Dear Andreas, That is indeed Schrade's argument: a polyphonic transcription necessitates editorial decisions, which impose something on the music. He argues that if all the information about rhythm was not notated fully in the music, it is wrong for an editor to try to impose it. His wheeze was to transcribe all music strictly according to the value of the tablature rhythm signs, irrespective of whether a note was meant to last longer than its rhythm sign, and whether or not the end result was a meaningful transcription or a load of nonsense.
Unfortunately his argument simply doesn't work. You cannot avoid making an editorial decision. To do nothing, as Schrade did, and try to side-step the issue, is as much an editorial decision as those very editorial decisions he is trying to avoid. His transcriptions are as much an interpretation as any other. The only difference between his transcriptions and those who transcribe polyphony as polyphony, is that he produced thoughtless rubbish. If Schrade really understood that tablature rhythm signs are not the same as staff notation notes, why on earth did he insist on treating them as if they were the same? I have at home a wonderful edition of Polish lute music transcribed using Schrade's method of transcription: Jakub Polak, _Preludia, fantazje i tance_, ed. Maria Szczepanska, Wydawnictwo Dawnej Muzyki Polskiej (Kraków, 1951). She writes, "W transkrypcji przyjeto metode zastosowana przez L. Schradego, jako najbardziej konsekwentna." The French translation is given as, "En ce qui concerne la transcription, nous avons adopté la méthode de L. Schrade, comme étant la plus logique." I would hazard a translation of that as, "As far as the transcription is concerned, we have adopted L. Schrade's method, since it is the most logical." She might as well have said, "... because it is the least helpful and the most stupid." Consider the opening of Fantasia Nova from Besard's _Thesaurus Harmonicus_ (Cologne, 1603). Unfortunately I don't have a facsimile of this source, but I assume from Dr. Szczepanska's edition that the original tablature would look like this: |\ |\ |\ |\ |. |\ ________________________________ _________________a_|_b_____b__d_ ________d__________|____d_______ _________________a_|_c________a_ __a__c__d__a__d____|____________ ___________________|____________ Dr. Szczepanska transcribes the first note as a dotted crotchet, and every other note as a quaver. The transcription is in short score like piano music. Middle c' is the only note in the whole book, which is allowed to have a leger line. All note stems for every note in the book go up, never down. Groups of four quavers are always beamed together, irrespective of the voice part to which a note belongs. Anyone with an ounce of musical knowledge would recognize that this piece begins with two-part polyphony. The first voice starts at a5 with a dotted crotchet. The second voice starts two events later at d3, which is also a dotted crotchet, entering in imitation. Yet instead of transcribing d3 as a dotted crotchet, which would show the musical logic and tell the player what to do, Dr. Szczepanska transcribes it as a quaver, completely obscuring the entry of the second voice. Now play what she writes. The note d3 is notated only as a quaver, so you must play it as such. You must dampen that note so that it doesn't ring on longer than the value of a quaver. The result is what I have described elsewhere as hoquetophony: notes popping in and out of the texture, with no legato possible within any of the melodic strands. It is a travesty. The reason d3 is notated in tablature as a quaver, instead of as a dotted crotchet, is because you have only one set of rhythm signs, even though you have more than one voice at a time. Each rhythm sign will represent the smallest note value before the next event occurs. Since the next event after d3 is a5 in the lower voice, the rhythm sign has to be a quaver. Staff notation does not operate in the same way, since rhythm is notated separately for each note. Such is the idée fixe of the Schrade-style transcriber that even where there is a staff notation transcription with the tablature, which explains exactly what the composer intended, the Schrade transcriber will still ignore it. I have in mind English lute songs, where the lute plays (more or less) the lowest three voices of four. There can be no doubt which notes must be held, since those three voices are printed in staff notation on the facing page. All that important information will be ignored by the blinkered literal transcriber. Those who accept the validity of Schrade's method of transcription try to make a distinction between a transcription and an edition. For them a transcription is a literal transfering of notes from one notation to another, like a word-for-word, literal translation from one language to another; as soon as you try to interpret the true meaning, you have an edition. The distinction is a false one, because as soon as you have turned tablature into staff notation of any kind, whether polyphonically or "literally", you have produced an edition. To publish music in a literal transcription is as sensible as publishing foreign literature in a literal translation. I think I am right in saying that some years ago Gerle's music (1532) was published in a transcription where all the notes were transcribed as semibreves. Now, that might be a useful ploy as a preliminary stage for someone attempting a transcription, but in no way can it be acceptable as a final version. There are copies of these books at my local university library, which I could check out for details, but frankly I don't think it's worth it. Unfortunately there are places in tablature, where voice leading is not as clear as the example quoted above. Scholars and players may need guidance in understanding which notes belong to which voice part, and how long a note should be held. If they turn to a literal transcription for help, they will be faced with a cop-out, and will be none the wiser. Fortunately Schrade's so-called literal transcriptions are a thing of the past. They were conceived at a time when modern musicology was in its infancy. They don't help scholars understand lute music, and they don't help players of lutes or any other instrument play the music. They are an abomination. Nonsense they were, and nonsense it was that anyone should ever have given them an iota of credibility. Best wishes, Stewart. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Schlegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Lute Net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Length of notes in transcription > Dear Stewart > > > > > Academics who favour the Schrade or literal method of transcribing > > lute tablature haven't taken that distinction on board, which is why > > their transcriptions produce such musical nonsense. > > > Be carreful!!! Schrade made this kind of "transcription" to avoid any > interpretation. It was his manner to show how far the "normal" > notation is from the tablature. In this sense, it's absolutely not > nonsense!!! > > Andreas To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
