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 <[email protected]>
Date: 12/22/19 3:10 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: [email protected], "Frank A. Gerbode, M.D." <[email protected]>
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.
<[email protected]> 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][email protected])
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][email protected]
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:[email protected]
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:[email protected]
6. http://www.gerbode.net/
7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
