All the versions which have the mistake in the first bar are secondary sources, they have parallel version fifths between the first two chords. The sources related to either LoST from 1603 or are absent the mistake (yet have full harmony) are either Dowland or based on Dowland. Most of the recorded versions are the secondary versions. Many of the lute parts in LoST are actually lute solos, Dowland chose the higher key because it allowed him to pack more counterpoint into the lute parts. However, there must have been a G minor version as well owing to the fact that D published the galliard. The counterpoint for the G minor version is very easy to reconstruct based not only on LoST but also the lute song version.
Dating the first version is somewhat more complicated. There is no clear "ur key" for this piece, hpwever if one accepts my theroy that these pieces may have all originated as consort music, then A minor is the likely original key. G minor would have been an immediate "division" key that was both easier to play and allowed for more divisions. Since Dowland hated Divisions, and also avoided easy keys, this must have been pretty annoying for him, and he indeed said just that. However, and second, perhaps more elegant theory, is that in the transposing only world of the early 16th century, there was no difference between the keys of A and G minor. This theory is based on two fairly solid principles. First, that in notation there was no difference since the musicians were reading from a "moveable do (or "ut")" system. Second, for thise professional musicians the TAB and the notation were the same. After all, the singers sang from TAB with numbered top parts. Juat like organ tab, it was an alternate mensural system, and the distinction between A and G was therefore moot in all aspects. For those to whom the tab was interchangeable with notation, they would have of course fixed the mistake in the first bar. So the different versions provide a tantalizing glimpse into the musical training of the copyists. This theory, which may seem odd at first, also allows one to look at the French and Italian repertory for both songs and solos in a new light. What is interesting about this theory is that it highlights that there is a perceptual difference between musicians looking at any score relative to training or the artistic milieu in which they worked.. This is obvious to anyone who plays the recorder or clarinet, but less obvious to players of seemingly non transposing instruments. However, it would be difficult to redefine the lute as a non transposing instrument. One can also trace the origin of the divisions by comparing the ornaments to continental division treatises, and, indeed, there must have been a now "lost" if you will pardon the pun, English Division "fake book" that used simple stepwise four note patterns combined with scales for ornamenting lute solos. Copyists learned these from their teachers, or used the book, to jazz up the popular tunes in circulation, which is why so many sources use the same ornaments, something a top composer would of course never do. One could easily reconstruct this lute "fake book". It would, in its basic form, take up two to four large pages at most Those who enjoy playing Dowland should enjoy the Pavans in LoST for what they are, a sort of English Bakfark, the summit of contrapuntal writing around 1600 for nine or ten course solo lute. Like Bach, they are difficult yet rewarding. dt > Thank you. Matthew Spring writes of three versions in Dd.2.11: one for > lute in G minor; one for lute in A minor; and one for bandora. The two > versions apparently have very different divisions. Poulton lists the A > minor version as Dd.2.11, ff.. 75v/76, from which she provides a brief > excerpt. I might be mistaken, but I think that the version Paul O'Dette > recorded for the Complete Works is the A minor version. He states in > the notes that it is an A minor version, but doesn't state explicitly > that this version comes from Dd.2.11. > For that matter, I'd be very interested in knowing from which sources > some of the many recordings have been taken. Nigel North isn't specific > about which source he uses or if, perhaps, he supplies his own > divisions. Does anybody record the G minor version from Dd.2.11 as it > appears in Poulton/Lam? How many different sources for the piece have > been recorded? > As always, I'm grateful for the assistance from the collective wisdom. > Best, > Graham Freeman > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Edward Martin <[[email protected]> > wrote: > > The version in a minor is from the book Lachrimae, written for 5 > viol or violins, + the lute part. > ed > > At 11:56 AM 2/22/2010, Graham Freeman wrote: > > All, > I'd be very grateful for some assistance. Does anyone know where I > might be able to find a score for the A minor version of > "Lachrimae" > from Dd.2.11? Poulton, of course, has the G minor version, but I'm > not > certain where the A minor one might be. A naive question perhaps, > but > I'd be grateful for anyone who could help. > Best, > Graham Freeman > -- > Dr. Graham Freeman > Ph. D Musicology > University of Toronto > [1][2][email protected] > -- > References > 1. mailto:[3][email protected] > To get on or off this list see list information at > [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > Edward Martin > 2817 East 2nd Street > Duluth, Minnesota 55812 > e-mail: [[email protected] > voice: (218) 728-1202 > [6]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name > [7]http://www.myspace.com/edslute > > -- > Dr. Graham Freeman > Ph. D Musicology > University of Toronto > [8][email protected] > -- > >References > > 1. mailto:[email protected] > 2. mailto:[email protected] > 3. mailto:[email protected] > 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 5. mailto:[email protected] > 6. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name > 7. http://www.myspace.com/edslute > 8. mailto:[email protected]
