Hi Ron,
Thanks this detailed and interesting information that lead me to dig
out my CD copy of The royal lewters that has Paul O'Dette's
interpretation of it and follow the recording with the facsimile.
Paul's interpretation is note for note that of the facsimile including
the rhythmic break. I do not mean this to be an absolute statement of
truth or a kind of "gotcha" - although Paul is an extremely careful and
intelligent interpreter as we all know. He has an interesting paragraph
on the dump in the liner notes: "dumps were one of the favorite
vehicles for Tudor and Elizabethan lewters to demonstrate their
improvisational genius, since the simplicity of the bass line provided
maximum scope for harmonic and rhythmic invention, including the
addition of "blue notes", cross-relations, meter changes, etc. Dumps
were often though not always laments [...] but they could be merry as
well. Philip's dump fits into the latter category with its sprightly
rhythms and playful arpeggiated figures."
This could only mean that my understanding of the piece (one of my
favorites) is heavily tainted by that particular interpretation by POD,
hence my comment on the un-dolefulness of the piece. Now that I have
quoted the authorities, let me mention my own theory, or given the lack
of historical evidence and lack of knowledge on my part, my hunch that
dumps were not so much a genre as they were a technique, namely a
repetitive, alternative bass line played by the thumb similar to modern
finger picking on the guitar, inherited and imitating the technique of
Welsh and Irish harp players. It is not hard to imagine on the harp a
bass-line that involves an alternate movement of the thumb and index,
while the right hand is free to improvise its own intricate patterns.
My evidence for this is little: memory of the dumps seems to me to have
survived longer in Ireland than elsewhere perhaps - they are mentioned
in an 18th century book on the music of Ireland - in a somewhat
satirical context. I believe it was also mentioned in connection with
the picking of the bodies on the battlefield but I cannot find the
source for this right now. Another piece of shaky evidence is the
resemblance between the lute dumps and the reconstruction of a piece
from the Robert ap Huw manuscript, a unique book of music for harp
written in a tablature system that is still not completely understood.
Written at the beginning of 17th century, the book is believed to
contain much older music going back perhaps to the 12th century. There
is an online facsimile at
[1]http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/ap_huw/facsimile/. I could of course
add in support of my view the famous piece by Mudarra in imitation of
the harp: "Fantasia X que contrahaze la harpa en la manera de Ludovico"
published in Spain in 1546, but that only buttresses the idea that some
lutenists were keen on imitating the style and technique of other
instruments among which the harp. Ludovico apparently did not use the
same kind of bass drone we find in English dumps.
Final remarks: in our efforts to revive the music of the past we
are heavily dependent on surviving documents - and such efforts were
already made in the early 17th century, with the ap Huw MS or in the
works of Thomas Ravenscroft for instance. But what about those missing
bits that were not at some time recorded and published in ways we can
access and understand them? This seems to me to have been the case with
music for the harp and it does seem to have been a clear political
choice rather than just an oversight. Queen Elizabeth for instance
issued a proclamation against travelling musicians, mentioning
specifically the Welsh harp players as being among the most nefarious
and dangerous of the breed. The falling out of fashion of the dump,
certainly in courtly circles at the end of the 16th century, its
reduction to a stereotype - the doleful dump - with all its sad
connotations and alliteration, may not be totally accidental. It is not
impossible that politics - late 16th century politics - is still
tainting our esthetic appreciation of a certain class of pieces of
music today. I tried to highlight all the uncertainties, but I am sure
there is a nice topic for enquiry here for someone who has more time
and knowledge than I. Well, as sure as I can be. In the meantime I am
happy to have had this discussion that revived my interest in the Marsh
lute book, certainly a very special collection of music, with a high
concentration of lute duets - many by John Johnson - dumps, and even
some da Milano and de Rippe stuff in it.
Cheers and happy playing,
Alain
PS: If the piece was a passomezzo, I would agree 100% with Ron that
some music is missing in that particular spot. But it is not a dance,
but a virtuoso solo piece.
On 6/11/2012 4:15 AM, Ron Andrico wrote:
Hello Alain:
While many interpretive approaches are perfectly valid, the 'Dump'
seems to have filtered into our collective lute-playing consciousness
via certain recordings by certain prolific lutenists. I'll name names
here because it's both entertaining and worth the trouble to step back
and look at extremes of recorded interpretation and they may have
affected our own ideas.
Paul O'Dette recorded the piece as 'Dump philli (Philip's Dump), Philip
van Wilder? (d. 1557)' on Electra/Nonesuch LP 9 79123-1, recorded 1985,
timing 3:58. Christopher Wilson recorded the piece as Arthur's Dompe -
Philip van Wilder (c. 1500 - 1553) on the 1987 LP, CRD 1148, timing
6:12. Differences abound. The interpretations range from O'Dette's
forward-leaning pulse that pushes the piece ahead whether it wants to
or no. Wilson takes his time, favoring the center of each and every
note to the point that you know its life story before it's finally gone
away. Extreme ends of the spectrum in attribution, pacing, style and
interpretation: One is almost gleeful and the other quite doleful. But
both players make an event of the missing music, which they omit simply
because it wasn't there in the score.
The best information available today points to the definition of 'dump'
as a reverie of sorts, which doesn't necessarily preclude a little
faster interpretation but it's probably not meant to be aggressive.
However, I tend to agree with John Ward's reckoning in Music for
Elizabethan Lutes. 2 vols., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992, Volume one,
page 4, that 1) the piece is probably not to do with Philip van Wilder,
and 2) the missing music is a copyists' mistake, and the ground is
meant to have a more formal proportion. In the Elizabethan world,
proportion was important, which is a little difficult for our modern
minds to grasp. We seem to like things that are different and kicky.
But while you could likely find some examples of irregular grounds
(French baroque chaconnes, for example) a ground is a ground because
it's predictable.
I think the missing music is a mistake in copying and prefer a pulse
and tempo that translates as wistful, or perhaps nostalgic, but not
interminable.
RA
> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 23:53:08 -0700
> To: [2][email protected]
> CC: [3][email protected]
> From: [4][email protected]
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Philip or Arthur's Dump
>
> Hi Ed,
> I checked the facsimile of the Marsh lute book and the break in the
> pattern is definitely there -- I tend to agree with the "Maybe it is
not
> a mistake" theory. It could be an intentional echo effect - the
melodic
> pattern of the second half of the bar is repeated a fourth up in the
> first half of the following bar. It might be intended to wake up the
> audience in a fairly long and repetitive piece and as you indicate
> prepare them for the final recap of the theme. Maybe Philip Glass
could
> help here? It is worth noting that the piece appears twice in the
book,
> the first time left obviously unfinished with a page and a half left
> blank immediately following, i.e. enough space to finish the
> transcription later. The scribe however finally recopied the piece at
> the very end of the book from the beginning all over again. There are
no
> scratches or corrections of any kind in the second version.
> Another interesting aspect of this piece: it is not doleful.
> Alain
>
>
> On 6/9/2012 1:04 AM, Ed Durbrow wrote:
> > I got a modern printout recently of Philip or Arthur's Dump - from
Marsh, I believe. About 16 m. before the end there appears to be a
missing measure or three. That is, the alternating C-G pattern breaks
and there are two measures based on G.
> > I also saw mention on the lute society site catalog of a duet
version. Is this the same version as Marsh? I thought I had Marsh, but
I don't, I think I mixed it up with Mynshall.
> > I wonder if the 'missing' measure was a mistake and is in Marsh or
a concordance, or perhaps someone famous has reconstructed it.
> > Maybe it is not a mistake? Magnus Andersson certainly plays it
convincingly:
> > [5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVuhbBhYCl0
> > If I were the composer, I would have put that two bars of G bit
right before the 'recap', where he brings back the opening theme at the
end.
> > TIA
> >
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
>
>
--
References
1. http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/ap_huw/facsimile/
2. mailto:[email protected]
3. mailto:[email protected]
4. mailto:[email protected]
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVuhbBhYCl0
6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
