Agreed. I don't know that there's much player crossover between notation formats, even among those who do work from both on an instrument-by-situation basis. If you have the ability and resources to generate two separate editions, that might better serve.
That said, if I recall correctly (and please forgive me for citing Mel Bay for anything), Ronn McFarlane's "The Scottish Lute" was released with one version staple bound with a proper, glossy, cover-stock cover (I can't remember which: standard notation or tablature) and the version other as a paper-cover, part-style insert. That was also effective in not requiring the excessive page turns of a parallel-notation edition and only requiring one publication release. Best, Eugene -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tobiah Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 1:54 PM To: Anthony Hart; Lute List Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute publications On 03/19/2014 05:45 AM, Anthony Hart wrote: > Following my previous posts I am in the final stages of preparing the > lute sonatas of Antonino Reggio. The delema is should I include the > tablature in the samr volume as the staff edition of would it be better > to publish two separate volumes. I intend to publish 4 volumes of 6 > sonatas each. As a exclusive reader of staff, I greatly appreciate having it printed alone. I see little benefit to the usual practice of interlacing the staff and tablature together; it seems to me that this practice serves only to inconvenience the reader of either version, doubling the number of page turns. Toby To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
