I have a facsimile of the Pisador book around somewhere, I'll check the
notation. The problem may lay with schott and some guitarists that found it
was more musical/fun to play in triple time than duple. Your problem is in
assigning credibility to a second generation interpretation/transcription of
the work. All of this is just a knee jerk reaction and may be totally
wrong, but this is what first came to my mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Kenyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 9:04 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Pavana
Greetings. I notice the Pisador vihuela Pavana muy llana para taner is
notated in triple time in the Schott guitar edition, which says that the
original was given in duple. Normally pavans are duple, but looking at it
it does seem to insist on being triple (or is that just knowing it so long
in triple?).
Three questions pertain:
- should this piece really be in triple time?
- if so how does it end up in triple: is it a function of its being from
an earlier time than many pavans we are used to?
- is there an implication for tempo, eg should it be quicker than the
stately progress we think of for the standard duple pavan?
Umpteen thankings,
Stephen
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1375 -
Release Date: 4/12/2008 11:32 AM
