-----Original Message-----
From: Alain Veylit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:30:32 -0700
Subject: Re: lute notation
>Alian wrote,.
>Once again, even though I agree that the Poulton edition (as well as
the CNRS and others) suffered from the limitations of t>he technology
of their time, the question of notation for guitar should be kept to
the guitar list, not the lute list, because it is >a guitarist's
problem.
> Alain
Alian,
I took the liberty of checking some of the archives and
noticed an emial of yours directing the lutenet members to an
interessting site of a fellow playing the 8 string guitar etc. I have
no real problem with hypocricy, we all display this fault from time to
time. I do find it rather unpleasent, to be corrected, and sensored by
you, in your rather pompous manner. While your at it, might you
mention to these fellows to halt there discussion of liquied contaners,
unless of course you find it more relavent to lutes than guitar.
Regaurds,
John Haskins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Dear Alain
> Your point too, would be well taken if it were in the context of
>this thread. If I understand the first couple emails that started this
>discussion. It was a valid point by Michael Thames as to the need for
>better editions of lute music for guitar, and sited Diana Poulton's
>work..... as how not to go about doing that.
>
> You point out the need to play renaissance lute music in the
>correct pitch of G. Yet have no problem reading Grand staff internet
>downloads of Weiss sonata 34 in D minor, when actually the correct
>pitch would be a half step lower C sharp minor, as the baroque lute is
>tunned to 415. You can't have your cake, and eat it too.
>
>Regards,
>John Haskins
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alain Veylit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>Sent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:04:51 -0700
>Subject: Re: Fwd: lute notation
>
> Your point would be well taken if Diana Poulton had produced a book
>for guitar players: quite correctly she indicates the correct pitch,
>not the transposition for guitar, ukulele or mouth harp. If you have a
>problem with the lute being tuned one third above the modern guitar,
>this is really not her fault.
> Part of the animosity comes from the fact that some people with
>limited knowledge seem to make sweeping statements about things they
>should first research for themselves. I am still trying to figure out
>what M. Thames means by "site-reading" BTW. Sounds either like an
>interesting and unexplored concept or the misspelling of a common
word.
> What do you mean when you say:
>
> all grand staff notation I've come across for Weiss, is written one
>half step higher than it really is
>
> I doubt that anyone would transcribe a Weiss suite from D to E flat
>just for the fun of it. Even if this were true - which it is not -
>notation is all about convention, and clarinet players are perfectly
>happy with having their parts written one full step from actual pitch.
>
> The bottom line is : if you want guitar music written for the
guitar, >there is plenty of it around. We, on this list, are concerned
with lute >music, not with the fact that some guitar players have
trouble reading >either tablature or notation. If you really want to
explore some >difficult notation, I would suggest De Visee's original
publications >for theorbo: in grand staff notation, with continuo
markings, and a >treble G clef on the third line. You can also explore
about 150 years >worth of Baroque guitar repertoire written in mixed
alfabeto and >regular notation.
> Alain
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: lutesn2
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:51:58 -0400
> >Subject: lute notation
> >
> > I tune into this list occasionally on the Internet. Following this
> >
>>thread has compelled me to comment on a few misconceptions.
>> >>
> >
> > With all due respect to Mr. Ness, I believe Stewart M Coy, has
used > >the right term for William Byrd's compositions when played on
the > >lute.... "intabulations" they are in no way "original" lute
pieces, by > >any stretch of the imagination. I don't even want to
begin to describe > >the textural difference in baroque keyboard music
by Couperin, as > >conceived for lute. Thank you Mr.M Coy for the
understated clearing up > >of this honest mistake by Mr.Ness. Although
Mr Ness's intentions I'm > >sure are well and good, he seems to be
reacting more from emotion, >than >intellect, as are most posting on
this topic, including Mr. >Thames, and >Howard Posner. Please, Mr.
Posner, name calling, and pig >references >should stop!
> >
> > I've tried to follow this thread back to the beginning. I feel a >
>certain frustration as well, with pitch notation in grand staff for >
>guitar. In particular Mr.Thammes reference to Diana Poulton's work.
>The >grand staff notation is written a third higher in her
> > " Complete Works of John Dowland", than can be played on the
guitar, > >thus requiring one to transcribe the intire book into a key
playable >on >the guitar, this kills any spontaneity one might
intitaily approach > >this wonderful body of work with. It is un
playable and not guitar > >friendly. If this then is not to be
considered " Keyboard notation" >and >is un playable on guitar, what
instrument would one play this on, >other >than guitar or keyboard?
> >
> > Next, we are faced with another perplexing problem with the
Baroque > >lute.... all grand staff notation I've come across for
Weiss, is > >written one half step higher than it really is. If the
purpose of > >grarnd staff notation is to accurately indicate the
pitch, and does >not >on the baroque lute, then it just becomes another
form of rather >fancy >tablature.
> > I would like to end this with my support for Mr. Thames. While
>Mr.Ness >is a valuable asset to the lute community, I hope in the
>future he will >think through his claims abit more before commiting
ink >to paper.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Haskins
> >
> > > >
>>________________________________________________________________________
>> >>
> > Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and > >
>>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>> >>
> >
> > Get your own free AIM(R) Mail account and become eligible to win
>daily >prizes, ending July 30, 2005. One lucky grand prize winner will
>even >drive away with a 2005 MINI(R) Cooper S.
> > http://cdn.channel.aol.com/aimmail/aim_mail.html?mail_footer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
>>________________________________________________________________________
>> >>
> >Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and > >
>>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>> >>
> >
> >Get your own free AIM(R) Mail account and become eligible to win
>daily >prizes, ending July 30, 2005. One lucky grand prize winner will
>even >drive away with a 2005 MINI(R) Cooper S.
> >http://cdn.channel.aol.com/aimmail/aim_mail.html?mail_footer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >To get on or off this list see list information at
> >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
> > >
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>
>Get your own free AIM(R) Mail account and become eligible to win
daily >prizes, ending July 30, 2005. One lucky grand prize winner will
even >drive away with a 2005 MINI(R) Cooper S.
>http://cdn.channel.aol.com/aimmail/aim_mail.html?mail_footer
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Get your own free AIM(R) Mail account and become eligible to win daily
prizes, ending July 30, 2005. One lucky grand prize winner will even
drive away with a 2005 MINI(R) Cooper S.
http://cdn.channel.aol.com/aimmail/aim_mail.html?mail_footer
