I suspect that the vocal part acceded to the lute in cases where the there was but one lute available and the lutenist was not a thoroughly trained professional. Of course whatever system the singer used (and I do remember moveable do training from a thousand years ago, although specific hexachord theory was not part of the Temple Music School curricula way back when...) would obviate "transposing". I'm impressed that you can transpose from tablature; every time I've needed to transpose, it was always from notation- from guitar training I could always play as if on an "E" instrument, pushing a "G" lute up a 3rd. Jumping 4ths is always a natural move, so an "A" lute is available from E, and from bass viol and 7 course experience a "D" lute becomes available.
The only tab transposing that I've done is occasionally from d-minor Baroque when the archlute was in my lap and the Weiss was at hand, and too lazy to change instruments. Sometimes the other way around, but doesn't work as well. When we performed more, soprano I've been married to for untold decades and I would sometimes simply fight over whose "do" got moved. Other arts than musical then came into play. > By the way, there is no evidence that the Signore Adriano >responsible for intabulating Verdelot's madrigals was Willaert. Ron- you may be right. My SPES edition lists "A. Willaert" on the cover, but inside the first facsimile page refers only to "Messer Adriano" - so, Adriano who? Dan >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 -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
