Dear All,

(Sorry for the cross-posting but it's relevant to the Lute Net as well, and practically off-topic anyway).

Just some small thoughts about those "cumbersome" editions:

When I first started playing the lute, and got the Ness edition of Francesco da Milano out of the university library, I already read French tab fluently but had never tried Italian. So I actually found it easier to read from the transcriptions - and became very fluent at reading G tuning onto the lute in the process. Later, of course, I learnt Italian tab, then German.....

Ness also achieved great economy by printing the original tab in parallel with his edited "keyboard" version - showing us what the original tab was and at the same time such emendations as he thought were necessary without needing an extra volume of commentary which no one would read anyway. A brilliant solution to a difficult problem.

This kind of edition doesn't fit on a music stand - but so what? If you're going to play a piece you need your own copy, preferably hand-copied (you learn a lot by doing the copying) and annotated with your own ideas about fingering/interpretation, etc. to taste.

I might just add that I don't think we should regard either modern editions or facsimiles as Holy Writ - we have to grapple with the complexities we find, anything else is a cop-out.

Best wishes,

Martin

G. Crona wrote:

Are there any
sources for learning notation on the lute.


Yes there are. Virtually any old lute edition from the last century had the cumbersome twofold system of staff with tablature under it. So to practice reading from staff would be straightforward with works like Poulton's Dowland, Ness' da Milano, any edition from CRNS a.s.o. My lute teacher always tried to encourage me to learn to read from staff notation.

G.



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.5/1537 - Release Date: 06/07/2008 05:26





Reply via email to