I vote for two staves. It is more accurate and scholarly, IMHO.
scholarly, ok; accurate?!? accuracy depends on the proofreader, between
two forms of staff notation I would think the single-staff would be more
likely to be accurate done by a human, but would expect no significant
difference
Giuliani, maybe, but not Sor.
more modern editions of Sor's music disagree, including F Noad. It is a
challenge to show three-part polyphony on one staff, but far from
impossible.
--
Dana Emery
To get on or off this list see list information at
Dana,
--- On Thu, 1/7/10, dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
From: dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Transcription
To: Ed Durbrow edurb...@sea.plala.or.jp
Cc: Bruno Correia bruno.l...@gmail.com, LuteNet list
lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
They don't read it, they just throw it on the scale :)
Best to drop out immediately, career wise :)
dt
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Bruno,
My opinion regarding theorbo notation is for one staff in bass clef. With
only ten frets on the neck, you'll never have to go higher then three lines for
the rare passages that go up that high; with nothing below the tenth course in
this particular book, you'll only have one ledger
But it is 10-course lute music, not theorbo.
JG
On 06/01/2010, at 12:07, [1]chriswi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Bruno,
My opinion regarding theorbo notation is for one staff in bass clef.
With only ten frets on the neck, you'll never have to go higher then
three lines for the
Hi, Bruno,
I've coincidentally been reacquainting myself with IHK recently and
I'd personally go for double staff transcription, mainly since I assume
most music profs, having at least some piano, are more comfortable with
it. I agree that transcription of Kapsperger for guitar
Bruno,
Oops, sorry! I obviously mis-read your message and thought you meant the
first theorbo book (this book uses 11 courses, anyway!). You clearly said lute
book. The two staves for lute music always seems a bit superfluous for me.
(Why do they do this? Is every single musicologist a
Well, I thought about it. BTW most transcriptions are in double staff..
Thanks for the suggestion.
2010/1/6 Christopher Stetson [1]cstet...@smith.edu
Hi, Bruno,
I've coincidentally been reacquainting myself with IHK recently and
I'd personally go for double staff
Hi, Bruno.
Congratulations on your work. It seems to me it would be a wonderful
dissertation.
First of all, I would not do just a bass clef notation, as this is
not for theorbo, but a 10 course lute. Secondly, I think in the
world of academia, the double staff notation, i.e. keyboard
Thank you very much Edward. I'll be working very hard to complete it
this year.
You are right about the double staff. John Griffiths has just given the
same advice.
Best wishes.
2010/1/6 Edward Martin [1...@gamutstrings.com
Hi, Bruno.
Congratulations on your
Dear Chris,
I Appreciate your comments. Read below please.
2010/1/6 [1]chriswi...@yahoo.com
Bruno,
Oops, sorry! I obviously mis-read your message and thought you
meant the first theorbo book (this book uses 11 courses, anyway!).
You clearly said lute book. The
still likely be frequently used/cited by guitarists.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
Behalf Of chriswi...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:19 AM
To: List LUTELIST; Bruno Correia
Subject: [LUTE] Re
Bruno:
The conventional two-stave keyboard transcription is probably the most
useful and appropriate format for academic purposes. If you want the
transcription to be user-friendly, you might follow Tim Crawford's lead
and limit the space between staves. I would take care if you
Guitarists can read tablature, so it doesn't seem worth making a
transcription into staff notation for them. For anyone else, I would
favour treble and bass clefs, which permits a much clearer texture than
a single staff does.
P
2010/1/6 Eugene C. Braig IV [1]brai...@osu.edu
Seems a legitimate point.
Best,
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
Behalf Of Peter Martin
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:50 AM
To: Lute list
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Transcription
Guitarists can read tablature, so
Peter,
That's exactly the conclusion I arrived. Treble and bass clefs seems to
be a general agreement.
Best.
2010/1/6 Peter Martin [1]peter.l...@gmail.com
Guitarists can read tablature, so it doesn't seem worth making a
transcription into staff notation for
Hi Ron,
2010/1/6 Ron Andrico [1]praelu...@hotmail.com
Bruno:
The conventional two-stave keyboard transcription is probably the most
useful and appropriate format for academic purposes.
So I think.
If you want the transcription to be user-friendly, you might follow Tim
Could anybody give his/her opinion about this issue:
At the moment I am analysing the Kapsperger 1611 lute book for my Doc.
dissertation. All the musical examples will be written with Django tab
writer adding (automatically) its transcription. My question is: should
the
Kapsberger's first book for lute rerquires a 11 course instrument (p. 28-29).
I'm just working on Kapsberger's instruments he used - a tricky question!
Am 06.01.2010 um 18:09 schrieb Bruno Correia:
Hi Ron,
2010/1/6 Ron Andrico [1]praelu...@hotmail.com
Bruno:
The conventional
Ron,
--- On Wed, 1/6/10, Ron Andrico praelu...@hotmail.com wrote:
The conventional two-stave keyboard
transcription is probably the most
useful and appropriate format for
academic purposes.
Sorry, but I disagree. Transcribing Kapsperger's music on two staves makes as
much sense as
Giuliani, maybe, but not Sor. He published his Fantaisie opus 7 on
two staves, with an Avertissement at the beginning to explain why this
was so much better than using a single treble-clef stave.
Although he abandoned the attempt for his other 62 opuses (opera?), I
think he was
: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:38 PM
To: Lute list
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Transcription
Giuliani, maybe, but not Sor. He published his Fantaisie opus 7 on
two staves, with an Avertissement at the beginning to explain why this
was so much better than using a single treble-clef stave
, January 06, 2010 4:38 PM
To: Lute list
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Transcription
Giuliani, maybe, but not Sor. He published his Fantaisie opus 7 on
two staves, with an Avertissement at the beginning to explain why this
was so much better than using a single treble-clef stave.
Although he
I vote for two staves. It is more accurate and scholarly, IMHO.
Economical? What, are you worrying about inconveniencing a few
electrons? Or is it the paper? How many copies do you plan to print?
My YEN2
On Jan 6, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Bruno Correia wrote:
Could anybody give
-
From: [3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
[mailto:[4]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
Behalf Of Peter Martin
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:38 PM
To: Lute list
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Transcription
Giuliani, maybe, but not Sor. He published his Fantaisie opus 7
on
two
The todays categories don't work for the decades from 1580 to 1620. It's a
period in which several experiments were undertaken. As far I know there are
only very vew persons who studied the instrumental development in this time:
Linda Sayce and Renato Meucci, f.ex.
So it's a field for deep
-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
Behalf Of Peter Martin
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:38 PM
To: Lute list
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Transcription
=A0 =A0Giuliani, maybe, but not Sor. =A0 He published his Fantaisie opus=
7 on
=A0 =A0two staves
28 matches
Mail list logo
