Yes, you can hear it not as a parallel fifth, but then you have to hear it as a direct octave approached by step above and skip below, if there is a third in the chord. However, since there is no third in the chord, there is still the fifth. So in this case, there is a type of parallel fifth that results from the absence of the third. The fifths are still there, because even if the alto voice goes up, a new voice must be introduced by a line split which then creates the fifth. The reason these unusual situations are not covered in a counterpoint class is that no one would allow the voice leading here either as a parallel fifth, an empty fifth or a direct octave. No one would argue which particular mistake it is, because the writing is so bad that it would still be two of the three mistakes. Rearranging the voice direction is only a solution for parallels if the two voices are rearranged, one cannot in counterpoint reassign a voice and then create a new one to avoid fifths, the fifths can only be avoided by say, switching the direction of the alto and tenor parts so each one goes to a different note. Otherwise. all parallel fifths could be avoided by introducing an extra voice for one note, and this is something composers did not do.
However, if you realize the alto voice up, there is a big problem, this then completely removes the 7-6 suspension (which in G minor is the D in the alto part suspended over the E flat, and in A is the E suspended over the F) which is present in the lute solo version, the lute song version and LoST. All versions by Dowland agree on this point, it is an essential characteristic of the music, and the suspension is a feature that was widely imitated by continental composers. All of these issues go away using Dowland's voice leading, but the real reason to use Dowland's voice leading is that it is unequivocally by Dowland. He wrote them; he printed them All this is simply to say that we have Dowland's version, which is authentic in all respects, in which the voice leading is clearly indicated in the string parts. Dowland made his versions future proof. And we have contemporaneous sources which have simplified and removed the counterpoint which cannot be by Dowland, they are just "tune by Dowland", or "tune and harmonic outiline" by Dowland. That's a sort of typical situation for lute music and keyboard music. We don't throw out the bath with the baby, some of the hybrid arrangements are fun to play. dt At 09:20 AM 2/24/2010, you wrote: >On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:09 AM, David Tayler <[email protected]> wrote: > > As printed in the Poulton edition, The fifths and direct octaves > > cross the bar, from G to D in the lowest sounding voices to E flat to > > B flat in the lowest sounding voices. > >I see, consecutive fifths between what I regard as bass and middle >voice (altus/tenor) to bass and tenor, with the middle voice of the >first chord clearly going to the altus of the second chord. I think we >can agree to disagree on calling that a parallel fifth - we >definitively went to different counterpoint classes - but if your >ears perceive it such, so much the better for your ears. Mine are less >well-attuned, I must confess. > >Your fix, replacing the b-flat by a g (second fret, fourth course) is >elegant - and not more difficult - but I must say I like the stepwise >motion of b-flat to c' to d' tenor line in the second measure, in >imitation of what is happening in the middle voice of measure one. As >you say, hearing counterpoint in lute writing can be a personal thing. >But adding the g might have the best of both worlds: warmer chord, >third to avoid attention to bare 5-8 sound, retaining stepwise tenor. >I will try it for a while. > >Thanks for the clarification, anyway. > >David > > >-- >******************************* >David van Ooijen >[email protected] >www.davidvanooijen.nl >******************************* > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
