This is exciting, david, and certainly an important extra bit
information which makes much sense in addition to the movable do-space.
there were and are of course different lutes and humans to adapt
towards each other, and the consort art hand. If you have to re-key,
are there intervals that work best and which you like most as options,
say, a fourth upwards etc.? Can you concentrate on a limited set of
options for practicing? or have you to be able to do any re-keying?
thanks for the insiring stuff (and for being respectfully rather than
arrogant about how educated you are and how silly the rest of us...)
franz
sorry for the minuscules - a drop of water on the keyboard did destroy
some options...
__________________________________________________________________
From: [email protected] on behalf of David Tayler
Sent: Wed 22.07.2009 04:33
To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Alto lute help- transposing
Respectfully, I disagree that the that the singing part was was
always intended to be transposed to match the lute.
Also, the singing part would have been read in "moveable Do" space,
so transposition would neither have been necessary nor called for.
The vocal parts are simply hexachord positions.
You are of course correct that the vocal parts are notated in "Flat
minimal" style, this is so the hexachords could be read more easily.
Because of this, the singer could accompany the lute not only on
whatever lute was being used, but in whatever key the lute player
preferred to play.
I can fluently play the tablature parts of lute pieces in any of
several keys at sight, and will even do this between a rehearsal and
a performance, should the singer decide a different reference pitch
is more suitable at that moment. And there is no reason to believe
that this practice was not widespread, just as an organist could
rekey organ tablature.
best wishes
dt
At 03:50 PM 7/21/2009, you wrote:
> Dan:
> Your missive outlines one of my pet peeves concerning a rational
> approach to editing early music. Yes, several old prints contain
clear
> guides indicating logical starting pitches of of a piece for voice
and
> lute. The singing part was _always_ intended to be transposed to
match
> the tuning of the lute. The 'key signature' of a given vocal line
was
> always printed for ease of reading with zero, one, or rarely two
flats,
> just enough to clearly indicate the mode. Previously, 20th
century
> editors took the 'key signature' of the vocal at face value to
> determine the pitch and tuning of the lute. No, no, no. This is
a
> clear sign of an editor who doesn't play the lute and generally
doesn't
> understand 16th century performing conventions.
> By the way, there is no evidence that the Signore Adriano
responsible
> for intabulating Verdelot's madrigals was Willaert.
> Thanks for thoughtfully addressing this issue, if tinged with a
bit of
> irony.
> Best wishes,
> Ron Andrico
> www.mignarda.com
> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:06:11 -0700
> > To: [email protected]
> > From: [email protected]
> > Subject: [LUTE] Alto lute help- transposing
> >
> > Back to the slippery "do"- While Renaissance theory and concepts
of
> > "moveable do" may seem counterintuitive, arcane & complicated to
us,
> > for the 16th - 17th century music consumer they were rendered
> > incredibly simple and user friendly by the publications. In
> > Willaert's 1536 edition of Verdelotto's madrigals intabulated
for
> > voice and lute, the singer's first note is indicated by which
> > tabulature figure in the lute part gives him/her that note-
e.g., "El
> > Canto a tre Tasti della Sottana" that is, 3rd fret of the second
> > course. Second madrigal "Al quinto del Canto" (5th fret, 1st
course).
> > So right off the bat if someone assumes a "fixed do" system we
> > already need an "A" lute and an "E" lute. This system was used
all
> > over Europe at least up into the 17th Century French "Airs de
Cour".
> >
> > For Mudarra's "Tres Libros de Musica..." we "need" vihuelas in
A, B,
> > D, E, F, F#, and G to comply with a fixed do tyranny. (no "C"
> > vihuela- how about that?) That was what drove poor old Emilio
Pujol
> > crazy- in his 1949 transcription he dutifully transcribed each
and
> > every vihuela intabulation into the literal "key" so indicated
by the
> > singer's first note and fret conjunction, no matter what pitch
level
> > the vihuela would then be at, thereby bestowing seven sizes of
> > vihuela on a grateful posterity. "D'oh!" indeed!
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > >Certainly good points.
> > >However, a renaissance musician used a transposing system,
therefore
> > >they did not transpose in the modern sense because they were
already
> > >transposing.
> > >Although there is not a handy modern analogy, unless you play
the
> > >bass clarinet, it would be like saying a person who was
> sight-singing
> > >using "moveable Do" instead of "fixed Do"
> > >should use "moveable Do". They would say, I always use
"moveable
> Do,"
> > >what do you mean?
> > >
> > >(Substitute "moveable Ut" if you are a purist, although Ut is
by
> > >definition moveable)
> > >
> > >The most difficult part about renaissance theory--aside from
the
> > >Formschneider codex--is that the lute is currently in a "fixed
Do"
> > >space, but historically was in the "moveable Do" space:
> > >
> > >"G Lute" = fixed Do space
> > >"Lute in Sol" = moveable Do space
> > >
> > >Does it matter? Sure thing! Endless confusion otherwise about
keys,
> > >pitch, performance, etc.
> > >dt
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
__________________________________________________________________
>
> Windows Live Hotmail(R): Search, add, and share the webs latest
sports
> videos. [1]Check it out. --
>
>References
>
> 1.
>
[2]http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT
_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports
--
References
1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
2.
http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports
