Dear Mathias, I agree with you, but
> There was a mistake in my prior post: > > > In PL-Wn396, fol 44v, there are three different ornaments, viz. comma, > > cross and half-moon below. The cross once appears with an unstopped > > course. > > So, if the comma means an appogiatura from above, the _CROSS_ (!!!) > > necessarily means a trill starting from the upper note. Then the > > half-moon probably means an appogiatura from below. > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Grzegorz Joachimiak [mailto:[email protected]] wrote > > I think > > piece from so-called ms. Schaffgotsch has a lot of errors. There concern > mainly > > intervals, absence of some letters, and differents of rhythm. > > Yes, missing letters and letters on wrong lines. But as for differing > rhythms, I beg to differ. I'd like to believe that Saizenay is a fairly > late > and elaborated source as regards rhythms, whereas this tombeau in > Schaffgotsch (PL-Wn 396 cim) was copied from an earlier source as its > notated rhythms and ornaments are kept very simple. I compare it to the > skeleton-like notations in the Rhetorique des Dieux in that its utterly > simple notations are intended to serve as a basis for interpretation. > > > But you asked > > about ornamnets. I thought about comma ornaments. In PL-Wn 396 Cim. they > > are not look the same in my opinion. So maybe comma ornament with bigger > > curve (tunny) are appogiaturas (from above) and comma with smaller tunny > are > > mordents (also from above). But there is also a comma with smaller tunny > and > > with crosswise short line. It could be a mordent from below. > I think manuscript from PL-Wn 396 Cim. is the youngest from 10 others mss. listed as concordances - as we could read in Meyer's catalogue (except 2 mss. for guitar) (cf. http://w1.bnu.fr/smt/sommaire.htm ). This pieces was wrote by Anonymous so we are not sure which example is proper. As Thomas Mace wrote on page 79 in his Musick's Monument from 1676 about very difficult instrument as is lute: "[...] A third and very considerable reason is, from the closeness of masters in the art, who (all along) have been extreme shie in revealing the occult and hidden secrets of the lute. The French (who were generally accounted great masters) seldom or never would prick their lessons as they play'd them, much less reveal any thing (further than of necessity they musy) to the thorough undestanding of the art, or instrument, which I shall make manisfet and very plain. Nor was there, nor yet is there any thing more constantly to be observed among masters, than to be very sparing in their communications concerning opennes, plainness, and freeness; either with parting with their lessons, or imparting much of their skill to their scholars; more than to shew them the ordinary way how to play and such lessons. This hath been, and still is the common humour, ever since my time. So that it is no marvel, that it continues dark and hidden to all, excepting some few, who make it their chief work to practice, and search into its secrets. [...]". So, piece in PL-Wn 396 Cim. is example of interpretation, but we need to do a "source criticism", because we could eliminated errors and we would know some specific of interpretation this piece. (By the way, there is a hermeneutics, isn't there?) This is easier when we have concordances. There is harder when we have a unique piece by Anonymous. > I can't see commas of different breadths of stroke (if that is what you > meant to suggest) in the tombeau in PL-Wn 396 cim. Only > - commas on the right of a letter (1st half: bar 4 on beat 1, bar on 6 > beats > 2 and 4, bar 7 on beats 1and 2 and 4; 2nd half: bar 2 on beat 3, bar 3 on > beat 2-and, bar 4 on beat 1, bar 7 on beats 1 and 3, bar 8 on beat 2-and) > - crosses (1st half: bar 2 on beat 2, bar 5 on beat 3; 2nd half: bar 2 on > beat 3-and, bar 3 on beat 4, bar 6 on beat 4, bar 7 on beats 2 and 4, > bar 8 > on beast 3) > and half-moons below letters. > I thought about commas from e.g. 1st half: bar 4 on beat 1, bar 7 on beats 2 and 4 are not the same as bar 6 on beats 2 and 4, bar 7 on beats 1 (look like half-moons) - there are not single coincedences. Both wrote from the right side of letter. I suppose that scribe intentionally wrote sometimes a bigger commas (like half-moons) and sometimes smaller ornament. And I meant that smaller comma could be a mordent and bigger comma could be an appogiatura. Let me know if I think incorrectly and if these differentes are only slip of the pen. > Comparison of the concordances shows that the half-moons denote an > appoggiatura from below / chute / fall (e. g. bar 1 on beat 3, or bar 3 on > beat 3). However, Wn-396 has half-moons at a number of places where the > concordances read commas, and that considerably changes the flow of the > line. > > What is funny is a place like bar 3 on beat 1. There, Wn 396 reads an > appoggiatura from below on B flat (half-moon below 2i), whereas the > concordances read an appoggiatura from above on B natural (comma on 1g). > That will hardly be a slip of the pen. > > You could argue that most of the half-moons are errors. One way of > explaining B flat on 2i instead of B natural on 1g could be that the > scribe > intabulated from staff notation. That would or could explain as well those > mistaken ornaments (if they are mistakes), i. e. half-moon where there > should be commas. > > But what if these deviations are _not_ mistakes? How is one to play this > tombeau from Wn 396? > > > For me is interesting too an > > chordal conclusion in Schaffgotsch ms. In any other sources I did not find > ending > > like here. And this chords have all of component (prime-third-fifth). > > Yes, another deviation, indeed. Wn 396 keeps the rhythmic structure, > though, > and it is more correct than the other versions in terms of metre in that > it > has a dotted crotched in the end, compensating for the initial upbeat, > whereas the concordances have a minim in the end. > > Mathias > Grzegorz To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
