Bruno, My opinion regarding theorbo notation is for one staff in bass clef. With only ten frets on the neck, you'll never have to go higher then three lines for the rare passages that go up that high; with nothing below the tenth course in this particular book, you'll only have one ledger line under the staff. I would suggest that you account for the re-entrant tuning (especially unison notes and campanellas) in your staff notation by indicating the string with numbers in circles the way it is done in modern guitar notation. (This would be helpful for non-players in visualizing the complexity of some sections that seem at first to be quite simple.) I would definitely avoid arranging it for guitar, however - the music doesn't work at all that way. My two cents.
Good luck! Chris --- On Wed, 1/6/10, Bruno Correia <bruno.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Bruno Correia <bruno.l...@gmail.com> > Subject: [LUTE] Transcription > To: "List LUTELIST" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 9:46 AM > Could anybody give > his/her opinion about this issue: > > > > At the moment I am analysing the > Kapsperger 1611 lute book for my Doc. > dissertation. All the musical examples > will be written with Django tab > writer adding (automatically) its > transcription. My question is: should > the transcription be written on a single > or double staff (treble and > bass clefs)? I think that a single staff > is more economical... > > > > I thought for a moment to transcribe it > in (e) in order to easy the > access to guitarists, but perhaps its > just a fool idea. After all they > don't have the deep basses (10 course). > > > > Appreciate any comments. > > -- > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
