Peter Martin wrote:
> Yes, it is very characteristic of lute intabulations that they fill in
> the space of long vocal notes, either by repeating the note or
> embellishing. Spinacino does both plentifully in the Benedictus de
> Isaac. This must be to make up for the lute's lack of sustain.
>
> In the Lute Society of America journal a few years ago there was an
> article comparing six different intabulations of Mille Regrets
> (Narvaez, Gerle, Neusidler etc). Every one of the six repeats the
> opening chord on the half bar.. Looks like a widespread practice.
>
> P
>
>
This is exactly my concern about the plucked-trio hypothesis. Holding a
single note for four bars (even in a consort situation) goes completely
against the grain of lute practice. It's not what plucked instruments do.
>
> 2007/2/12, Stuart Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
>
> Many thanks for this reply, Sean.
>
> I've got lots of help on this dark area of plucked activity from
> you ,
> and Denys and James Stimpson and others. Your input is much
> appreciated.
>
> You say you'd like to see an argument against the plucked trio
> hypothesis. That's why I'd like to see what someone like David
> Fallows
> thinks - i.e. someone with detailed knowledge and experience of the
> sources and the period (and the alternatives).
>
> Anyway it's the long sustained notes that often occur that make me
> wonder whether this is really plucked instrument music; rather than
> music which plucked instruments might have played. I know (and Jon
> Banks
> says) you can re-strike the notes. And in some of the Faenza pieces
> (admittedly earlier, and only possibly for plucked instruments) the
> instrumental version's tenor is often re-struck on long notes.
>
> But take for example: Isaac's Benedictus which Jon Banks has used in
> several places as an example (and number one, in the Lute Society
> publication) - bar 34 in the lowest voice. The Bb lasts four bars.
> Even
> at a brisk pace, a very brisk pace or an outright gallop, a single
> plucked note isn't going to last four bars. So why write it? Banks is
> claiming that this music is actually, specifically written for plucked
> instruments. Why didn't Isaac put in a rest for a couple of bars
> or why
> didn't he repeat the note - rather than let it hang there inaudibly.
>
> Maybe musicians of the time both vocalised the notes and played them
> instrumentally (so both contestants in the modern debate: all-vocal
> versus instrumental performance would be satisfied!). After all, Jon
> Banks insists that this music is for a learned bunch of
> singer-players.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I wasn't only thinking of the recercars. The Lute News
> supplement has
> >> published some reconstructions of Pesaro by John Robinson
> including,
> >> for
> >> example, a long sprawling Bassadanza which doesn't seem to make
> a lot
> >> of
> >> sense.
> >>
> >
> > Dear Stuart,
> > From our vantage point I'd say most of the Bassadanza settings are
> > sprawling and, at times, nonsensical but it's being in so many
> sources
> > we have to put it somewhere in our understanding of the music.
> We look
> > at Spin's setting and it seems to go on forever with a seeming
> relation
> > with the Spagna (see the Otto Gombosi chapter on his study of
> > Capirola). What, indeed, is the purpose of this music?
> >
> >
> >> But I'm still sceptical. Why has it taken 500 years for someone to
> >> reveal this repertoire? As Jon admits on p.161, "it would be
> convenient
> >> if a wealth of literary and iconographical evidence could be
> produced"
> >> to support the plucked-trio thesis. And there isn't.
> >>
> >
> > There are a few knowns and many unknowns. We see iconography showing
> > lute in consort and the only consort music extant are the sources of
> > many single line pieces, eg. the Odhecatons, Segovia, Fl. 229 etc.
> > Often these are from manuscripts lacking all texts (often, too, the
> > foreign titles are so mangled that we can be certain they were only
> > titles to instrumental texts). That leads us to believe they were
> > instrumentally based.
> >
> > Now, why should we assume they _could_ have been played on a
> plectrum
> > trio? One, simply because that it works. Of course it isn't
> compelling
> > enough to say they _would_ have played it this way but we do
> know from
> > iconographic sources and written accounts that there were many
> ways to
> > instrumentalize a piece of music and reasons to choose this
> arrangement
> > or that. In an era when one couldn't just "turn it up" the
> easier way
> > would be to choose the instrments to do so. Outdoors? A large
> occasion?
> > Shawms and sackbuts and maybe doubled parts if necessary. Medium
> > volume? The viol consort is said to have made its debut about
> the late
> > 1490's. And, of course, the wind consort too. And finally if you
> want
> > to cut down on the noise or have something to talk over, the
> lute trio.
> > Quieter still and more intimate would be the lute duo or the
> soloist.
> >
> > There is another angle too to this. A court would get rather
> tired of
> > hearing the same pieces played identically and this is where the
> > intimate setting and the many variations on pieces become more
> > efficient. A competent luter who could play a decorated counterpoint
> > would be an asset to a small consort. And his job would be the more
> > secure if he could also play the soloist if needs be. When I
> look at
> > the ricercars of Bossenensis, Capirola and Spinacino, I still
> get the
> > feeling of a counterpunctualist being his own tenorista too (but
> > without having to agree on anything in advance). Adding a creative
> > lutenist to a consort certainly increases the varietal possibilities
> > but it had generally be a lute consort or his talents are
> wasted. When
> > we look at the varieties of long involved pieces like the
> Tandernaken
> > the lute (and its consort) makes a lot of sense. (Btw, I hope JB
> will
> > include Tandernaken in Volume II).
> >
> > Getting back to the Bassadanza, there are times when one may want to
> > have the music drift into the background and _not_ have to pay
> > attention to it. Just an occasional drift into a different
> tempo, mode
> > or character is enough to keep it going. At times like this
> we're not
> > interested in the counterpoint, or the genius behind it. All we
> want is
> > lute's texture in the room and the fewer starts and stops the
> better. I
> > may be alone in this but I don't think all music should be
> > purpose-driven. I remember hearing the Sex Pistols ala 101
> Strings in a
> > supermarket in Japan.
> >
> > And no, this doesn't support the notion of lute trios but let's
> hammer
> > at it from a different angle again. If you were employing a fixed
> > number of musicians for your court, wouldn't it be the most
> efficient
> > to hire those whose talents are the most versatile? And then I
> notice
> > that the violas da mano and de arco so close in design, tuning
> and (if
> > we accept the possibilities of the lute trio) repertory. I would
> think
> > the musician who learns the bowed and plucked vihuela would be as
> > valuable as the lutenist who makes his solo instrument the center of
> > his study. Thus a person versatile in instruments _and_ volume
> is even
> > more efficient in choice.
> >
> > Why do we see the bowed consort so much more prevelant than the
> plucked
> > for 500 years? It's obvious to me that the bowed consort _never_
> went
> > out of favor. When musicologists over the last century and a
> half went
> > looking at the consort of this period they simply saw the bowed
> > instruments, found the rep of the day and considered that the
> purpose
> > of the instrumental consort. The same could be said of the winded
> > instruments. But the lute has a broken past up to the present and
> > almost everything we know of it has had to be pieced together.
> If there
> > was a lute consort it would need to be argued for. And this is
> what JB
> > is doing.
> >
> > And this is where I need to stop since I haven't read his book. In a
> > sense I feel like a certain mathematician who says there isn't
> enough
> > space in this margin to prove what I want to say. By the way,
> I'd love
> > to see an argument against lute trios.
> >
> > I'm glad, Stuart, you're taking this seriously enough to do it
> and see
> > for yourself. It's a wonderful repertory that only barely made
> it into
> > the age of print and then no further. But up to that point it
> had found
> > many forms for expression both in vocal forms --I'm constantly
> amazed
> > at the permeability between the liturgical and secular uses of the
> > _same_ musics--, the instruments available and that no two mss. are
> > alike. Or ficta! The variable liberties that could be taken w/
> the most
> > popular tunes (say, De tous biens playne) far exceed what was
> ever done
> > with _any_ piece of Dowland's. (What remained comparable was the
> > various reworkings of the 4-part chanson rep.) This again leads
> me to
> > believe that the 15th century musicians searched out new ways of
> > presenting music and prefered to leave the orchestration open rather
> > that writing for specific groups.
> >
> >
> >> Have any reviews of Jon Bank's emerged yet. It would be
> interesting to
> >> read what David Fallows says about it.
> >>
> >
> > I want to start hearing some concerts and seeing more CDs. Think we
> > could coax Andy Summers and Stuart Copeland into picking up the
> lute?
> > Dare we?
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> <http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Martin
> Belle Serre
> La Caulié
> 81100 Castres
> France
> tel: 0033 5 63 35 68 46
> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> web: www.silvius.co.uk <http://www.silvius.co.uk>
> http://absolute81.blogspot.com/
