Dear Ranier,
I'm pasting in below some of the communications I had in 2010 on this
topic - I hope they might shed a bit of light.
regards
Martyn
From: adS <[email protected]>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Chow Bente
To: "Stewart McCoy" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Lute Net" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, 27 February, 2012, 21:20
On 14.02.2012 16:22, Stewart McCoy wrote:
> Dear Leonard and David,
>
> John Robinson explains the origin of Chow Bent in footnote 133 on
page
> 24 of the Introduction to the Lute Society facsimile of Dd.2.11, for
> which Rainer aus dem Spring is thanked in the Acknowledgements on
page
> 8.That was a big surprise :) and not so easy to find.
Anyway, do you happen to know anything about Martyn Hodgson's
"unravelling the connection between the various settings of Anthony
Holborne's 'The Cradle'"?
I can't find anything in the facsimile edition.
Maybe, I'm blind ;(
Rainer
To get on or off this list see list information at
[1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Dear Stewart,
I don't wish to over make the case for all such, possibly orphaned,
parts to be considered as consort lute parts rather than solos. But....
Regarding such pieces as solos with octave displacement of the upper
part when it goes beyond the 'normal' range of lute solos is, I think,
to ignore the original composer's intention, in this case Holborne (if
we can agree that PGA 1599 best represents his melodic thoughts).
Holborne had a particular line in mind and I can't see how a
bowderlerized version can have any real merit as a solo - what's the
point when, as in the Cradle version, all that is needed is to put in
another key (as done by Dowland for consort settings to name but one).
In short I still think one needs to ask why the arranger felt obliged
to stick with such an unsuitable, key: my suggestion is that it was to
be able to play along in consort (like the LoST parts) - in short not a
solo but a consort version.
Incidentally I also think we need to be cautious in identifying
concordances from the upper line only: I suspect I only noticed the
similarity between the C of C and the C because most of my continuo
playing activities so that even when playing lute solos I seem to
be impelled to think of the bass and the harmony. A good example is the
Aria del Gran Duca ('O che nuove miracolo' ) which appears with
various upper melodic lines but whose harmonic tread is unmistakeable.
I wonder therefore if incipit databases ought not to include the bass
as well as treble lines and so allow (computer) matching in all
combinations...........
regards
Martyn
--- On Tue, 23/2/10, Martyn Hodgson <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Martyn Hodgson <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Re: English/broken/mixed consort lute parts...
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Cc: "Chris Goodwin Lute Society" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, 23 February, 2010, 12:17
Dear Ian, John and Stewart,
I've just returned from a trip and see Chris kindly forwarded my query
(below) to you. I should perhaps have mentioned to Chris that I am, of
course, aware that the 'Cradle pavan' (Kanazawa.19) contains the
Holborne 1599 upper line but not ' Cradle of conceits' (Kanazawa. 9)
which, as said, has the same bass and harmonic structure (allbeit in a
different key).
I'd be grateful for any views on the suggestion that this may be a
consort lute part. Perhaps the same applies to some of the pieces in
the CUL MSs or for that matter other sources - I recall identifying a
similar consort/part for the Frog galliard in Konigsberg Ms f.5v some
years ago.
regards
Martyn
Dear Chris,
........However for our Summer 2010 season we're going back to basics
and covering the changes which took place in the 16th century leading
to the new 'baroque' style and this has led to an unexpected
'discovery' or perhaps it's already known and it's only my ignorance
which is apparent. I'd be grateful for any comments.
As part of this new programme we're including some of the Morley
consort lessons and also pieces from Holborne's 1599 5 part collection.
In these latter we'll be playing new composed/improvised divisions in
the repeats. One of the pieces is the 1599 setting of 'The Cradle' and
I thought to look at the divisions used in the lute version ('Cradle of
Conceits' no. 9 in Kanazawa edition - sole source given as CUL Ms
Dd.2.11). It is clearly the same piece (the bass and harmonies are
identical) but, blow me down, the tune (Cantus) in the 1599 setting
isn't the highest voice of this lute version. In fact the lute version
top line looks suspiciously like a conflation of the Altus and Quintus
parts of the 1599; in fact more like a mixed/broken/English consort
lute part (with divided repeats to boot). In short, I suggest that the
CUL setting is not for solo lute but is a consort setting with the top
part taken by a melodic instrument. I've not waded through any of
the other pieces yet but will do if you think I'm on to something -
particularly for any 'solo' sourced from the Cambridge Mss.
regards
Martyn
--
References
1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
