Back in 1968 The Oxford University Press did just that- soft cover book
of the two stave transcription for lute in "G", and legible facsimiles
and reconstructed illegible facsimiles in a separate paper insert.
"Music for the Lute" General Editor David Lumsden. Works just fine for
me- pick, choose, compare. Some kind of good spiral binding so the staff
transcription lies flat on the music stand without being half destroyed
would be the only improvement.
A total waste of paper is the Moscow "Weiss" Manuscript from Editions
Orphee, "Monuments of the Lutenist Art- Vol. 1" - reduced size,
illegible facsimile printed horizontally in a vertically formatted
perfect bound book, in the same volume as the transcription. Impossible
to put on a music stand, won't stay open, and (with my aging eyes, at
least) impossible to read. The one thing I give credit for, though, is
the close-to-each-other double staff; enough space for visual
differentiation and to include middle "c". Somewhat lute reading
friendlier than the usual "keyboard tablature" two handed set up.
Dan
On 3/19/2014 11:08 AM, Braig, Eugene wrote:
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
