Dear David, You are right to say that you could change the pitch of the tablature (i.e. use different sizes of lute). That would work as well as changing the pitch of the voice. Something has to change, so it could be either voice or lute. The trouble is, it is more tempting to think that the lute needs changing, because tablature doesn't specify pitch as staff notation does. In the past people saw the staff notation as sacred.
One song which confirms that the singer needs to transpose comes in Robert Dowland's _A Musicall Banquet_ (London, 1610). There may be more songs, I can't remember. The cantus is in D minor with one flat in the key signature. If the lute is a lute in G, the tablature is in C minor. Which is correct? Answer: the lute, because there is also a separate bass part with lots of flats in the key signature for C minor. In other words, the two parts in staff notation do not match. Now, if it is convenient for the cantus singer to have a transposing part, why doesn't the bass singer have a transposing part too? The reason, I think, is because the bass part (which has words) may be sung or played on a bass viol. A viol player would not thank you for a transposing part, so the bass stays in C minor. The bass singer just has to get on with all the flats. Anyway, my point is that the apparent bitonality of the two parts in staff notation confirms that it is the cantus which needs to be transposed. The rubric for the lutenist to give the singer his first note is just a way of sorting out what pitch the singer is to sing in relation to the lute. It doesn't matter whether this is a high pitch (little lute) or low pitch (big lute). They just need to know how to match up their separate parts. I'm sorry to be so predictable on the "we've discussed it before". Part of me says, "Don't say that", because it may be seen as a put-down to people new to the List. I never mean it like that. If we have discussed something before, it's unfair on those who read it to keep being sent the same information, yet I don't want people who missed it first time round to miss out altogether. I reason with myself that if someone really wants to follow it up, they can dig it out of the archives. By the way, if you can't find your way round the archives, I'm happy to send you a copy off-list, as long as I can find it. It's usually easy to find old threads if they have sensible titles; it's virtually impossible to find them if the title doesn't give a clue to the content of the thread. I can usually find the old threads which I contributed to myself, because I can list all the messages according to Sender, and all mine are then together. Then I flick through my messages (which I can usually remember pretty well), and that leads me on to what other people wrote. The trouble is, I've sent in so many messages now, there's a lot to wade through. It's gone 9.30 pm. Time to go to the pub. All the best, Stewart. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Rastall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Airs de Cour > 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 >
