On Jan 31, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Leonard Williams wrote:
Interestingly, in regard to tempering
of frets, he never uses f#'s from different courses at the same time.
There wouldn't be much call for it as it's generally used as the 3rd of
a chord. Since that usually resolves in one direction any 2nd iteration
in a different octave will cause parallel motion. Perhaps because of
intonation problems composers wrote around the problem.
Of course it does show up occasionally as a 5th on Bnatural chords. I
noticed a few the other day in V. Galilei's ms. book. Gotta have the
tastino or ET. VG urges the latter. Again, never doubled in different
octaves tho I didn't go through the whole book.
If it's the root than it's probably in a key that nobody wants to play.
And of course it would show up in VG's variations on Romanesca --the
variations involving every possible tonic.
Sean
Regards,
Leonard Williams
/[ ]
/ \
| * |
\_=_/
On 1/31/09 10:37 AM, "Richard Yates" <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks, Dan. Yes, I understand about typos and the various kinds one
encounters, and I think I can usually deduce by ear the correct fret
to use.
But the 'XI' symbol for the octave fret is probably not a typo as it
(and no
other) is used many times for that fret in the 1566 collections. The
puzzle
is that some folks here speculated that 'XI' was used for the octave
fret
because he had no eleventh fret. If that speculation is not true then
what
symbol WOULD be used for an eleventh fret? The spot I found at
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/Neusidler.jpg (I think the only
eleventh
fret anywhere in those collections) suggests the possibility that
'XI' was
used intentionally for both. But that seems implausible also. If
either spot
is a typo, what would have been the correct symbol?
Sorry if you thought your question wasn't answered- I thought
it pretty much was; specifically acknowledgement of the
ambiguity of some of the fret/note symbols, the typos that
occur in printed material, etc.- to me, just no big whoop one
way or the other. I have those two books in one volume of
Neusidler's works, (fine music
indeed) and I just play them as I see them, adjusting for the
typos or ambiguous symbols as they occur. So yes, in the
Recercar Terzo "XI" is indeed the 12 fret but in the Pass'e
mezo the same symbol is now the 11th fret, and so it goes.
Nothing further to unravel once the right notes are found.
I've actually found far worse typos in other parts of the
book- don't recall where off hand, if you run into them I'll
be happy to help out if possible. I think one cadence
somewhere was still a bit of a puzzle for me the last time I
read through it.
Dan
Perhaps it was overlooked in the surge of new threads, or maybe my
question was just an uninteresting one with an obvious solution, but
any response to the example I found below about the
mysterious Melchior
eleventh fret would be much appreciated. RY
I ran across another spot that confounds the question of the
eleventh
fret and its notation. In the Pass'e mezo Milanese there is a 'XI'
symbol on the second course. It sounds to me like it should
be played
on the eleventh fret in contrast to other places (e.g.
Recercar Terzo)
where 'XI' seems to mean
twelfth (i.e. octave) fret. Can anyone unravel this one?
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
