Playing from tablature can easily be done without knowledge of the polyphony, ornamentation and voice leading. It can ALSO be done while "seeing" all these things--this is "Lute DSP"
Thus, one can easily apply the correct ornaments to tab, as well as transpose up and down a tone or a fourth, and sing any of the parts., using Lute DSP. Until the notes can seen as well as heard, it is really not practical to apply a number of ormaments which can create bad voice leading. For a renaissance musician, this was a piece of cake, because they were multilingual, experienced translators, and read music fluently in all clefs, and could transpose. For us, it is a relative challenge. Everyone has their own way of training, my trial and error method presently is to duplicate the historical musician's training. That means, clefs, notation, transposition, etc, etc. I can understand why many people feel that is too much work, but without the notation/voice leading background complex ornamentation is really not practical. My ultimate reasoning is that the lute players of today should be regarded as the best musicians in the world. Sadly, that is not the case. Far too often we are considered by other players as "notationally challenged" This may be an unpopular view. Each player has to weigh how much and what sort of training to put in and see how much they then enjoy the music, find it rewarding, valuable etc. And in this respect there is room for every approach & style. Thank heaven. In French ornamentation, I think one "gets more out of it" by learning all the agreements & brouderie, and the right application. But that is a personal decision. I simply find it unusual that this whole gigantic area of style is not practiced. What an opportunity! As a professional, I am frequently called upon to tone transpose. This is no problem for either notation or tab, as it is a simple skill, easily learned, and common practice historically. Being able to do this task unquestionably creates more work opportunities, as does knowledge of different types of ornamentation. It is just simple "Lute DSP" Certainly easier than the Times crossword or those scary Sudoku puzzles. In Ultimate Lute DSP one sees the tab, the notes, the trasposition possibilities and the ornaments simultaneously. In a way, this reflects the "look" of Dowland Lacrimae set, with the parts written out. This is the best set of "Lute Lessons" of its time. Practically speaking, reading and visualizing the notes is plenty for basic ornamentation, if ornamentation is your goal. One can easily create examples that show tab conversion into voice leading, and how certain ornaments work and others do not. And take out the guesswork. I'll be happy to put some online. I think there really needs to by a clear & compelling reason NOT to learn the basics elements of musical training of the historical musicians--especially when singers, cornetto, recorder and keyboard players are doing exactly that. But even if there were no professional incentive to learn these things, it just seems like: :"They knew it, so I should learn it" as opposed to "They knew it; I need not learn it" dt At 07:46 AM 7/1/2008, you wrote: >Dear David, > >I'm suspicious there was reason for this misguided development. I have >in front of me three versions of the courante La Caressante by Denis >Gaultier. One is a transcription by Dagobert Bruger (1938), another is >the Rhetorique version, and the third is Rostock XVII-54, p. 239. > >Bruger used to play the lute in guitar tuning, while Gerwig played the >renaissance lute throughout. Both of them must transcribe tablatures >into staff notation when it came to French baroque lute music. Which >they did. >Which is where perception was misguided: in the transcription of >tablatures, viz. distinct parts weren't recognized as such (descant and >middle parts mixed), with the descant part consisting of musical >gestures, which implies sometimes longer breaks between the gestures. > >For the sake of comparison, I took out the guitar and played through >Bruger's transcription, resulting in what I'd expect from a Gerwig >recording. Nice courante, but doesn't make much sense. >The upper voice includes all the upper notes, but that's more than the >descant part really has. At some places, Bruger wrote in three parts, >but most of the time, middle and descant parts written together. You >just can't tell one from another. And what's more, you cannot recognize >imitations. > >Playing from the tablatures is a different world, to put it short. If in >search of them, you can eventually hear imitations and three distinct >parts. And you can play ornaments, which Bruger omitted. Rostock is an >extended version of the Rhetorique version, elaborating on ornamenting >the parts. >-- >Best, > >Mathias >-- > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
