The missing dot + extra short value note is quite common in
intabulations in this time, such as Neusidler and Spinacino. It
happens throughout Spinacino (eg, Sidedero, Bk II, 29v) and he
frequently used dotted values as well. It also occurs between mensural
notation sources. Tsat een meskin in the Odh A is dotted whereas the
Segovia ms. generally keeps the simpler values. Perhaps, if we assume
the Segovia was a possible lute source (albeit in mensural notation)
this may have been a lute idom.
Yes, it sounds more correct to keep the dots and going to the
composers' earliest source may support this but the evidence does show
that lutenists were often instructed to play otherwise. Unless they
also collected the mensural sources (and they weren't for sale like
the books were) how would they have been expected to know when to
change from simple values to a dotted phrase?
Sean
On Oct 22, 2010, at 7:50 AM, R. Mattes wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:30:18 +0100, Peter Martin wrote
Thanks for this lead!
I've just downloaded Laute und Lautenmusik.
on page 17, taking an example from Neusidler, he suggests that an
quarter note C followed by eighth notes C and D should be
interpreted
as a dotted quarter note C followed by an eighth note D. This is
on the grounds that Neusidler hardly ever writes dotted notes.
It's sort of plausible, but is it right?
I would never play out those repeated notes. Neusidler's and the other
early german lute sources rhythmic notation is much closer to the
rhythmic notation of lower voices in early german organ
tablature. "Dotting" (i.e. punctus additionis) is a concept from
mensural notation, hardly applicable to tablature. Playing those
repeated notes in intabulations of such polyphonic gems as 'Cecus non
judicat ..' from Alexander sound ridiculous to me.
Bur some well-known experts seem to dissagree :-)
Cheers, RalfD
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
