Dear Leonard,
I'm sure you are right about the word "cifra" - I have noticed since
this thread started that other vihuela books use the word.It's still
interesting that flamenco players use the same term today.
I agree too with your point about the difficulty of much music
in 16th century printed tablatures. In this context it's important
to think of "amateur" in the sense of "not professional" and not
with the connotation of "lacking in proficiency."
It's very interesting (at least to me!) to reflect on the end users
that 16c printed tablatures were intended for. A good deal of
Dalza's music, for example, is not what we would think of as elementary,
yet he
very specifically says in his book that he has only included "pieces
that are easy and pleasing to beginners, avoiding difficult pieces
that satisfy those knowledgeable in the art."
The inclusion in Petrucci's lute books of the rudiments of tablature
"for those who do not sing" is a further indicator that at least some
of the users were expected not to be professional musicians.
It seems reasonably clear from the evidence we have that there
were enough amateur players with the money to buy books and
sufficient leisure to learn to play the lute to justify the cost and effort
of publishing the music. How well could they play? At least some
of them must have been very good, but perhaps not all. But lots
of us today have music on our shelves that is beyond our
means to perform well. And most music shops today sell books
with the guitar solos of Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton that many
of their purchaser's will never master.
It seems likely to me that the bulk of 16th century lute publications
were aimed at amateurs, but that fortunately for us, the composers
seem not to have "dumbed down" their music. Surely professional
players then were expected to play their own music? But that's my
guess - does anyone know of evidence for or against this?
Best wishes,
Denys
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leonard Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Names of composers (Was: Vihuela)
> It's always been my understanding that cifra is very much a standard
> form of notation for flamenco players. A relative of mine was for many
> years a close friend of Pepe Martinez who was one of the great flamenco
> guitarists of the last century. I have seen examples of his cifras, which
> were indeed in this "Spanish" form of notation
I believe "cifra" is simply older Spanish for "tablature". Mudarra
included in the title of his
Tres Libros (1546) "musica en cifras para vihuela", and he published in
Italian style tab (complete with
rhythm flags) for vihuela and 4-course guitar.
>All of this I think supports the concept that rhythmic notation was added
to lute >tablature for the
benefit of amateurs.
IMHO, not much of Mudarra is very "amateurish"; his "fantasias
faciles" are not.
Leonard Williams
[]
(_)
~
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denys Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Names of composers (Was: Vihuela)
> Dear Stewart & all,
> It's always been my understanding that cifra is very much a standard
> form of notation for flamenco players. A relative of mine was for many
> years a close friend of Pepe Martinez who was one of the great flamenco
> guitarists of the last century. I have seen examples of his cifras, which
> were
> indeed in this "Spanish" form of notation. What fascinated me the most
> was the absence of rhythm signs which seemed to me to be a direct
> parallel to those early lute sources that have the same feature. As I
> understand
> it the basic forms in flamenco are fixed, so there is no need to explain
to
> a professional player how an Alegrias or Soleares should go - the artistry
> is in the way in which it is embellished. The same must surely have been
> true
> for a lutenist playing a Pavana or Saltarello at the time when the
Thibault
> manuscript was compiled. All of this I think supports the concept that
> rhythmic notation was added to lute tablature for the benefit of
amateurs.
> It's very temting to speculate that there is some sort of unbroken thread
> that
> links the modern flamenco tradition to the lute & vihuela in the 16th
> century.
> Someone recently gave me an early recording of Sabicas which included a
> "Caleta" - which immediately made me think of Dalza's Calatas. The link
was
> only
> in the name and there were not any musical similarities, but food for
> though all the same.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Denys
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Names of composers (Was: Vihuela)
>
>
> Dear Göran, Antonio, et al,
>
> Somehow I don't think "Valencian" would catch on, in spite of its
> excellent credentials. Milan's system is widely used today, of
> course, for many different kinds of music. I would be interested to
> know when it was first used in more recent times. I have a
> collection of Spanish flamenco music for guitar: Ivor Mairants,
> _Flamenco Guitar_ (London: Latin-American Music Publishing Co.,
> 1958). The music is presented in staff notation parallel with Milan
> tablature. Surely there must be earlier examples. Ivor Mairants
> calls his tablature "Cifra", suggesting that the system was already
> firmly established in Spain. If so, there may yet be a good case for
> calling it Spanish tablature.
>
> One book not yet mentioned in the present discussion is
> Barberiis'_Libro Decimo_ (Venice, 1549), which contains four short
> pieces for 4-course guitar in Milan tablature. Since these pieces
> are not as well known as Milan's vihuela pieces, I reproduce the
> first few bars of the first one. Remember the monospaced font (e.g.
> Courier).
>
> |\ |\ |\ |\ |
> | |\ | |\ |
> |. | | | |
> =3==2=|=0=3=|=2=0=|===2=|=5=======|=2=|=
> =0==.=|===.=|=3===|=====|=2=======|=3=|=
> =0====|=====|=0===|=3===|=2===0=2=|=2=|=
> =0====|=====|=0===|=.===|===4===.=|=0=|=
>
> Presumably the first note of bar 4 should be a line higher. The four
> crotchets in bar 5 look as if they should be minims. the original
> note values were notated as minims and crotchets, not rhythm flags,
> as here.
>
> My preference is still to call this notation Spanish tablature, but
> I have an open mind, and would like to know more.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Stewart.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G.R. Crona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Names of composers (Was: Vihuela)
>
> thanks very much for setting us straight with your informative mail.
> What
> I'd like to know, is why Milan/Valencian/Spanish tablature, only got
> famous
> and completely took over the plucked string theatre in the
> mid-1900's?
>
> Göran
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Antonio Corona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 15. desember 2003 08:29
> Subject: Re: Names of composers (Was: Vihuela)
>
> | I believe we should not dismiss the possibility that
> | Milan`s system of tablature might have been an
> | offshoot of Neapolitan tab. There were strong ties
> | between the Aragonese and Valencian courts and Naples
> | which was also a Spanish possession. Besides, an
>
> | Bearing this in mind, and
> | despite all the differences between the Marineo Siculo
> | fragment and Milan's tab, a case might be made for
> | calling tablature with the upper line for the first
> | string and "0" for the open string "Valencian".
>
> | Antonio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
