote: > 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 Künstlich > 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. >
I'm looking at Jon Bank's edition of Cecus, bar 3. Is Newsidler is adding a little bit here? (the four notes in the second part of the bar). Stewart, in the spirit of debate and discussion I'd like to disagree with your two conclusions here! The issue is the long, sustained notes in much of the music that Jon Banks claims was conceived and written for plucked instruments. He's not merely saying that a plucked trio is a viable and worthwhile alternative but that the music was actually written for this ensemble. Yet there are many places where one lute is playing a single note for two, three and even four bars. (Are there any examples in the later lute duet repertory (or lute song, or lute in consort) where a lute plays a single note for two, three or four bars?) Given the speed of decay of a note on a plucked instrument, it's not at all idiomatic to have them playing long notes. A lute playing a single note for three bars is greatly different from a sustaining instrument playing a single note for three bars. Even allowing for greater fluidity in instrumentation in those days, a composer may still have wanted to hear a note actually sounding against the activity in the other two parts. And if the activity in the other two parts has been artfully conceived the lute player with the single note for three bars can hardly throw in a bit of impromptu improv. For example in the Benedictus, in the place where the lowest part has a single note for four bars, the two upper parts are up to some tricky business. Even re-striking could seem a bit intrusive. Maybe silence would be better, but silence was not what was written. The Newsidler example is from 30-40 or so years later and it's for a lute played with the fingers, not a plectrum. And it's a lute solo, not a consort part. It creates a typical lute texture by simplifying, repeating notes (indeed), and even, by the looks of bar 3, adding some notes. There is some movement happening at least on every half bar. It's doing what lutes need to do and what makes them sound well. The Newsidler example doesn't cast any light on the single note consort parts of earlier times. I don't see how it can show that the fingers are a valid alternative to the plectrum. Newsidler's music is from a later time, in a later style. (Or do you think that plectrum style was much used in the 1530s?) Stuart To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
