Dear Stuart, The question is whether pieces like Cecus were composed for lutes, as opposed to lutes being able to play them. One of the arguments in favour of lutes is the wide range of notes, which in many cases precludes alternative instruments like shawms or recorders. One of the arguments against the lute, is the presence of very long notes.
Much of the repertory of late fifteenth and early sixteenth century music involves a cantus firmus of some sort, whether it be in a mass, as part of a secular song, or as a basse dance tenor. I see no reason why a piece composed for a group of lutes should not likewise involve the use of very long notes, even if they are so long that they have to be re-iterated on the lute. One has only to look at the Lute 2 part of Francesco da Milano's Spagna to find a written-out tenorista part, where many of the chords are re-iterated to sustain the sound of long notes. The problem, as I see it, is one of notation. Tablature's strength is its ability to present complex polyphony in a way that is easy for a player to read and hence play. It is certainly true that there are many examples of lute tablature where the lute has only a single line to play - John Johnson trebles and Spinacino Lute 1 parts spring to mind - but these single lines consist of simple rhythms: continous quavers or semi-quavers. I know of no tablature for a single-line melody consisting of very complex rhythms. The strength of staff notation is to present a single melodic line with complex rhythms. What evidence do we have, that the two notations were used to reflect the nature of the music? I would point to Tobias Hume's _The First Part of Ayres_ (London, 1605). This is a collection of music for the viol, mainly solos, but also a few duets, trios, and songs. The pieces which are mainly chordal in character are notated in tablature, whereas those consisting more of a single melodic line are notated in staff notation. There is some overlap, so some pieces notated in tablature will have only a few chords, and some staff notation pieces have occasional chords, but the distinction is nevertheless clear when looking at the collection as a whole. Double stopping and full 4-, 5-, and 6-note chords look very messy in staff notation; single melodic lines look remarkably bleak in tablature. Apart from the convenience to the player, one has also to consider the question of space. Six notes of a chord on a narrowly spaced 5-line stave look pretty crowded; a single line on six widely spaced lines of tablature is surrounded by too much wasted space. The cost of paper and printing has to be considered too. Although most people, I think, would accept that a composer might want a lute to play a long note, the stumbling block is notation. If pieces like Cecus were intended only for lutes, why is it that long notes are presented as longs and breves in staff notation, when they are written as repeated semibreves in tablature? In my previous e-mail, I made the point that bar lines in tablature have the effect of dividing notes into smaller entities: a long won't fit into a bar of one breve, so it has to be spread over two bars. I also made the point that there is no rhythm sign available for a long. However, those arguments don't explain why breves should be notated as two semibreves within a single bar of tablature. My answer would be to say that staff notation represents sound, whereas tablature concerns itself more with the mechanics of playing. A cantus firmus notated in breves in staff notation is simply a succession of long notes; one can easily take in the slow, melodic line. Tablature, on the other hand, will tell us how to play that note - which fret and which string - so it is not surprising that it should also be clear about how one should re-iterate long notes. In this context I think it is worth asking the question, did lutenist composers write their music first in staff notation or tablature? It is impossible to say for sure, of course, and individuals will have had their own modus operandi. However, there are indications in the music of Holborne and Dowland, that staff notation may well have preceded tablature. After all, books of lute music often have titles like _Intabolatura_, suggesting that the music has been intabulated from something for publication. I suppose one could mention keyboard tablature and such like, but that something can only realistically be staff notation. By belief, therefore, is that Jon Banks is right. There are a group of pieces like Cecus which were composed with lutes in mind. They were not intabulated, because to do so would involve using a notation which was inappropriate for the player. The exception is Newsidler, where two melodic lines are to be played by one player, and so tablature becomes the preferred notation. -o-O-o- While on the subject of long notes and re-iteration, how should we accompany recitative on the lute? If we have a very long note, do we, as lutenists, play that chord once, and let the sound die away, leaving the singer in limbo, or should we re-iterate that chord here and there to give the singer some harmonic support? I have in mind situations where there are no other instruments like cellos or organs, which would, of course, keep the sound going. Best wishes, Stewart. > 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
