Snip
If someone wants to play freely the
beginning is ok, of course, but we have to think a little more about
the music written by Francesco and in general about the writing and the
performance practice of the counterpoint in the first half of the
Sixteenth-century.
Snip
This is the absolute crux of the matter. The twin processes of trying
to find the "urtext" combined with guessing the composer's intent
have created a gigantic problem in renaissance music, which is the
fabrication of versions which did not exist in 16th century.
There is no correct version; there are versions: there is no
uniformity, there is only diversity. And it is this rich, detailed,
brilliant and kaleidoscopic diversity that reflects the
player-composer culture of the superbly trained musicians of that time.
For some reason, we only want multiple versions when there are no
doodles. So we, as modernists often reject the plain, unornamented
versions of music in favor of the ornamented ones. But we still,
somehow, want the number of versions to be small. We want the right stuff.
But in the renaissance, they wanted a variety of stuff. They wrote
in the margins; they composed as they copied, the impressed their own
personalities on everything.
The greater the player, the more different the copy! And had they
done anything else, the would have been regarded as "color by number"
instead of Vermeer.
As far as the rules of counterpoint, let's take an example by the
best composer in the renaissance writing one of his best pieces:
Mille Regretz of the incomparable Josquin des Prez.
Time after time, the longa in the point of imitation is answered by a
breve. And why is that? Because it allows the polyphony more than
twice as many possibilities for the answering counterpoint. It also
allows the cadences to both elide and evaporate: two essential
qualities of counterpoint.
When making a scholarly edition, let's just include a facsimile of
each and every version, digitally. Total information; no paper
wasted. Isn't that the best way? What could be better?
Anything less is relegating the alternate versions to the scrap heap
of history. And in the transcription, it should be possible, clearly
and easily, with no reference to "algebra musik," to reconstruct
every note and mark of the original source.
So here is the question, should we "correct" the works of Josquin?
Because some of those notes are longer in one part. Maybe add a rest
at the beginning? And make the perfect urtext? Or should we go back
and say, hey, there are a lot of different versions of this piece,
and you, the unique player-composer can pick the one you like the
best, and, when making your personal intabulation, you get to add
some notes and graces of your own. The choice is ours, as players and
editors. That's the choice they made, as well.
Respectfully,
dt
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
