Do we know whether the 'split-course technique' as it is sometimes
termed nowadays was a notation to indicate that only one particular
string of an octave course was actually to be employed, or whether it
was pedantic intabulation to indicate in which octave the
composer/arranger wished to show the strict counterpoint theoretically
fell? Or perhaps some other indication.......
Grateful for a source.
MH
__________________________________________________________________
From: G. C. <kalei...@gmail.com>
To: Lex van Sante <lvansa...@gmail.com>
Cc: lute mailing list list <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 May 2015, 14:43
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Vihuela Stringing
Bakfarks use of split-course technique in the Krakow lute book:
1. Jesu nomen sanctissimum. Secunda pars: Sit nomen domini, measure 9
2. Circumdederunt me, measure 25, measure 56
3. Secunda pars: Quoniam tribulatio, measure 15
4. Qui habitat in adjutorio, measure 59
5. Secunda pars: Non accedar, measure 27
G.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Lex van Sante
<[1][1]lvansa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Of course I did not mean the fourth but the third course, sorry for
the confusion. So Capirola as far as I know did not employ split
octave courses.
Where does Fuenllana mention splitting the courses? I have not
found
any reference. As I have no complete edition of Bakfark where does
he use this technique?
Can anyone inform?
--
References
1. mailto:[2]lvansa...@gmail.com
To get on or off this list see list information at
[3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:lvansa...@gmail.com
2. mailto:lvansa...@gmail.com
3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
