Re: Neceffarie obferuations
Michael, Ed are you basing your theory on iconographical evidence? If so, Baron very clearly states to play half way between the rose and the bridge, at least for the German style. I think with less tension one could risk the clashing of courses, when played with any forcefulness, some that would be needed in 1750. Doesn't that depend on the overall length of the instrument? And the placement of the rose? I have a Bolivian charango that I've modified to make a Scots mandora (as classified in the Skene Mandora Book). It has a 31cm VL, and the neck to body ratio is quite different than the renaissance G lute. And unless I'm wrong I think the neck to body length ratio is also different among the lutes, the Baroque being a bit more neck than the renaissance. The rose is fixed to the best point of the body/soundboard for resonance, whatever the overall VL from bridge to nut. On my modified charango (I alternately call it a chandora or a mandango) I get the best sound by playing at the north end of the rose, but that places my pluck at about the same point (on a percent of VL) as a renaissance lute played south of the rose.I suggest that the variation of RH position is less the relationship to the rose than the relationship to the overall VL. As to tension, the lighter the tension the greater the displacement of the string at the pluck point given the same manual stroke. But the vibrating width is defined at the mid point of the string, the tonic note full length vibration, no matter where it is plucked. I'm not sure (but intend to test it), but I think that the displacement at the tonic mid point is greater than the displacement of the pluck when the pluck is hard and near the end. The string takes energy from the pluck, then divides that energy into its complex vibration. So, if I am right, the courses could easily clash at the midpoint on a lower tension instrument (given that it is easier to make a large displacement at the pluck point). I do hope I've explained my mental picture of this clearly, but I may not have. So I ask that you not criticize before considering. And my thoughts do depend on my assumption that the energy imparted to the string will make a wider swing at the central point (not node, the nodes are the negatives in displacement). And that latter brings up an argument of physics, wave versus particle. I am told by a member of the lute-builder's list that the displacement of the string doesn't echo from nut to bridge and back, but that the complex nodes of the vibrating strings become instantaneously in effect all at once. Don't ask me to explain this, I don't understand it. But it does match the effect. Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Neceffarie obferuations
I am reminded of an old joke. The searcher for truth is in search of the ultimate guru. He travels to India and Napal, he works his way through the villages, climbing ever higher into the Himalayas. He follows every lead in his search. After years of trekking, and always uphill, he finally comes to the place he is being guided to. There is a mystic in a cave, a great ascetic who contemplates everything. Oh ultimate guru, tell me the meaning of life. Life is a fountain, my son. Damn it to hell, I climb every mountain, I seek through the villages, I spend years looking for the ultimate guru to tell me the meaning of life - and all you can say is Life is a fountain. The guru says isn't it?. I work my butt off and wear down my fingers and now you tell me that Dowland liked thumb over?. Ah so, like the guru, whose disappointment had to be greater than the seeker's - after all he had devoted a life to the principle that life is a fountain, and a life on a mountain top, whereas the seeker had only wasted a few years - I wonder at any absolute. O'Carolan was the definitive Irish harpist of the 18th C., he was blind (as were many early harpists, a good job for the blind who couldn't bring in the harvest). What if there were a fine lutenist without a thumb? Would he be able to play the songs of the time with the other four fingers, I think he would have found a way. Not the same sound exactly, but he might have started a four finger school of the lute, were he skilled enough. And we might all be playing without using the thumb if the cognoscenti of his time decided that his technique was best. Oh tempore, oh mores - and who was the Paris Hilton of the renaissance? (Pompadour might have a claim to her time). Best, Jon Michael Thames wrote: Is Dowland suggesting thumb out, rather than thumb under? Yes. It comes up pretty often here. There's a remark in Johann Stobaeus' manuscript that Dowland changed from thumb-in to thumb-out in mid-career. For newbies, here's a more complete quote from Dowland: ...stretch out your Thombe with all the force you can, especially if thy Thombe be short, so that the other fingers may be carried in a manner of a fist, and let the Thombe be held higher then [sic] them, this in the beginning will be hard. Yet they which have a short Thombe may imitate those which strike the strings with the Thombe under the other fingers, which though it be nothing so elegant, yet to them it will be more easie. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Re:Malheur me bat
as regard to the chanson composition, it seems (sorry, no references here at work!) that Josquin heard the song at the Ferrara court around 1501-02 (4-5 years the Ockeghem's death) and that is now attributed to Malcort (or Martini); moreover, Ockeghem never wrote a Malheur me bat mass. It seems obvious that Petrucci misattributed to Ockeghem the song. Dear Paolo I do have some references here: the introductions to the facsimile editions I used. They indeed say Petrucci attributed the chanson to Ockeghem. As the Odhecaton was an important source for other MSS and editions this attribution is often copied. Modern scolars seem to be convinced, however, the chanson was written by Malcort, perhaps Albertinus Malcourt, singer at St Gudula Church in Brussels from 1474 till his death in 1519. So you are right and I will amend my article. Yours David Best wishes Paolo Dear Paolo Ockeghem wrote a three part chanson called Malheur me bat, that is indeed also ascribed to Martini and Malcort (Brown believes it's either of these last two). As I understand it, the question of the conflicting attribution is not yet solved. The chanson melody formed the basis of masses by Agricola, Josquin, Obrecht and others. The text of Malheur me bat has not (yet) been found. I hope this answers your question. yours David - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lgs.europe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:52 PM Subject: Re:Malheur me bat Ockeghem? I knew the song was by Martini or Malcort, and to the best of my knowledge, Ockeghem never wrote a Missa Malheur, whereas Obrecht and Josquin did it From Goldberg Malheur me bat is the song by Malcort or Martini (a matter of dispute) on which Obrecht based a mass already recorded by Bali. The other Mass is based on an anonymous Flemish tune that was also used frequently. The two Masses are more similar than contrasting, although in Fabrice Fitch's words the Agnus Dei of the latter Mass is more bizarre. This choir of men's voices has a distinctive sound, more angular than the homogeneous tone of Renaissance vocal ensembles further west. I hope to hear more obscure Masses from this group. jerome f. weberJEROME F. WEBER Cheers Paolo Declich I have made a detailed comparisson of Johannes Ockeghem's Malor me bat from Ottaviano Petrucci's Harmonice Musices Odhecaton A (1501) and Francesco Spinacino's intabulation in his Libro Secondo (1507). I found it interesting to do, you might find it interesting to read. I wrote it for Nostalgia, the newsletter of the Lute Early Guitar Society Japan, but it's also on my website (see below). David * David van Ooijen Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http://home.planet.nl/~d.v.ooijen/david/ * To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 6X velocizzare la tua navigazione a 56k? 6X Web Accelerator di Libero! Scaricalo su INTERNET GRATIS 6X http://www.libero.it Libero Flat, sempre a 4 Mega a 19,95 euro al mese! Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it
Re: Byrd
I agree with Paolo, Arthur's messages are always good to read even if I may not fully agree all of the time. They are not condescending, arrogant or pretentious, and for the most part make you think instead of make you mad. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: arthurjness [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:58 PM Subject: Re: Byrd Dear Arthur, for me has ever been a pleasure to read yours truly informative e-mails, on every subject and in all occasions. I hope that you will continue to spend part of your time wrinting on this list. Best wishes Paolo Declich In the present discussion it is important to understand the essential difference between an ARRANGEMENT and a TRANSCRIPTION. Thames misses the point completely when he equates the two (see below). The terms are not interchangeable, when used according to their proper meaning. When I studied privately with Julius Gold in Hollywood as a teenager, I recall one of his watch words: Fit the music to the instrument. Likewise an arrangement takes a pre-existent work, say one by Giulio da Modena, Byrd or Couperin, and adapts and re-works it into an idiomatic piece for another instrument. You fit the music from one instrument to another, especially when dealing with a complex instrument like the lute or guitar. Master lutenists such as Melchior Newsidler, Holborne, Cutting, Dowland, de Visée, da Crema, Francesco, Gauthier, and the like, often made such works. The new work for lute is created from, say, a keyboard or vocal composition, or even instrumental ensemble partituras (e.g., ricercars and fantasias by Giulio da Modena done up by da Crema and others). If done well, these are as valid as are works originally conceived for lute. And it is wrong to accord them second class status, as Thames does. Several lutenists on this List have already testified to the beauty and effectiveness of such music. (Denys, O bone Jesu is by Antonio de Ribiera (not Compère), a Spanish musician in the papal chapel during the time of Francesco's tenure as chamber musician. It does have that sultry mood of Spain. A manuscript in Tarazona calls it il più bel motetto del mondo. It surely represents another effective work arranged for lute. You should publish your arrangement for voice and lute in the Lute News. Alla Wm Birde.g) In contrast a TRANSCRIPTION is simply a re-writing from one system of notation to another. In the FWVB, Byrd made transcriptions, NOT arrangements. In this instance, lute music is not fitted or adapted to the keyboard instrument. It is just simply transferred directly from one notational system (tablature) to another (grand staff). Byrd's labor was no different than that of a modern transcriber/editor of lute music. Byrd's transcrptions made available lute music on the grand staff for keyboard players who could not read lute tablature, and for those lutenists who preferred to play from pitch notation. Thames's assumption that notation on the grand staff miraculously changes lute music into keyboard music is just as invalid as his notion that lutenists cannot read pitch notation. There are examples of lute music in pitch notation back to the 15th century, and of course modern editions of lute music have for a century used the grand staff, with usually a nominal G tuning. The standard way of notating lute music. Judging from the inclusion of elementary instructions in many early lute tablature books, tablature was originally intended for novice players. But it was easy to print, and survived because of the many scordatura lute tunings in the 17th century. Somone counted 28 of them. Pitch notation would make that jumble of tunings a real mess for even the most skilled player. Tablature was a practical solution. Oh yes, there's a lot more lute music by Byrd than I indicated before. There are a whopping 182 works with lute in the Paston Books alone, albeit many adapted for lute from vocal music (as I said when I first mentioned the Byrd works). Over the years Paul O'Dette and Julian Bream have explored some of this repertory, so it is hardly uncharted territory. Stewart McCoy has published some editions of the songs with lute. Of course, no one has yet studied the dance pieces to determine whether they were done up first as lute or as keyboard music. Byrd studied with Ferabosco, after all. **Of course much lute music was conceived in pitch notation, most likely on the grand staff or in partitura. See Jessie Owens excellent study, _Composers at Work: The Craft of Musical Composition 1450-1600_ (OUP). There are very few surviving examples of lute music sketched in tablature. I can list them (page byu page) on one hand. Composition with all the correction was
Re: Byrd
A strong ditto here. It's a long difficult puzzle to see the ingenuity and scope of the lute in its many centuries. I know that if Arthur does make conjectures he has, at least, done the research to back it up --and, more often than not, among the primary sources. And now I feel a little out-of sorts having had to give the author of the Complete Works of Francesco a letter of recommendation. Sean On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:58 AM, paolo..declich@@libero..it wrote: Dear Arthur, for me has ever been a pleasure to read yours truly informative e-mails, on every subject and in all occasions. I hope that you will continue to spend part of your time wrinting on this list. Best wishes Paolo Declich In the present discussion it is important to understand the essential difference between an ARRANGEMENT and a TRANSCRIPTION. Thames misses the point completely when he equates the two (see below). The terms are not interchangeable, when used according to their proper meaning. When I studied privately with Julius Gold in Hollywood as a teenager, I recall one of his watch words: Fit the music to the instrument. Likewise an arrangement takes a pre-existent work, say one by Giulio da Modena, Byrd or Couperin, and adapts and re-works it into an idiomatic piece for another instrument. You fit the music from one instrument to another, especially when dealing with a complex instrument like the lute or guitar. Master lutenists such as Melchior Newsidler, Holborne, Cutting, Dowland, de Visée, da Crema, Francesco, Gauthier, and the like, often made such works. The new work for lute is created from, say, a keyboard or vocal composition, or even instrumental ensemble partituras (e.g., ricercars and fantasias by Giulio da Modena done up by da Crema and others). If done well, these are as valid as are works originally conceived for lute. And it is wrong to accord them second class status, as Thames does. Several lutenists on this List have already testified to the beauty and effectiveness of such music. (Denys, O bone Jesu is by Antonio de Ribiera (not Compère), a Spanish musician in the papal chapel during the time of Francesco's tenure as chamber musician. It does have that sultry mood of Spain. A manuscript in Tarazona calls it il più bel motetto del mondo. It surely represents another effective work arranged for lute. You should publish your arrangement for voice and lute in the Lute News. Alla Wm Birde.g) In contrast a TRANSCRIPTION is simply a re-writing from one system of notation to another. In the FWVB, Byrd made transcriptions, NOT arrangements. In this instance, lute music is not fitted or adapted to the keyboard instrument. It is just simply transferred directly from one notational system (tablature) to another (grand staff). Byrd's labor was no different than that of a modern transcriber/editor of lute music. Byrd's transcrptions made available lute music on the grand staff for keyboard players who could not read lute tablature, and for those lutenists who preferred to play from pitch notation. Thames's assumption that notation on the grand staff miraculously changes lute music into keyboard music is just as invalid as his notion that lutenists cannot read pitch notation. There are examples of lute music in pitch notation back to the 15th century, and of course modern editions of lute music have for a century used the grand staff, with usually a nominal G tuning. The standard way of notating lute music. Judging from the inclusion of elementary instructions in many early lute tablature books, tablature was originally intended for novice players. But it was easy to print, and survived because of the many scordatura lute tunings in the 17th century. Somone counted 28 of them. Pitch notation would make that jumble of tunings a real mess for even the most skilled player. Tablature was a practical solution. Oh yes, there's a lot more lute music by Byrd than I indicated before. There are a whopping 182 works with lute in the Paston Books alone, albeit many adapted for lute from vocal music (as I said when I first mentioned the Byrd works). Over the years Paul O'Dette and Julian Bream have explored some of this repertory, so it is hardly uncharted territory. Stewart McCoy has published some editions of the songs with lute. Of course, no one has yet studied the dance pieces to determine whether they were done up first as lute or as keyboard music. Byrd studied with Ferabosco, after all. **Of course much lute music was conceived in pitch notation, most likely on the grand staff or in partitura. See Jessie Owens excellent study, _Composers at Work: The Craft of Musical Composition 1450-1600_ (OUP). There are very few surviving examples of lute music sketched in tablature. I can list them (page byu page) on one hand. Composition with all the correction was first done on erasable tablets of
Re: Byrd
I agree as well. Arthur has look at more original sources of lute and other early music than I will get to in this lifetime. I love his contributions. Nancy Carlin A strong ditto here. It's a long difficult puzzle to see the ingenuity and scope of the lute in its many centuries. I know that if Arthur does make conjectures he has, at least, done the research to back it up --and, more often than not, among the primary sources. And now I feel a little out-of sorts having had to give the author of the Complete Works of Francesco a letter of recommendation. Sean On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:58 AM, paolo..declich@@libero..it wrote: Dear Arthur, for me has ever been a pleasure to read yours truly informative e-mails, on every subject and in all occasions. I hope that you will continue to spend part of your time wrinting on this list. Best wishes Paolo Declich In the present discussion it is important to understand the essential difference between an ARRANGEMENT and a TRANSCRIPTION. Thames misses the point completely when he equates the two (see below). The terms are not interchangeable, when used according to their proper meaning. When I studied privately with Julius Gold in Hollywood as a teenager, I recall one of his watch words: Fit the music to the instrument. Likewise an arrangement takes a pre-existent work, say one by Giulio da Modena, Byrd or Couperin, and adapts and re-works it into an idiomatic piece for another instrument. You fit the music from one instrument to another, especially when dealing with a complex instrument like the lute or guitar. Master lutenists such as Melchior Newsidler, Holborne, Cutting, Dowland, de Visee, da Crema, Francesco, Gauthier, and the like, often made such works. The new work for lute is created from, say, a keyboard or vocal composition, or even instrumental ensemble partituras (e.g., ricercars and fantasias by Giulio da Modena done up by da Crema and others). If done well, these are as valid as are works originally conceived for lute. And it is wrong to accord them second class status, as Thames does. Several lutenists on this List have already testified to the beauty and effectiveness of such music. (Denys, O bone Jesu is by Antonio de Ribiera (not Comp=E8re), a Spanish musician in the papal chapel during the time of Francesco's tenure as chamber musician. It does have that sultry mood of Spain. A manuscript in Tarazona calls it il pi=F9 bel motetto del mondo. It surely represents another effective work arranged for lute. You should publish your arrangement for voice and lute in the Lute News. Alla Wm Birde.g) In contrast a TRANSCRIPTION is simply a re-writing from one system of notation to another. In the FWVB, Byrd made transcriptions, NOT arrangements. In this instance, lute music is not fitted or adapted to the keyboard instrument. It is just simply transferred directly from one notational system (tablature) to another (grand staff). Byrd's labor was no different than that of a modern transcriber/editor of lute music. Byrd's transcrptions made available lute music on the grand staff for keyboard players who could not read lute tablature, and for those lutenists who preferred to play from pitch notation. Thames's assumption that notation on the grand staff miraculously changes lute music into keyboard music is just as invalid as his notion that lutenists cannot read pitch notation. There are examples of lute music in pitch notation back to the 15th century, and of course modern editions of lute music have for a century used the grand staff, with usually a nominal G tuning. The standard way of notating lute music. Judging from the inclusion of elementary instructions in many early lute tablature books, tablature was originally intended for novice players. But it was easy to print, and survived because of the many scordatura lute tunings in the 17th century. Somone counted 28 of them. Pitch notation would make that jumble of tunings a real mess for even the most skilled player. Tablature was a practical solution. Oh yes, there's a lot more lute music by Byrd than I indicated before. There are a whopping 182 works with lute in the Paston Books alone, albeit many adapted for lute from vocal music (as I said when I first mentioned the Byrd works). Over the years Paul O'Dette and Julian Bream have explored some of this repertory, so it is hardly uncharted territory. Stewart McCoy has published some editions of the songs with lute. Of course, no one has yet studied the dance pieces to determine whether they were done up first as lute or as keyboard music. Byrd studied with Ferabosco, after all. **Of course much lute music was conceived in pitch notation, most likely on the grand staff or in partitura. See Jessie Owens excellent study,
Re: Byrd
Arthur Ness - A helpful, articulate and scholarly member of our list - a nice fellow as well!!! Salvatore Salvaggio http://www.Salvaggio.50megs.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Byrd
Hi to all, It seems that Ness is saying that a keyboard composition, reworked (arranged) for lute, can qualify as an original lute piece. Thames is saying, not so. Do I have this right? I'm a little confused about this thread... I've published several books with Mel Bay Publications of my arrangements for guitar: works by Debussy, Handel, Strauss, Bach, Schubert, Mozart, etc. Even though a lot of creative work goes into these arrangements; in no way would I consider them to now qualify as original guitar compositions. I've had a very busy and tiring week, so forgive me if I'm missing the obvious; but it seems to me that Michael has a valid point about all this. Being a nice person and valued musicologist is not the issue here, is it? James -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Byrd
Luters, I am presently working on a Pavan by Byrd set by Francis Cutting for a program of Elizabethan Ballads and Dances.I put the piece in with a group of Cutting pieces. The Cutting style is evident in his reworking or recomposition of this work. I consider it as original in the way Mr. Cutting has used the lute to express his rendition of the Byrd piece. Would I call this a Cutting composition? NO. I think of it as an original Cutting impression of a keyboard piece by Byrd - in effect an original piece for the lute by Cutting, much as I consider Andres Segovia's Bach Chaconne or his recomposition of DeVisee or Llobet's thinning out + guitaristic coloring of Granados as original works for the guitar...Let the semantic fur fly Salvatore Salvaggio http://www.Salvaggio.50megs.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
