David and all,


   The purpose of the transcription is only to ilustrate my vision of the
   music or rather its possibilities of interpretation. It is useful to
   have these pieces in standard notation if you are planning to talk
   about its voice leading and its durations.  I'm not planning at the
   moment to publish a transcription of this book for guitarists or
   keyboard players (Kenneth Gilbert has already done it).



   All the best.



   2010/1/6 David van Ooijen <[1][email protected]>

     Personal preference only:
     I like to read my lute music from treble/bass clef, with only space
     for one ledger line (for middle c) in the middle.
     If the upper part is rather lowish, though, I prefer the top staff
     to
     be in tenor cleff, but with more space in between the staves, so
     there
     will not be so much staff-crossing.
     Bit of a bother to get used to, but actually alto cleff in single
     staff is very good for much lute music without too many basses.
     But I assume the transciptions are not to be played by lutenists,
     who
     will turn to the tablature anyway, but for the readers to read. Then
     double staff (treble and bass clefs) is the most obvious choice.
     It'll
     give you more chance to make voice leading clear and add whatever
     'footntes' within the music. Single staff can be so crowded.
     David

   On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Eugene C. Braig IV
   <[2][email protected]> wrote:
   > However, the first edition of Sor's Op.7 looks decidedly weird to me,
   > occasionally for the exact reasons Chris described.  Also, Sor's
   "treble"
   > staff shifts around between true treble and C clefs.  The latter
   places
   > middle C where b is ordinarily notated for guitar on a single
   suboctave
   > treble clef...a half-step shift from guitar convention; talk about a
   > difficult mental transposition!  Op.7 material on the truly treble
   staff
   > clumps to the bottom of its range and is often on ledger lines below.
    Etc.
   > Rather than the treble-clef/oddly-positioned-C-clef along with
   bass-clef
   > two-staff system, it might have been better to run with coupling the
   > customary suboctave treble to bass staff throughout.  I would never
   endeavor
   > to read from that edition.
   >
   > For anybody who has read guitar music before, it certainly is easier
   to read
   > Sor's Op.7 from the second edition (where Sor recanted and returned
   to more
   > common guitar notation).  Perhaps this is because of habit alone, but
   a
   > suboctave treble clef just seems best suited to guitar's melody
   range.
   >
   > Best,
   > Eugene
   >
   >
   >> -----Original Message-----
   >> From: [3][email protected]
   [mailto:[4][email protected]] On
   >> Behalf Of Peter Martin
   >> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:38 PM
   >> To: Lute list
   >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Transcription
   >>
   >>    Giuliani, maybe, but not Sor.   He published his Fantaisie opus 7
   on
   >>    two staves, with an Avertissement at the beginning to explain why
   this
   >>    was so much better than using a single treble-clef stave.
   >>
   >>    Although he abandoned the attempt for his other 62 opuses
   (opera?), I
   >>    think he was absolutely right.  The music is much clearer like
   this.
   >>
   >>    P
   >>    2010/1/6 <[1][5][email protected]>
   >>
   >>      Ron,
   >>
   >>    --- On Wed, 1/6/10, Ron Andrico <[2][6][email protected]>
   wrote:
   >>    >    The conventional two-stave keyboard
   >>    > transcription is probably the most
   >>    >    useful and appropriate format for
   >>    > academic purposes.
   >>
   >>      Sorry, but I disagree.  Transcribing Kapsperger's music on two
   >>      staves makes as much sense as putting pieces by Giuliani,
   Tarrega or
   >>      Villa-Lobos onto two staves.  As you point out, though, this
   >>      incredibly wasteful use of paper is still the standard in
   academic
   >>      circles.
   >>
   >>    --
   >>
   >> References
   >>
   >>    1. mailto:[7][email protected]
   >>    2. mailto:[8][email protected]
   >>
   >>
   >> To get on or off this list see list information at
   >> [9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   >
   >
   >

     --
     *******************************
     David van Ooijen
     [10][email protected]
     [11]www.davidvanooijen.nl
     *******************************

   --

References

   1. mailto:[email protected]
   2. mailto:[email protected]
   3. mailto:[email protected]
   4. mailto:[email protected]
   5. mailto:[email protected]
   6. mailto:[email protected]
   7. mailto:[email protected]
   8. mailto:[email protected]
   9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
  10. mailto:[email protected]
  11. http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/

Reply via email to