Dear Martin,
There is much sense in what you say. Would it be too much to ask (if you
could possibly find the time) to publish the piece as you see it ideally or
partially reconstructed on your site? A following joint-effort discussion,
comparing your version with the facsimile, with Ron's, Poulton's, (and if he
doesn't mind, Paul's - if he or someone else would supply his notes), could
be a great example of teamwork in our little community, in hopefully
reconstructing missing or faulty passages and bringing one of the _top_ lute
pieces to an even more excellent level and at the same time be a great
learning experience for the lute world at large.
Expectantly!
G.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Shepherd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:43 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Poulton #73 [was] dedillo
Dear Goeran and All,
I agree with Ron that this piece needs major surgery, and the editors of
CLMJD have sometimes made things worse rather than better. My copy of
Poulton is covered in pencil annotations, which I can't really do justice
to in a list, but these are the main features:
It is strange that the third entry of the subject (bar 2, 3rd beat) breaks
off the way it does - one might have expected at least another complete
entry here - is there a missing bar between 2 and 3?
I am dubious about both the notes and the rhythms in bar 4, as there seems
to be a bass entry of the subject, but it is again not clear what the
solution should be.
The sequence of descending 7-6s in bars 5-6 seems confused - I wonder
whether the intention was to follow through the same pattern as beats 2-3
of bar 5 right through to to the dominant D major, that is starting with
the bass G at the start of bar 6, continuing the sequence down to the bass
D before arriving at the tonic on the last beat of bar 6. I suspect that
once again, there might be some missing material, and the bar lines seem
confused as a result (both in the original and in CLMJD).
The rhythms of bars 14-16 seem to be a mess. I have a strong suspicion
that the first 4 notes of bar 14 should be crotchets rather than quavers,
but I can't justify it in any way. Bars 15-16 are clearly wrong, because
of the point of imitation - try:
2. 3 2 1 2 2. 3 2
__________a__a_a_________a______________
____a_c_d________c___c_d____d_c_a_c_d___
_d_________________d_____d____d___d_a___
_c____________________________________a_
_a______________________________________
________________________________________
(1=1 tailer, 2=2tailer, etc.)
The editors of CLMJD have added a beat at the end of bar 19 which is
clearly wrong. The bass D is the first note of the subject, continuing
into bar 20 (though I would be tempted to repeat the D as two quavers to
match the opening phrase and bars 15-16).
The sequence starting halfway through bar 36 has three repetitions of each
chord except the first one - I think there should be an extra repetition
of the G major at the end of bar 36, a conjecture supported by the
original barlines.
Passages with lots of repetition often give scribes a bit of trouble and
the last few bars of this piece are no exception. I suggest that the note
four notes from the end of bar 45 should be d3 not c3, and in bar 46 the
5th to 8th notes, and the last four chords, should be omitted, giving us
the bass G (currently last bar, second beat) as the first note of the last
bar.
Comments, anyone?
Martin
G. Crona wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Andrico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and the fact that the piece really needs reconstruction does not help
the
matter.<
Needs reconstruction???? It lacks a rhythmic sign in ms. 4 and a chord at
the end of ms. 20 in the facsimile, I would hardly call that "needs
reconstruction"!
G.
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
