I always prefer reading from original manuscripts. I've never understood why anyone would want to read from a modern ugly computer tab if the original is clear and beautiful. For instance the music of Weiss is almost all extant in gorgeous very readable and satisfying handwritten tab. And with no page turns in pieces. Reading from computer tab is like the difference between grape soda and fine red wine.
Susan -------- Original message -------- From: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@mail.cs.dartmouth.edu> Date: 12/22/19 3:10 AM (GMT-07:00) To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, "Frank A. Gerbode, M.D." <sa...@gerbode.net> Subject: [LUTE] Re: modern lute editions Dear Frank, As written earlier (pasted below) in a thread regarding modern settings of perfectly readable engraved tablature (Pierre Gautier 1638), I generally prefer to read from an original source where reasonably legible since I believe this gives a better insight into the scribe's and/or collector's intentions than a modern uniform tablature version reflecting a modern editor's own preferences. Indeed many original sources (especially later) frequently seem easier to read than those where an enforced invariable spacing is employed.. As said, this shouldn't, of course, preclude modern tablature editions where necessary for reasons of legilibity. The issues are rather different between MS and printed tablature with the latter, especially the earlier collections employing movable type also, by necessity, having a uniform style and where a resetting might offer some advantages. Although, even here, books like Borrono's 1548 collection and Francesco's collections for example seem to be models of clarity and a modern resetting seems unnecessary (any page tuns can easily be avoided with the photocopier!). Indeed, the difficulty of reading most early extant sources seems much exaggerated and perhaps we ought to be encouraging players to read from the original printed or MS versions. regards Martyn -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- I generally much prefer a facsimile of the original print or MS and sometimes wonder how the recent desire to put things into a modern uniform tablature edition has gained ground. In particular, the use of hand or engraving allowed and allows a more flexible approach in spacing etc which can better suggest interpretation and, in my view, usually makes reading easier. Admittedly, with some originals the quality can be poor and difficult to read and, in these cases, I think a modern edition (employing tablature and spacings as close as possible to the original) is, indeed, perhaps the answer. However, collections such as that of 1638 by Pierre Gaultier Orleanois are, in my view, perfectly readable - my own photocopy of a microfilm print has a few background shadings but these could be cleaned up electronically I suspect to a condition closer to that when the collection was first printed. In short, players should feel encouraged to play direct from such rather than modern printed editions which impose a uniform and Procrustean style favoured by the modern editor. Martyn Hodgson ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- On Sunday, 22 December 2019, 00:52:34 GMT, Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. <sa...@gerbode.net> wrote: As a major purveyor of modern lute editions, I feel I need to answer the question of "Why do it?", in the era of readily available facsimiles. Of course, when I started, some decades ago, facsimiles were not generally available online, if at all, so there was no choice except to do editions of stuff I happened to be able to get my hands on. Even now, some facsimiles are only available in very expensive printed editions. By and large the expense places these out of reach of most lutenists, including myself, so creating an online modern edition is the only way to make that music available at all. My mission, in my musical life, is to make as much free lute music in playable form available to as many people as possible. and the only way to do so is electronically. In 2014, the LSA Quarterly, v.48, I wrote my "[1]manifesto" on the subject, and I won't repeat myself here. Some book and a few MS sources are so clear that it is not, perhaps, necessary to make modern editions of them. I have tended not to prioritize these sources in making my editions. Apart from that, here are some reasons for making modern editions instead of relying on facsimile sources. 1. Readability The point of making modern editions like those put out by the LSA is, quite simply, to make it easier for modern lutenists to perform the music. If we look at editions of mensural music, almost all of them use the standard modern style. Unusual or unfamiliar clefs, key signatures, meter notations, and note shapes are almost universally replaced by modern symbols, because these are easily readable by modern players, most of whom are not fluent in reading the old symbols. I believe no information vital to performance is lost in these editions. Similar reasons apply to lute tab, where French tab serves as a "lingua franca". Few, for instance, would want to perform from German or Neapolitan tab sources and many are not fluent in Italian or Spanish tab either. Ideally, too, the layout of a particular piece should be conducive to arranging the printed version on a music stand to avoid or minimize page turns. When you perform, you want all of your attention going to actualizing the music, not on turning pages or trying to decipher material that is difficult to read. Manuscript lute sources in particular are often hard to read because of poor or careless penmanship, inconvenient page turns, or because notes and rhythm flags are often indistinct, blotted out, or missing. 2. Correction of errors. Lute music sources, books and manuscripts alike, particularly those containing Renaissance music, are in general rife with errors. Performers do not want to be having to mentally correct the errors on the fly as they play. That is part of the editor's job. If errors are corrected, while still making it unobtrusively clear in the edition all the changes one has made, it makes for an easily performable edition that performers can always mark up if they disagree with the editor's decisions. Also, attributing the precise source in facsimile and, ideally, making it easily available, can be very helpful. 3. Dealing with scribal or publisher idiosyncrasies There is no historical standard for tab notation. Each source has its own idiosyncrasies, and one of the main things necessary is to learn what the peculiarities are of a particular scribe or publisher. Sometimes there are several scribes within a MS, which makes it even more challenging. This is especially true for German tab sources. Sometimes, also, it takes awhile to suss out what a scribe intends, because of poor penmanship or defects in the MS. For instance in the [2]Fabricius Lute Book, my current project, it is often impossible to differentiate the German tab c from the e and from the o, so one has to make decisions based on context. Sometimes a dot is omitted over a note, or a dotted rhythm is rendered by three rhythm flags with notes under the first and third. Something that looks like a repeat sign, a double bar with two or three dots on either side, sometimes does seem to mean a repeat of the prior section, but sometimes it is just a way of separating sections. An editor can punt by simply using a double bar in such instances; I usually prefer to make decisions about such matters, which the performer may disagree with. I have not personally run across instances where writing style or spacing in the original appears to reflect differences relevant to performance, but I am not that experienced in editing Baroque lute music, and such things might be relevant there. It would always be possible, however, in a modern edition to note such instances. --Sarge -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. ([3][1]sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website: [4][2]http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got." -- References 1. [3]http://gerbode.net/making_lute_music_accessible.docx 2. [4]http://gerbode.net/sources/DK-Kk_royal_library_copenhagen/ms_thott_8 41_40_fabricius_lute_book_1607 3. mailto:[5]sa...@gerbode.net 4. [6]http://www.gerbode.net/ To get on or off this list see list information at [7]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:sa...@gerbode.net 2. http://www.gerbode.net/ 3. http://gerbode.net/making_lute_music_accessible.docx 4. http://gerbode.net/sources/DK-Kk_royal_library_copenhagen/ms_thott_841_ 40_fabricius_lute_book_1607 5. mailto:sa...@gerbode.net 6. http://www.gerbode.net/ 7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html