I recorded this at minim=140 with tenor Jeffrey Thomas, in retrospect it might have been a bit fast. He could really declaim the text perfectly. Above 120 and you can easily do the whole last section in one breath.
Here's another version, I think it is a reasonable tempo, about the same as Valeria and Alfonso I think. http://www.vimeo.com/5735296 One thing about learning it really fast, is that you reach a point and say, this is garbage. Then you slow it down a bit. I think if you look at all the performances of this piece, you will see every tempo imaginable, not just a slow and a fast version. dt At 10:18 AM 7/24/2009, you wrote: >Dear Dan, > >A fundamentally important question, and I hope many people will give >their thoughts. I certainly wouldn't want to go much faster than minim = >120, but there are details which trouble me about the piece. In the >setting for five viols/violins with lute, the lute has a couple of >semiquavers in the first bar of the second section. In the consort >version printed by Thomas Morley, there are eight semiquavers (halved to >demi-semiquavers in Sydney Beck's edition) half way through the second >section. I don't think these could be played (each note plucked >separately, not slurred) at minim = 120. A speed of minim = 110 would be >pushing it. If I had to choose a speed for those notes to be cleanly >played, I would want something more in the region of minim = 100, but no >slower. It's at that kind of speed where the count of 1 and, 2 and, 3 >and, comes into its own to hold you back in the first bar. > >The Earl of Essex Galliard has the words "Can she excuse". If you think >Essex is angry, you might want a speed as fast as you can go. If you >think he is being more reflective about what could have been, a slower >speed might be more suitable. > >I notice that the Julian Bream consort plays the consort version >followed by the song at about minim = 114, and he fudges the eight >semiquavers. > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZXfHhLebVE > >Also available on YouTube is a performance of the song by Valeria >Mignaco and Alfonso Marin. > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fMk6YW6Xhk&feature=related > >Their speed is about minim = 126, although they slow down here and there >to avoid it being relentless. It is an exciting speed, but not feasible >for the consort version. > >The group Musica Ficta de Buenos Aires go a little faster than minim = >126. It is a bit of a scramble, and they slow down at the end. > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKgkY85pMF0&feature=PlayList&p=29ABA0FC09 >CDAA5D&index=0&playnext=1 > >I think their speed is too fast. > >I wonder if singers and their accompanists agree on a fast tempo, partly >because the music is simple in enough to take it. Lutenists struggling >with the consort setting will be looking for slower speeds, because >otherwise they won't be able to play all the fast notes. > >Best wishes, > >Stewart McCoy. > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Daniel Winheld >Sent: 24 July 2009 15:03 >To: [email protected] >Subject: [LUTE] Re: The Galliard > >Could someone suggest a likely metronome tempo? > > > >It's possible. > >dt > > > > This idea of there being two galliard types I heard re-iterated >some > > years later by Layton Ring on one of the Lute Society courses at > > Cheltenham. He demonstrated how it would be impossible to play The >Earl > > of Essex Galliard at the speed of someone dancing the fast >galliard. > > > >-- > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
