[VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play?
On 07/09/2010 14:14, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Dear Chris,
Thanks for this. I think what you mean by 'redundancy' are these
stroke/slashes against single notes following a chord - in which case
you do now indeed understand my position - sorry if I didn't make it
clearer earlier!
If the single notes are to be played alone (without any accompanying
chord) then the strokes/slashes are, indeed, often redundant - as in
the first full bar of La favorita (which I've also just discussed in
my reply to Stuart): the strokes after the 5, the 6 and the 3 are
redundant if there is no strumming since the rythmn is already given by
the flag above the stave. This led to questionning the meaning of these
marks - not only in this piece (discussed by F) but in many others eg
Balletto Pollaca where single notes are shown both with slashes and
flags AND with just flags.
I'm not sure I agree with you that a slash/stroke mark with a flag
ALWAYS require an obligatory strum but I certainly do think the
possibility of strumming (even partial - ie top courses in an upwards
stroke) cannot always be ruled out. And you'll see from my earlier
response to Stuart that, like you, I believe it can add to the rythmic
stresses of the music. The de Gallot Italianate example discussed
earlier is a good unequivocal example in another source.
Finally, one thing I've been thinking about is a sort of compromise:
could Foscarini be trying to indicate a dedillo type of index finger
stroke - this is of course very close to a small strum stroke and adds
a natural rythmic pulse to single note passages - rather similar to a
light partial strum in fact. But the difficulty here is that you'd
expect his description to include something about such an unusual
approach.
Martyn
If the discussion is still about Balletto Polacca, here it is:
[1]http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/26.jpg
There's a splodge in the middle of line one and here is a close-up.
[2]http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/26a.jpg
The use of a dedillo type stroke is mentioned in several sources for
the mandore. And at this sort of time. But they are French sources, not
Italian.
Stuart
--- On Tue, 7/9/10, Chris Despopoulos [3]
wrote:
From: Chris Despopoulos [4]
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play?
To: "Stuart Walsh" [5], "Martyn Hodgson"
[6]
Cc: "Monica Hall" [7], "Vihuelalist"
[8]
Date: Tuesday, 7 September, 2010, 13:37
Thanks Stuart for posting the manuscript. Thanks for your playing
as
well...
Looking at the manuscript, I'm trying to find the notorious
"doubled"
expression for a note... Namely, what is redundant, and hence opens
the question, why would the composer use redundant expressions for a
note?
The flags above the staff indicating duration are in no way
redundant... They would be there for rasgueado or punteado, because
they indicate how many strokes are in a measure (when the music
expresses measures), and how much time should be between strokes.
What
IS redundant is the expression of a NUMBER value along with a strum
mark. The existence of a number in the tab indicates a stroke, so
adding the strum mark is a second indication of the same stroke. Up
to
now I had misunderstood what Martyn was commenting on. So Martyn,
are
you saying that there should be no stroke mark if there is a number
on
a string? Because that is the only redundancy I can see.
As to *why* there would be a strum mark if there is also a number, I
can still maintain that it's to indicate up- vs down-strokes for the
individual notes. That is important -- especially so if you use
bordones. But even without bordones, up or down lends a variation
to
the pulse, and there's nothing trivial about that. Further, looking
at
the manuscript, I see that Foscarini calls for changes in the
up/down
pulse that I didn't initially hit upon from Monica's transcription.
I
wonder if Monica would consider adding in the strum maks for those
notes, or some other indication of up- vs down-stroke. But my point
remains -- even if you take a number as a single note only, the
expression of the single note and the strum direction are not
redundant
in my view.
Now if anything for the BORDONE argument, you could take the stroke
marks after the G as an argument in favor of bordones... Why insist
on
a down-stroke to start that figure, when it echos an earlier figure
that began with an up-stroke?. But to be honest, I have no appetite
for that argument! When the day comes that I put bordones on my
instr
[VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play?
Hi Martyn... I have comments interspersed below...
Cheers cud
__
From: Martyn Hodgson
To: Chris Despopoulos
Cc: Monica Hall ; Vihuelalist
; Stuart Walsh
Sent: Tue, September 7, 2010 9:14:16 AM
Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play?
Dear Chris,
Thanks for this. I think what you mean by 'redundancy' are these
stroke/slashes against single notes following a chord - in which case
you do now indeed understand my position - sorry if I didn't make it
clearer earlier!
If the single notes are to be played alone (without any accompanying
chord) then the strokes/slashes are, indeed, often redundant - as in
the first full bar of La favorita (which I've also just discussed in
my reply to Stuart): the strokes after the 5, the 6 and the 3 are
redundant if there is no strumming since the rythmn is already given by
the flag above the stave. This led to questionning the meaning of these
marks - not only in this piece (discussed by F) but in many others eg
Balletto Pollaca where single notes are shown both with slashes and
flags AND with just flags.
[cud] -- Well, my point is that the flags are not redundant at all.
The notes you point out are not redundantly expressed *because of the
flags*. Whether the music indicates a stroke mark or a number, the
flag is always necessary. The stroke mark gives no duration value, and
the flag gives no indication of how to strike the strings(s). What's
redundant is when a stroke mark and a number indicate the same note,
because either one alone can indicate that you strike the string(s).
Even so, the number tells you what note to play, but says nothing about
how to actually strike the string. (Well, that's partially true.
Ordinarily, numbers indicate punteado -- for Sanz they do, anyway. So
that's a specific technique for striking the strings that limits you to
one finger per string -- and I think Sanz even says you should use your
little finger for 5 notes punteado! So numbers do indicate a technique
for striking the string... and so rather than redundant, numbers and
strum marks would be conflicting. But I think that overcomplicates...
I think the idea is simply to lend the sensation of strumming to the
act of playing a single note.)
I'm not sure I agree with you that a slash/stroke mark with a flag
ALWAYS require an obligatory strum but I certainly do think the
possibility of strumming (even partial - ie top courses in an upwards
stroke) cannot always be ruled out. And you'll see from my earlier
response to Stuart that, like you, I believe it can add to the rythmic
stresses of the music. The de Gallot Italianate example discussed
earlier is a good unequivocal example in another source.
[cud] -- In no way do I intend that a stroke mark with a flag always
requires a strum. In fact, I'm not disagreeing with Monica at all...
I'm perfectly happy to play a single note in this case. I DO intend
that the sensation of the music must carry the strum sensation... It
must have a visceral feeling that for a guitarist would keep the right
hand in motion -- up/down. But that says nothing about how many
strings to play. On top of that, I found places in La Favorita where a
single-note upstroke with the thumb fell naturally under my hand. So
that would ask me to make a movement equivalent to a strum, and only
strike a single string. But I can't call that a strum -- by definition
a strum is more than one string.
BTW, I didn't get your reply to Stuart...
Finally, one thing I've been thinking about is a sort of compromise:
could Foscarini be trying to indicate a dedillo type of index finger
stroke - this is of course very close to a small strum stroke and adds
a natural rythmic pulse to single note passages - rather similar to a
light partial strum in fact. But the difficulty here is that you'd
expect his description to include something about such an unusual
approach.
[cud] -- Precisely! But my next question would be, is that indeed
unusual? I hope not, because I do it all the time. I find it much
easier for linear passages, much smoother on double courses, and much
more able to transmit the alternating up/down effect that I thought
music of the period required (for plucked instruments). If this is an
anomaly or is otherwise not historically acceptable, then I have lots
of relearning to do. (But I've done that before!)
Martyn
--- On Tue, 7/9/10, Chris Despopoulos
wrote:
From: Chris Despopoulos
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play?
To: "Stuart Walsh" , "Martyn Hodgson"
Cc: "Monica Hall
[VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play?
Dear Chris, Thanks for this. I think what you mean by 'redundancy' are these stroke/slashes against single notes following a chord - in which case you do now indeed understand my position - sorry if I didn't make it clearer earlier! If the single notes are to be played alone (without any accompanying chord) then the strokes/slashes are, indeed, often redundant - as in the first full bar of La favorita (which I've also just discussed in my reply to Stuart): the strokes after the 5, the 6 and the 3 are redundant if there is no strumming since the rythmn is already given by the flag above the stave. This led to questionning the meaning of these marks - not only in this piece (discussed by F) but in many others eg Balletto Pollaca where single notes are shown both with slashes and flags AND with just flags. I'm not sure I agree with you that a slash/stroke mark with a flag ALWAYS require an obligatory strum but I certainly do think the possibility of strumming (even partial - ie top courses in an upwards stroke) cannot always be ruled out. And you'll see from my earlier response to Stuart that, like you, I believe it can add to the rythmic stresses of the music. The de Gallot Italianate example discussed earlier is a good unequivocal example in another source. Finally, one thing I've been thinking about is a sort of compromise: could Foscarini be trying to indicate a dedillo type of index finger stroke - this is of course very close to a small strum stroke and adds a natural rythmic pulse to single note passages - rather similar to a light partial strum in fact. But the difficulty here is that you'd expect his description to include something about such an unusual approach. Martyn --- On Tue, 7/9/10, Chris Despopoulos wrote: From: Chris Despopoulos Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play? To: "Stuart Walsh" , "Martyn Hodgson" Cc: "Monica Hall" , "Vihuelalist" Date: Tuesday, 7 September, 2010, 13:37 Thanks Stuart for posting the manuscript. Thanks for your playing as well... Looking at the manuscript, I'm trying to find the notorious "doubled" expression for a note... Namely, what is redundant, and hence opens the question, why would the composer use redundant expressions for a note? The flags above the staff indicating duration are in no way redundant... They would be there for rasgueado or punteado, because they indicate how many strokes are in a measure (when the music expresses measures), and how much time should be between strokes. What IS redundant is the expression of a NUMBER value along with a strum mark. The existence of a number in the tab indicates a stroke, so adding the strum mark is a second indication of the same stroke. Up to now I had misunderstood what Martyn was commenting on. So Martyn, are you saying that there should be no stroke mark if there is a number on a string? Because that is the only redundancy I can see. As to *why* there would be a strum mark if there is also a number, I can still maintain that it's to indicate up- vs down-strokes for the individual notes. That is important -- especially so if you use bordones. But even without bordones, up or down lends a variation to the pulse, and there's nothing trivial about that. Further, looking at the manuscript, I see that Foscarini calls for changes in the up/down pulse that I didn't initially hit upon from Monica's transcription. I wonder if Monica would consider adding in the strum maks for those notes, or some other indication of up- vs down-stroke. But my point remains -- even if you take a number as a single note only, the expression of the single note and the strum direction are not redundant in my view. Now if anything for the BORDONE argument, you could take the stroke marks after the G as an argument in favor of bordones... Why insist on a down-stroke to start that figure, when it echos an earlier figure that began with an up-stroke?. But to be honest, I have no appetite for that argument! When the day comes that I put bordones on my instrument, I will still probably play this piece. A question I would ask Monica is whether she would admit experiments with diminution to lead into these passing single notes? Would that have been a practice at the time? Notation is and always has been an imperfect means to transmit what is inherently an experience in time (4 dimensions), reduced to 2-dimensional markings on paper. By my reading, the strum marks, the
[VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play?
Thanks Stuart for posting the manuscript. Thanks for your playing as well... Looking at the manuscript, I'm trying to find the notorious "doubled" expression for a note... Namely, what is redundant, and hence opens the question, why would the composer use redundant expressions for a note? The flags above the staff indicating duration are in no way redundant... They would be there for rasgueado or punteado, because they indicate how many strokes are in a measure (when the music expresses measures), and how much time should be between strokes. What IS redundant is the expression of a NUMBER value along with a strum mark. The existence of a number in the tab indicates a stroke, so adding the strum mark is a second indication of the same stroke. Up to now I had misunderstood what Martyn was commenting on. So Martyn, are you saying that there should be no stroke mark if there is a number on a string? Because that is the only redundancy I can see. As to *why* there would be a strum mark if there is also a number, I can still maintain that it's to indicate up- vs down-strokes for the individual notes. That is important -- especially so if you use bordones. But even without bordones, up or down lends a variation to the pulse, and there's nothing trivial about that. Further, looking at the manuscript, I see that Foscarini calls for changes in the up/down pulse that I didn't initially hit upon from Monica's transcription. I wonder if Monica would consider adding in the strum maks for those notes, or some other indication of up- vs down-stroke. But my point remains -- even if you take a number as a single note only, the expression of the single note and the strum direction are not redundant in my view. Now if anything for the BORDONE argument, you could take the stroke marks after the G as an argument in favor of bordones... Why insist on a down-stroke to start that figure, when it echos an earlier figure that began with an up-stroke?. But to be honest, I have no appetite for that argument! When the day comes that I put bordones on my instrument, I will still probably play this piece. A question I would ask Monica is whether she would admit experiments with diminution to lead into these passing single notes? Would that have been a practice at the time? Notation is and always has been an imperfect means to transmit what is inherently an experience in time (4 dimensions), reduced to 2-dimensional markings on paper. By my reading, the strum marks, the duration marks, and the numbers, in conjunction, inform the gestures I make with my instrument. I see no controversey in that. cud __ From: Stuart Walsh To: Martyn Hodgson Cc: Monica Hall ; Vihuelalist Sent: Tue, September 7, 2010 5:52:15 AM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play? On 07/09/2010 08:33, Martyn Hodgson wrote: >Hmmm.. > >Well you may not read this Monica but someone might who can enlighten >us as to why Foscarini in particular uses two distinct notations for IN >THE SAME PIECE if they are to be played in precisely the same way! And >no, you haven't really explained this since the idea that flags do not >'indicate the rhythm' satisfactorily is simply not true. > >Martyn This is quite a tortuous thread. I don't think we should get too cross with each other for not meticulously reading other people's messages. I've noticed in other discussions that some things I've written obviously haven't been read by some other contributors. And when I write something I often haven't meticulously read the relevant message I'm replying too. (Like now!) Martyn, are you talking about La Favorita on p.60? This: [1]http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/Favorita.jpg (Surely Monica has given her response to this. She claims it's a result of an evolving notation; mature 'mixed notation' hadn't been invented yet!) Monica's interpretation of this piece - and discussion of the issues: (page 36 - bit page 55 of the pdf) [2]http://www.tinyurls.co.uk/Z11810 Anyway, if it La Favorita, it's quite clear that it's not at all clear: no bar lines, no indication that the first chord is,or is not, the first beat of the bar etc. Monica's interpretation and transcription of this piece seems very convincing. Here's a very rough and ready go at the first section (16 bars, too!) on a very poor instrument (the single notes don't shine out at all) and an instrument with bourdons. [3]http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/STE-015.mp3 Monica has made a tremendou
[VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play?
Thanks for this Stuart.
I was rather surprised by Monica; particularly since I've frequently
praised her work and we were, so I thought, simply seeking a scholarly
explanation to fit all the principal evidence. As you say,
misunderstandings can easily arise during a long thread by not reading
everything written.
The problem still remains as summarised below and best seen by looking
at the Balletto Pollaca on p.19 (moved on from La Favorita) where
'single' note passages are notated in two distinct ways which I suggest
may indicate different ways of playing and Monica believes are always
meant to be played exactly the same (if I understand her aright). I'm
not at all convinced that the use of different notation to achieve an
identical outcome is a result of Foscarini not understanding how to
write his tablature.
Also note particularly in the Balletto Pollaca that both halves start
off with strummed chords with some single passing notes with these
slashes/strokes and then half way through each half we have passages of
quavers notated by ordinary tablature flags. Foscarini also seems
quite able to make other subtle distinctions in his tablature elsewhere
in this (and other) pieces. For example, look at the penultimate line:
we get a sequence from the + chord (down/quaver up strum) plucked
quaver open 4th course etc, but after the D chord the first quaver is
plucked not strummed. In short I think this sort of sophistication
indicates he knew what he was doing and why I believe we still need to
understand why he notates some passages differently from others if
they were to be executed in exactly the same way.
regards
Martyn
PS. I do think strumming can make a significant difference to the sound
but this isn't the reason for pursuing this line: I simply want to see
if there's an explanation which fits all the principal. But I did
agree with Monica in an earlier exchange about too much arbitrary
thrashing about and kitchen sinkism in a recent broadcast
PPS You ask ' I don't know how you would do that with bar 1' I
presume this is the M3 chord with a stroke single 5 6 then 3 back to
M3.
IF it were to be strummed, one way to execute it is: down strum the
full M3 chord; squeeze the little (4th) finger back to fret 5 (keeping
the others in place) execute a partial ('discriminatory') upwards strum
across top three courses; back to fret 6 for a full down strummed M3;
lift the 3rd finger (keeping others in place) and partial upwards strum
the top 3 courses; then back to the full M3 chord with a down strum.
You'll also see that the use of heavier downstrums and lighter upstrums
also adds additional rythmic stress which I suggest also fits well with
these dance settings.
M
--- On Tue, 7/9/10, Stuart Walsh wrote:
From: Stuart Walsh
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play?
To: "Martyn Hodgson"
Cc: "Monica Hall" , "Vihuelalist"
Date: Tuesday, 7 September, 2010, 10:52
On 07/09/2010 08:33, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
> Hmmm..
>
> Well you may not read this Monica but someone might who can
enlighten
> us as to why Foscarini in particular uses two distinct notations
for IN
> THE SAME PIECE if they are to be played in precisely the same
way! And
> no, you haven't really explained this since the idea that flags
do not
> 'indicate the rhythm' satisfactorily is simply not true.
>
> Martyn
This is quite a tortuous thread. I don't think we should get too cross
with each other for not meticulously reading other people's messages.
I've noticed in other discussions that some things I've written
obviously haven't been read by some other contributors. And when I
write something I often haven't meticulously read the relevant message
I'm replying too. (Like now!)
Martyn, are you talking about La Favorita on p.60? This:
[1]http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/Favorita.jpg
(Surely Monica has given her response to this. She claims it's a result
of an evolving notation; mature 'mixed notation' hadn't been invented
yet!)
Monica's interpretation of this piece - and discussion of the issues:
(page 36 - bit page 55 of the pdf)
[2]http://www.tinyurls.co.uk/Z11810
Anyway, if it La Favorita, it's quite clear that it's not at all
clear: no bar lines, no indication that the first chord is,or is not,
the first beat of the bar etc. Monica's interpretation and
transcription of this piece seems very convincing. Here's a very rough
and ready go at the first section (16 bars, too!) on a very poor
instrume
[VIHUELA] Re: Why two notations for the same play?
On 07/09/2010 08:33, Martyn Hodgson wrote: Hmmm.. Well you may not read this Monica but someone might who can enlighten us as to why Foscarini in particular uses two distinct notations for IN THE SAME PIECE if they are to be played in precisely the same way! And no, you haven't really explained this since the idea that flags do not 'indicate the rhythm' satisfactorily is simply not true. Martyn This is quite a tortuous thread. I don't think we should get too cross with each other for not meticulously reading other people's messages. I've noticed in other discussions that some things I've written obviously haven't been read by some other contributors. And when I write something I often haven't meticulously read the relevant message I'm replying too. (Like now!) Martyn, are you talking about La Favorita on p.60? This: http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/Favorita.jpg (Surely Monica has given her response to this. She claims it's a result of an evolving notation; mature 'mixed notation' hadn't been invented yet!) Monica's interpretation of this piece - and discussion of the issues: (page 36 - bit page 55 of the pdf) http://www.tinyurls.co.uk/Z11810 Anyway, if it La Favorita, it's quite clear that it's not at all clear: no bar lines, no indication that the first chord is,or is not, the first beat of the bar etc. Monica's interpretation and transcription of this piece seems very convincing. Here's a very rough and ready go at the first section (16 bars, too!) on a very poor instrument (the single notes don't shine out at all) and an instrument with bourdons. http://www.pluckedturkeys.co.uk/STE-015.mp3 Monica has made a tremendous effort in trying to make these pieces playable. (I've been playing other instruments recently and I'd forgotten just how difficult some of these guitar chords can be. (Especially Ms)) Anyway, Martyn, I think you are saying that some of these single notes, notated with a strum (and/or rhythm sign) could or should be played along with the preceding chord. I don't know how you would do that with bar 1 (Monica's edition) but it would be easy to do at bar 6, 7 and 12. But Monica says that Foscarini expressly says not to in one his rules (mentioning La Favorita) and thereby establishing a principle. Either way, it's not gong to make a huge difference, is it? Stuart --- On Mon, 6/9/10, Monica Hall wrote: From: Monica Hall Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: Partial strums in Foscarini (was Foscarini/Gallot) To: "Martyn Hodgson" Cc: "Vihuelalist" Date: Monday, 6 September, 2010, 16:29 I am afraid I am not prepared to waste any more time arguing about this. If you think you know better than anyone else you can translate the Italian into English yourself. The term he uses is "botte" which means strokes. I have already explained why he is inconsistent in his use of note values. Corbetta also puts in note values as well as strokes. As do many of the earlier books. The reason why I lose my cool is because there are some people on this list who are unable to admit that they are ever wrong and try to impose their views regardless. What do you expect me to do? Turn round and say "Oh yes - I think you are right" after having given the matter a lot of thought and played much of the music. I find that patronising. I am not going to follow Lex and storm off the list but I am going to take a break. I have better things to do with my time. Monica - Original Message - From: "Martyn Hodgson" <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> To: "Monica Hall"<[2]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> Cc: "Vihuelalist"<[3]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 4:00 PM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Partial strums in Foscarini (was Foscarini/Gallot) > > >Well You've given the translation before (and I presume it is 100% >unequivocal in referring to the relevant slashes rather than flags in >their respective places in the piece on p 60?) and whilst I noted what >seems to be being said, the real problem remains that in some pieces he >notates these 'single' notes in two different ways - as already >mentioned in the Balletto Polacco page 19 for example. > >If the slash/stroke is to be applied so universally as you suggest (ie >he expects this specific rule to be applied generally in all his >pieces) why does he bother to show 'single' note quavers in two >distinct ways in the same piece? You say that just flags alone doesn't >'indicate the rhythm' and imply that the slashes/strokes do, but it is >really perfectly clear with just flags above the system - in particular >compare the opening of both first and second halves with their quaver >slashes
