[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
Hi All I have a beautiful, yet very scratchy hair shirt that I wear whilst playing the lute. I believe it helps me really get into the mindset of our forebears who left us our wonderful music. Good will to all, and a good glass of Christmas wine for those that partake. Best Wishes - Luke On 24-Dec-2019 15:22, Christopher Stetson wrote: Hi, everyone. Just my two farthings on this opinion fest: I'm perfectly comfortable reading both from facsimile and modern editions, French, Italian, or "Spanish", but only stumbling German. I don't find modern editions especially ugly, and many original manuscripts (the early ones especially) are hardly beautiful, at least to my eye, and I can say the same of manuscripts in my own hand. I remember the time before internet digitization, and I'm very glad they're available, but many library- or university-based online sources are cumbersome to access. I am, though, glad that the mid-20th century practice of printing tablature paired with grand staff a la CNRS (apologies to Arthur N.) has fallen out of favor. I admit there is a certain satisfaction to reading from original books, but when I need a copy of "Sweet Stay Awhile" stat for a rehearsal, [1]gerbode.net is where I turn. Please don't stop, Sarge! Best to all, Happy 2020, and keep playing, Chris. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 9:59 AM Tristan von Neumann <[2]tristanvonneum...@gmx.de> wrote: l don't see the big problem in reading facsimile tabs. I think this has more to do with sight-reading. I am lazy and don't want to practice pieces. But playing a lot of different pieces you understand certain similarities that become useful when sight-reading manuscripts. You just know how the piece goes, or at least from experience you play something that wouldn't be considered "wrong" where you have to guess quickly. So the encouragement should be: practice sight-reading. On 22.12.19 15:29, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: > Dear Martyn, > I must beg to differ on that one. I, personally, prefer to play from original tabs including German tab, but I have seen too many students, not advanced students of course, who gave up in front of a facsimile tab. > So, although I agree on the advantages of playing from original sources, I reiterate my grateful thanks to Sarge, Doug and others for making so many little known works available to all, encouraging them to become acquainted with the sources and to make their own research afterwards. > Best wishes > Jean-Marie > >> Le 22 déc. 2019 à 12:48, Martyn Hodgson <[3]hodgsonmar...@mail.cs.dartmouth.edu> a écrit : >> >> Dear Jean-Marie, >> One really doesn't need to be a 'professional' to read from early >> MSs and printed editions - it's really not difficult and does a >> disservice to many, if not most, lute and guitar players by >> underestimating their abilities. >>Where I do believe modern tablature editions have a valued place >> is in the production of complete editions (with scholarly notes too) >> of a particular composer's work or of a particular work set by >> various composers (as well as Anon). John Robinson is, in my view, >> the principal torch bearer for much fine modern work in this line.. >> regards >> Martyn > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://gerbode.net/ 2. mailto:tristanvonneum...@gmx.de 3. mailto:hodgsonmar...@mail.cs.dartmouth.edu 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- __ Orlando Lutes http://www.orlando-lutes.com
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
As a publisher of modern editions of old music, I believe those of us who care about making the music truly accessible to a broad audience that includes possible new converts to early music will take necessary steps to present music in a clear, legible format. Denizens of the lute world forget (sometimes conveniently) that old notation, and particularly lute tablature, remains a puzzle to many musicians. Even conservatory students. If we wish to attract a larger audience to our instrument and our music, we should do the responsible thing: Welcome and guide newcomers through the maze of occult-locked-up-secrets. By the way, we just published volume one of the Mignarda Songbook. [1]https://www.mignarda.com/editions/ RA __ From: lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu on behalf of Christopher Stetson Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 3:22 PM To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: modern lute editions Hi, everyone. Just my two farthings on this opinion fest: I'm perfectly comfortable reading both from facsimile and modern editions, French, Italian, or "Spanish", but only stumbling German. I don't find modern editions especially ugly, and many original manuscripts (the early ones especially) are hardly beautiful, at least to my eye, and I can say the same of manuscripts in my own hand. I remember the time before internet digitization, and I'm very glad they're available, but many library- or university-based online sources are cumbersome to access. I am, though, glad that the mid-20th century practice of printing tablature paired with grand staff a la CNRS (apologies to Arthur N.) has fallen out of favor. I admit there is a certain satisfaction to reading from original books, but when I need a copy of "Sweet Stay Awhile" stat for a rehearsal, [1]gerbode.net is where I turn. Please don't stop, Sarge! Best to all, Happy 2020, and keep playing, Chris. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 9:59 AM Tristan von Neumann <[2]tristanvonneum...@gmx.de> wrote: l don't see the big problem in reading facsimile tabs. I think this has more to do with sight-reading. I am lazy and don't want to practice pieces. But playing a lot of different pieces you understand certain similarities that become useful when sight-reading manuscripts. You just know how the piece goes, or at least from experience you play something that wouldn't be considered "wrong" where you have to guess quickly. So the encouragement should be: practice sight-reading. On 22.12.19 15:29, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: > Dear Martyn, > I must beg to differ on that one. I, personally, prefer to play from original tabs including German tab, but I have seen too many students, not advanced students of course, who gave up in front of a facsimile tab. > So, although I agree on the advantages of playing from original sources, I reiterate my grateful thanks to Sarge, Doug and others for making so many little known works available to all, encouraging them to become acquainted with the sources and to make their own research afterwards. > Best wishes > Jean-Marie > >> Le 22 déc. 2019 à 12:48, Martyn Hodgson <[3]hodgsonmar...@mail.cs.dartmouth.edu> a écrit : >> >> Dear Jean-Marie, >> One really doesn't need to be a 'professional' to read from early >> MSs and printed editions - it's really not difficult and does a >> disservice to many, if not most, lute and guitar players by >> underestimating their abilities. >> Where I do believe modern tablature editions have a valued place >> is in the production of complete editions (with scholarly notes too) >> of a particular composer's work or of a particular work set by >> various composers (as well as Anon). John Robinson is, in my view, >> the principal torch bearer for much fine modern work in this line.. >> regards >> Martyn > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [2]http://gerbode.net/ 2. [3]mailto:tristanvonneum...@gmx.de 3. [4]mailto:hodgsonmar...@mail.cs.dartmouth.
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
Hi, everyone. Just my two farthings on this opinion fest: I'm perfectly comfortable reading both from facsimile and modern editions, French, Italian, or "Spanish", but only stumbling German. I don't find modern editions especially ugly, and many original manuscripts (the early ones especially) are hardly beautiful, at least to my eye, and I can say the same of manuscripts in my own hand. I remember the time before internet digitization, and I'm very glad they're available, but many library- or university-based online sources are cumbersome to access. I am, though, glad that the mid-20th century practice of printing tablature paired with grand staff a la CNRS (apologies to Arthur N.) has fallen out of favor. I admit there is a certain satisfaction to reading from original books, but when I need a copy of "Sweet Stay Awhile" stat for a rehearsal, [1]gerbode.net is where I turn. Please don't stop, Sarge! Best to all, Happy 2020, and keep playing, Chris. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 9:59 AM Tristan von Neumann <[2]tristanvonneum...@gmx.de> wrote: l don't see the big problem in reading facsimile tabs. I think this has more to do with sight-reading. I am lazy and don't want to practice pieces. But playing a lot of different pieces you understand certain similarities that become useful when sight-reading manuscripts. You just know how the piece goes, or at least from experience you play something that wouldn't be considered "wrong" where you have to guess quickly. So the encouragement should be: practice sight-reading. On 22.12.19 15:29, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: > Dear Martyn, > I must beg to differ on that one. I, personally, prefer to play from original tabs including German tab, but I have seen too many students, not advanced students of course, who gave up in front of a facsimile tab. > So, although I agree on the advantages of playing from original sources, I reiterate my grateful thanks to Sarge, Doug and others for making so many little known works available to all, encouraging them to become acquainted with the sources and to make their own research afterwards. > Best wishes > Jean-Marie > >> Le 22 déc. 2019 à 12:48, Martyn Hodgson <[3]hodgsonmar...@mail.cs.dartmouth.edu> a écrit : >> >> Dear Jean-Marie, >> One really doesn't need to be a 'professional' to read from early >> MSs and printed editions - it's really not difficult and does a >> disservice to many, if not most, lute and guitar players by >> underestimating their abilities. >> Where I do believe modern tablature editions have a valued place >> is in the production of complete editions (with scholarly notes too) >> of a particular composer's work or of a particular work set by >> various composers (as well as Anon). John Robinson is, in my view, >> the principal torch bearer for much fine modern work in this line.. >> regards >> Martyn > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://gerbode.net/ 2. mailto:tristanvonneum...@gmx.de 3. mailto:hodgsonmar...@mail.cs.dartmouth.edu 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
Welcome to the 21st Century! Reminds me of the SFEMS tee shirt: "SFEMS, for the latest in early music" --Sarge On 12/22/2019 14:42, Christopher Wilke wrote: I'm all about PDFs nowadays. Tablet + Bluetooth page turning pedal = never having to worry about page turns, music blowing away or bad lighting. I've got hours and hours and hours of music at hand, all perfectly organized with any single piece accessible in an instant at the touch of a finger. I almost never deal with paper if I don't have to. Chris [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, December 22, 2019, 8:02 AM, Wayne wrote: I really like facsimiles, but in performance situations, like outdoor weddings, there is a big advantage to performing from tablature that is easy to read from a distance, well organized, and can be put in a binder with plastic sheet protectors to keep the wind from blowing them around. Wayne To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. (sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website: http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got."
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
I'm all about PDFs nowadays. Tablet + Bluetooth page turning pedal = never having to worry about page turns, music blowing away or bad lighting. I've got hours and hours and hours of music at hand, all perfectly organized with any single piece accessible in an instant at the touch of a finger. I almost never deal with paper if I don't have to. Chris [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, December 22, 2019, 8:02 AM, Wayne wrote: I really like facsimiles, but in performance situations, like outdoor weddings, there is a big advantage to performing from tablature that is easy to read from a distance, well organized, and can be put in a binder with plastic sheet protectors to keep the wind from blowing them around. Wayne To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
l don't see the big problem in reading facsimile tabs. I think this has more to do with sight-reading. I am lazy and don't want to practice pieces. But playing a lot of different pieces you understand certain similarities that become useful when sight-reading manuscripts. You just know how the piece goes, or at least from experience you play something that wouldn't be considered "wrong" where you have to guess quickly. So the encouragement should be: practice sight-reading. On 22.12.19 15:29, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: Dear Martyn, I must beg to differ on that one. I, personally, prefer to play from original tabs including German tab, but I have seen too many students, not advanced students of course, who gave up in front of a facsimile tab. So, although I agree on the advantages of playing from original sources, I reiterate my grateful thanks to Sarge, Doug and others for making so many little known works available to all, encouraging them to become acquainted with the sources and to make their own research afterwards. Best wishes Jean-Marie Le 22 déc. 2019 à 12:48, Martyn Hodgson a écrit : Dear Jean-Marie, One really doesn't need to be a 'professional' to read from early MSs and printed editions - it's really not difficult and does a disservice to many, if not most, lute and guitar players by underestimating their abilities. Where I do believe modern tablature editions have a valued place is in the production of complete editions (with scholarly notes too) of a particular composer's work or of a particular work set by various composers (as well as Anon). John Robinson is, in my view, the principal torch bearer for much fine modern work in this line.. regards Martyn To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
Dear Martyn, I must beg to differ on that one. I, personally, prefer to play from original tabs including German tab, but I have seen too many students, not advanced students of course, who gave up in front of a facsimile tab. So, although I agree on the advantages of playing from original sources, I reiterate my grateful thanks to Sarge, Doug and others for making so many little known works available to all, encouraging them to become acquainted with the sources and to make their own research afterwards. Best wishes Jean-Marie > Le 22 déc. 2019 à 12:48, Martyn Hodgson > a écrit : > > Dear Jean-Marie, > One really doesn't need to be a 'professional' to read from early > MSs and printed editions - it's really not difficult and does a > disservice to many, if not most, lute and guitar players by > underestimating their abilities. > Where I do believe modern tablature editions have a valued place > is in the production of complete editions (with scholarly notes too) > of a particular composer's work or of a particular work set by > various composers (as well as Anon). John Robinson is, in my view, > the principal torch bearer for much fine modern work in this line.. > regards > Martyn > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
I'm just wondering why more people dont produce modern editions that
are hand written? I've made many transcriptions of keyboard music for
lute and for me all I need is blank tab paper and a hard pencil. I
compose too and my manuscripts are in the tradition of the old lute
composers. I should also add that I practice copperplate calligraphy
with a quill pen and produce lute music that way (so perhaps I'm just
weird! )
Susan
Original message
From: Jean-Marie Poirier
Date: 12/22/19 5:31 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: "Frank A. Gerbode, M.D."
Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
Subject: [LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
Although I have a marked preference for original manuscripts or
editions, we must keep in mind that not all players are professionals
used to reading original stuff from the sources, and some may be
discouraged by the same sources we enjoy reading from, we must pay a
well deserved tribute to the previous and very competent work of people
like Sarge Gerbode and Doug Town. Thanks to their generous attitude we
have a much easier access to lots and lots of music otherwise difficult
to find, very valuable resources for pro and amateur alike.
A very grateful thank you to them hoping they do keep up the good work!
Jean-Marie Poirier
> Le 22 déc. 2019 à 00:49, Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. a
écrit :
>
>  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
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
Dear Jean-Marie, One really doesn't need to be a 'professional' to read from early MSs and printed editions - it's really not difficult and does a disservice to many, if not most, lute and guitar players by underestimating their abilities. Where I do believe modern tablature editions have a valued place is in the production of complete editions (with scholarly notes too) of a particular composer's work or of a particular work set by various composers (as well as Anon). John Robinson is, in my view, the principal torch bearer for much fine modern work in this line.. regards Martyn On Sunday, 22 December 2019, 12:31:19 GMT, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: Although I have a marked preference for original manuscripts or editions, we must keep in mind that not all players are professionals used to reading original stuff from the sources, and some may be discouraged by the same sources we enjoy reading from, we must pay a well deserved tribute to the previous and very competent work of people like Sarge Gerbode and Doug Town. Thanks to their generous attitude we have a much easier access to lots and lots of music otherwise difficult to find, very valuable resources for pro and amateur alike. A very grateful thank you to them hoping they do keep up the good work! Jean-Marie Poirier > Le 22 déc. 2019 à 00:49, Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. <[1]sa...@gerbode.net> a écrit : > >  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
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
Although I have a marked preference for original manuscripts or editions, we must keep in mind that not all players are professionals used to reading original stuff from the sources, and some may be discouraged by the same sources we enjoy reading from, we must pay a well deserved tribute to the previous and very competent work of people like Sarge Gerbode and Doug Town. Thanks to their generous attitude we have a much easier access to lots and lots of music otherwise difficult to find, very valuable resources for pro and amateur alike. A very grateful thank you to them hoping they do keep up the good work! Jean-Marie Poirier > Le 22 déc. 2019 à 00:49, Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. a écrit : > > 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,
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
I agree, Weiss's hand is distinctive (as is that of many later
scribes and/or musicians) and surely tells us something
about how to interpret this wonderful music. . as well
as being a joy to read.
M.
On Sunday, 22 December 2019, 10:22:35 GMT, Susan Price
wrote:
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
Date: 12/22/19 3:10 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, "Frank A. Gerbode, M.D."
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.
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 Quarter
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
One example why a modern edition is better:
Marsh Lute Book.
It's a very beautiful and tidy manuscript, probably one of the tidiest ever.
But "c" and "e" are so often alike if you don't look closely.
Granted, you can play from it, but you will stumble a lot when
sight-reading.
On 22.12.19 11:22, Susan Price wrote:
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
Date: 12/22/19 3:10 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, "Frank A. Gerbode, M.D."
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.
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
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
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
Date: 12/22/19 3:10 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, "Frank A. Gerbode, M.D."
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.
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 source
[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. 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
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
Sarge 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. >\ As someone who has a peripheral go at doing this work I can also add to Sarge's list: 4. It is nerdy fun. Producing a document that the characteristics described -- readability, playabilty, clarity -- is a satisfaction in its own right; 5. Understanding. By going through a piece in such detail you get a somewhat different knowledge of the piece one that, certainly for a poor player like me, can really help in getting to learn the piece. 6. And, in doing this work, we can make what was once rare, the preserve of the rich, generally available to those wanting to learn. (This one is a touch more esotheric but an important motivator for me.) My $0.02... .. mark. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: modern lute editions
Sarge-- Because of the efforts of you and other editors, vast amounts of music are available to many of us who could never get at those MS's or original prints. Thanks to all of you who share your time, experience and knowledgeability to enhance the pleasure of the lute-playing (and -listening) community! Best regards to all for the holidays, Leonard Williams -Original Message- From: Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2019 7:47 pm Subject: [LUTE] modern lute editions 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
