In defense of Michael Thames, and in defense of logic. Arrangement is a particular interference with the piece of music. I spent the weekend at the Somerset Harp Festival and was able to buy the "Bunting" book (of 1840) in facsimile. Bunting arranged the old Irish harp music, that he had collected by going from county to county after being the scribe for the 1792 Belfast Festival. He arranged the pieces for "piano forte" as he felt the old Celtic harp was disappearing, and the music had to be preserved. I will soon be "transcribing" much of that music back into harp friendly arrangements (the piano is quite chromatic, the harp is diatonic with the lever changes possible - but the old harp that Bunting described had no levers).
Transcription means just that, a change of a form into another. But if I take an old tune, medieval Europe or medieval Scotland, that it written in French tab for the lute, and then turn it into stave notation for the harp, and then make some modifications (fitting the song) that make it better for the harp - Am I Trascribing or am I Arranging? Or if I do it in reverse, and take the staves to the tab? Am I transcribing or arranging. I bought a book today, at the harp festival. I have a 26x2 double strung harp. The book I bought is for 26 string single course harps (the writer is an old friend, and a fine cross strung harpist, and I've corrected his original book). Am I arranging when I play off his arrangments, or would I be transcribing if I were to set his piecec to the double strung harp (which I play and he doesn't). This thread was too detailed for me, but at a fast scan I think Michael is correct, with all due reverence to Arthur's opinion. It comes back to "original intent", a great canard that will soon be bandied about in the recent nomination to the US Supreme Court. I've always felt that J.S. Bach was a covert jazz player, and that he would have loved the Swingle Singer's skat version of the Brandenburgs. Too much detail from Arthur for me to read, the individual composers an their instruments. Be it transcription or arrangement (the latter requiring a bit of modification to the instrument) the music is there. There is nothing sacred about a tune as played on a particular instrument, it was probably played on another in a different form before, but just not printed. The lute is a relatively late entrant into medieval music, although quite dominant in the renaissance. And having said this I can't see the correction of Michael T, as it all fits what Arthur has said. Fit the music to the instrument, play the song as it can be played. play the whistle or the hautboy, the psaltery or the harp, or the lute. I see no argument here. Other than a silly one between Transcription and Arrangement. Not mutually exclusive. Michael had it right. Transcribe from notation to notation. Transpose when using fixed key notition (as with classic staves). (Then one could also transcribe, but that is piling on). Or arrange, when one wants to make the best simulation of the original sound on another instrument. But don't be too damned sure that your instrument is the original. Yesterday I discussed a 1625 Straloch lute book piece with a harpist, who knew the same piece for the harp. The harp is far older in Scotland than the lute (and older than the lute, as a lute, in Europe). Which song/arrangement is older. Which is the transcription/rearrangement? I have no idea. And nor does anyone else unless they have specifics, which are available but rare. Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
