Dear Stewart, You wrote:
> ...The lute stays the same; the voice transposes. > > The key signature for the singer will be either one flat or no flat, > instead of a large block of flats for distant keys like F minor. The > music is written this way to make it easier for the singer to read. > > I know of just two exceptions: one is in Pisador (1552), and the > other is a late 17th-century English song with tablature for > theorbo. In both these songs the singer has a transposing part where > the key signature has two flats. > > There are hundreds of songs (probably thousands) where the voice > part needs to transpose to match the pitch of the lute. The earliest > examples I can think of for this practice are in Bossinensis (1509 > and 1511). Schlick followed soon after in 1512. Off the back of my > head I think of Verdelot (1536), Phalese (1553), Edward Paston's Lbl > Add 31992, the Turpyn Book of Lute Songs, Robert Dowland's _A > Musicall Banquet (1610). There are many more, particularly in France > with books of airs de cour in the first half of the 17th century. When you say that "the voice part needs to transpose to match the pitch of the lute," you are telling me something I never thought was the case! I always thought it was the other way around: that the voice part was etched in stone, and the lutenist had to be able to supply a lute tuned at an appropriate pitch to match it. Surely one could use either approach, if one has the appropriate lute to hand? > Where transposition is the order of the day, there is a rubric, or > tablature letter or number, to give the singer his first note. But wouldn't that first note depend upon the tuning of the lute? > This question has been discussed on the List before from time to > time. Stewart, how come I knew you were going to say that? :-) :-) :-) Okay, so I wasn't listening the first time...although I do recall that thread. Regards, David
