[LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
They seem to indicate the duration of rests. In this case there are no red notes. I wonder if there is a intabulation of the second choir's part elsewhere in the manuscript. See: https://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/145459/sv06 Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 8.9.2020 klo 18.47: After bars 2, 5, 13, 17, 22, 26, and 31 in this piece, there are numbers, like #°6, #°13, etc. Can anyone help me figure out what this might mean? --Sarge -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. (sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website:http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got." -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
Hmmm. I don't see another version of the Battaglia. There is a Part 1 (same file), which has 72 bars, where part 2 has 55. If we add a total of 30 interpolated bars to part 2, we get 85 bars, so the bar numbers still wouldn't fit between the two parts, and I have not tried to see if the harmonies would fit if I tried combining the two parts as a duet. The source doesn't specify what the "Secunda pars" on f. 62v is a part 2 of, but it seems to be a battle type piece, so it's logical to include it as Part 2 of the Bataglia on ff. 65v-66. The Galliarda Graff vonn Schwartzenburg at the bottom of f.66 seems to be a "filler" between the two parts, unrelated to them. I guess paper was at a premium, so there was a tendency to fill in any blanks. To me, then, it's still a mystery. --Sarge On 9/8/2020 11:07, Jussi-Pekka Lajunen wrote: They seem to indicate the duration of rests. In this case there are no red notes. I wonder if there is a intabulation of the second choir's part elsewhere in the manuscript. See: [1]https://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/145459/sv06 Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 8.9.2020 klo 18.47: After bars 2, 5, 13, 17, 22, 26, and 31 in this piece, there are numbers, like #ð6, #ð13, etc.à Can anyone help me figure out what this might mean? --Sarge -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. ([2]sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website:[3]http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got." -- To get on or off this list see list information at [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. ([5]sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website: [6]http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got." -- References 1. https://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/145459/sv06 2. mailto:sa...@gerbode.net 3. http://www.gerbode.net/ 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. mailto:sa...@gerbode.net 6. http://www.gerbode.net/
[LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
The Secunda pars" is "Seconda Parte" of Battaglia by Orazio Vecchi. See page 25: http://ks.petruccimusiclibrary.org/files/imglnks/usimg/4/41/IMSLP145459-WIMA.26bd-battu.pdf Also see: https://i.imgur.com/fhZWglm.png I guess the second choir's part is not in the same lute book. It would not make sense to have it there anyway if the intabulation was meant to be played by two lutenists. Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 9.9.2020 klo 21.18: Hmmm. I don't see another version of the Battaglia. There is a Part 1 (same file), which has 72 bars, where part 2 has 55. If we add a total of 30 interpolated bars to part 2, we get 85 bars, so the bar numbers still wouldn't fit between the two parts, and I have not tried to see if the harmonies would fit if I tried combining the two parts as a duet. The source doesn't specify what the "Secunda pars" on f. 62v is a part 2 of, but it seems to be a battle type piece, so it's logical to include it as Part 2 of the Bataglia on ff. 65v-66. The Galliarda Graff vonn Schwartzenburg at the bottom of f.66 seems to be a "filler" between the two parts, unrelated to them. I guess paper was at a premium, so there was a tendency to fill in any blanks. To me, then, it's still a mystery. --Sarge On 9/8/2020 11:07, Jussi-Pekka Lajunen wrote: They seem to indicate the duration of rests. In this case there are no red notes. I wonder if there is a intabulation of the second choir's part elsewhere in the manuscript. See: [1]https://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/145459/sv06 Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 8.9.2020 klo 18.47: After bars 2, 5, 13, 17, 22, 26, and 31 in this piece, there are numbers, like #°6, #°13, etc. Can anyone help me figure out what this might mean? --Sarge -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. ([2]sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website:[3]http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got." -- To get on or off this list see list information at [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. ([5]sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website: [6]http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got." -- References 1. https://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/145459/sv06 2. mailto:sa...@gerbode.net 3. http://www.gerbode.net/ 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. mailto:sa...@gerbode.net 6. http://www.gerbode.net/
[LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
Well, as we have discussed, the red notes are apparently played from the same score on a second lute, and elsewhere in Eysert, there are apparently both parts of some duets, some reversed to play off the same MS (haven't run across them yet). That suggests that there may not be a second part book, which doesn't mean a second part isn't lurking in some other random MS. I we ignore the #º notations entirely, Part 2 sounds quite all right to my ears as is, so the notations might mean something entirely different... Andre Nieuwlaat is going to hunt around and see if he can find a second part. Perhaps it would have similar notations to indicate missing bars, meant to be played from the version in Eysert. Have you seen notations like this anywhere else in the lute literature? I haven't. The numbers above the staff I have seen have been numbers for variations ( as in [1]V Galilei's infamous Romanesca variations, where they go up to 100) or above the repeat double bar at the end of a repeated section to say how many times it is repeated (usually 2, but I have seen 3). --Sarge On 9/9/2020 11:48, Jussi-Pekka Lajunen wrote: The Secunda pars" is "Seconda Parte" of Battaglia by Orazio Vecchi. See page 25: [2]http://ks.petruccimusiclibrary.org/files/imglnks/usimg/4/41/IMSLP 145459-WIMA.26bd-battu.pdf Also see: [3]https://i.imgur.com/fhZWglm.png I guess the second choir's part is not in the same lute book. It would not make sense to have it there anyway if the intabulation was meant to be played by two lutenists. Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 9.9.2020 klo 21.18: Hmmm. I don't see another version of the Battaglia. There is a Part 1 (same file), which has 72 bars, where part 2 has 55. If we add a total of 30 interpolated bars to part 2, we get 85 bars, so the bar numbers still wouldn't fit between the two parts, and I have not tried to see if the harmonies would fit if I tried combining the two parts as a duet. The source doesn't specify what the "Secunda pars" on f. 62v is a part 2 of, but it seems to be a battle type piece, so it's logical to include it as Part 2 of the Bataglia on ff. 65v-66. The Galliarda Graff vonn Schwartzenburg at the bottom of f.66 seems to be a "filler" between the two parts, unrelated to them. I guess paper was at a premium, so there was a tendency to fill in any blanks. To me, then, it's still a mystery. --Sarge On 9/8/2020 11:07, Jussi-Pekka Lajunen wrote: They seem to indicate the duration of rests. In this case there are no red notes. I wonder if there is a intabulation of the second choir's part elsewhere in the manuscript. See: [1][4]https://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/145459/sv06 Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 8.9.2020 klo 18.47: After bars 2, 5, 13, 17, 22, 26, and 31 in this piece, there are numbers, like #Ãâð6, #Ãâð13, etc.Ãâ Can anyone help me figure out what this might mean? --Sarge -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. ([[5]2]sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website:[3][6]http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got." -- To get on or off this list see list information at [4][7]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. ([[8]5]sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website: [6][9]http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got." -- References 1. [10]https://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/145459/sv06 2. [11]mailto:sa...@gerbode.net 3. [12]http://www.gerbode.net/ 4. [13]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. [14]mailto:sa...@gerbode.net 6. [15]http://www.gerbode.net/ -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. ([16]sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website: [17]http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got." -- References 1. http://gerbode.net/sources/GalileiV/libro_d_intavolatura_di_liuto_1584/v1/romanesca_11_Fm_with_100_parts/pdf/ 2. http://ks.petruccimusiclibrary.org/files/imglnks/usimg/4/41/IMSLP145459-WIMA.26bd-battu.pdf 3. https://i.imgur.com/fhZWglm.png 4. https://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/145459/sv06 5. mailto:2]sa...@gerbode.net 6. http://www.gerbode.net/ 7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wb
[LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
No, I haven't seen, but the numbers correspond to the duration of rests in the first choir's part (and the nine semibreve long section not included in the tablature). If you look at the score[1], you can see there are rests that last for two semibreves on page 25, for five semibreves on page 27, for 11 semibreves on pages 30–32, for three semibreves on page 36, for six semibreves on pages 38–39 and for 13 semibreves on pages 40–42. Then there is a nine semibreve long section on pages 33–34 that is missing from the tablature. There is no second lute part on the spreads in question (neither in red notes nor reversed), which is the reason why I thought that the possible second lute part might not be in the same manuscript. [1] http://ks.petruccimusiclibrary.org/files/imglnks/usimg/4/41/IMSLP145459-WIMA.26bd-battu.pdf Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 10.9.2020 klo 0.08: Well, as we have discussed, the red notes are apparently played from the same score on a second lute, and elsewhere in Eysert, there are apparently both parts of some duets, some reversed to play off the same MS (haven't run across them yet). That suggests that there may not be a second part book, which doesn't mean a second part isn't lurking in some other random MS. I we ignore the #º notations entirely, Part 2 sounds quite all right to my ears as is, so the notations might mean something entirely different... Andre Nieuwlaat is going to hunt around and see if he can find a second part. Perhaps it would have similar notations to indicate missing bars, meant to be played from the version in Eysert. Have you seen notations like this anywhere else in the lute literature? I haven't. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
Oh! I didn't find that score. Thanks so much! One approach would be to intabulate the missing parts from the score, as a second lute part (maybe using red notes) or just to fill them in so a single lute could play the complete piece. Since the first part does not have gaps or red notes, it, too might have to be edited (red notes or whatever) to fit the score. All that is a bit of an undertaking. Meanwhile, I am soldiering on through the MS. --Sarge On 9/9/2020 15:31, Jussi-Pekka Lajunen wrote: No, I haven't seen, but the numbers correspond to the duration of rests in the first choir's part (and the nine semibreve long section not included in the tablature). If you look at the score[1], you can see there are rests that last for two semibreves on page 25, for five semibreves on page 27, for 11 semibreves on pages 30–32, for three semibreves on page 36, for six semibreves on pages 38–39 and for 13 semibreves on pages 40–42. Then there is a nine semibreve long section on pages 33–34 that is missing from the tablature. There is no second lute part on the spreads in question (neither in red notes nor reversed), which is the reason why I thought that the possible second lute part might not be in the same manuscript. [1] http://ks.petruccimusiclibrary.org/files/imglnks/usimg/4/41/IMSLP145459-WIMA.26bd-battu.pdf Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 10.9.2020 klo 0.08: Well, as we have discussed, the red notes are apparently played from the same score on a second lute, and elsewhere in Eysert, there are apparently both parts of some duets, some reversed to play off the same MS (haven't run across them yet). That suggests that there may not be a second part book, which doesn't mean a second part isn't lurking in some other random MS. I we ignore the #º notations entirely, Part 2 sounds quite all right to my ears as is, so the notations might mean something entirely different... Andre Nieuwlaat is going to hunt around and see if he can find a second part. Perhaps it would have similar notations to indicate missing bars, meant to be played from the version in Eysert. Have you seen notations like this anywhere else in the lute literature? I haven't. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. (sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website: http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got."
[LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
Sarge, I think you'll find that the term _secunda pars_ universally applies to the second section of a composition that was conceived in more than one section, typically setting the continuation of a long poem or another sectional text. For instance, in Phalese _Luculentum Theatrum Musicum_, 1568, you'll find on f.58v the Secunda pars and Tertia pars of a solo lute setting of Josquin's motet, Benedicta es. The rubrics indicate that the motet was composed in three sequential sections. On the following page, f. 59, you will find lute duets with the heading,_Sequntur deinceps carmina, duabus testudinibus accomoda_ ([music] following the sacred songs is accommodated for two lutes). The two different lute parts are not labeled other than the fact that the primary part carries an indication that this particular duet is _ad secundum_, or for lutes tuned a step apart, and of course the duet part is printed upside down so both can play from the same book. There seems to have been no standard convention in labeling the separate parts of a lute duet but the most typical indication for different parts was to label them superius, bassus, or tenor, such as found in Pacoloni, 1564. Nevertheless, _secunda pars_ is not likely an indication for a separate instrumental part. RA __ From: lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu on behalf of Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:45 PM To: Jussi-Pekka Lajunen ; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2 Oh! I didn't find that score. Thanks so much! One approach would be to intabulate the missing parts from the score, as a second lute part (maybe using red notes) or just to fill them in so a single lute could play the complete piece. Since the first part does not have gaps or red notes, it, too might have to be edited (red notes or whatever) to fit the score. All that is a bit of an undertaking. Meanwhile, I am soldiering on through the MS. --Sarge On 9/9/2020 15:31, Jussi-Pekka Lajunen wrote: > No, I haven't seen, but the numbers correspond to the duration of > rests in the first choir's part (and the nine semibreve long section > not included in the tablature). If you look at the score[1], you can > see there are rests that last for two semibreves on page 25, for five > semibreves on page 27, for 11 semibreves on pages 30â32, for three > semibreves on page 36, for six semibreves on pages 38â39 and for 13 > semibreves on pages 40â42. Then there is a nine semibreve long section > on pages 33â34 that is missing from the tablature. > > There is no second lute part on the spreads in question (neither in > red notes nor reversed), which is the reason why I thought that the > possible second lute part might not be in the same manuscript. > > [1] > [1]http://ks.petruccimusiclibrary.org/files/imglnks/usimg/4/41/IMSLP145 459-WIMA.26bd-battu.pdf > > Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 10.9.2020 klo 0.08: >> Well, as we have discussed, the red notes are apparently played from >> the same score on a second lute, and elsewhere in Eysert, there are >> apparently both parts of some duets, some reversed to play off >> the same >> MS (haven't run across them yet). That suggests that there may >> not be a >> second part book, which doesn't mean a second part isn't lurking in >> some other random MS. >> I we ignore the # º notations entirely, Part 2 sounds quite all >> right to >> my ears as is, so the notations might mean something entirely >> different... >> Andre Nieuwlaat is going to hunt around and see if he can find a >> second >> part. Perhaps it would have similar notations to indicate missing >> bars, >> meant to be played from the version in Eysert. >> Have you seen notations like this anywhere else in the lute >> literature? I haven't. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. (sa...@gerbode.net) 11132 Dell Ave Forestville, CA 95436-9491 Home phone: 707-820-1759 Website: [3]http://www.gerbode.net "The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got." Virus-free. [4]www.avast.com -- References Visible links: 1. http://ks.petruccimusiclibrary.org/files/imglnks/usimg/4/41/IMSLP145459-WIMA.26bd-battu.pdf 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute
[LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
I've played a lot of Renaissance polyphony in facsimile (on sackbut), and in that context, secunda pars means exactly what Ron describes. With large numbers of voices, you will sometimes see XYZ Vox to indicate a part/voice by number, such as Quinta Vox, but I've never seen "pars" used to indicate a part/voice . Guy -Original Message- From: lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Andrico Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 12:35 PM To: Frank A. Gerbode, M.D.; Jussi-Pekka Lajunen; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2 Sarge, I think you'll find that the term _secunda pars_ universally applies to the second section of a composition that was conceived in more than one section, typically setting the continuation of a long poem or another sectional text. For instance, in Phalese _Luculentum Theatrum Musicum_, 1568, you'll find on f.58v the Secunda pars and Tertia pars of a solo lute setting of Josquin's motet, Benedicta es. The rubrics indicate that the motet was composed in three sequential sections. On the following page, f. 59, you will find lute duets with the heading,_Sequntur deinceps carmina, duabus testudinibus accomoda_ ([music] following the sacred songs is accommodated for two lutes). The two different lute parts are not labeled other than the fact that the primary part carries an indication that this particular duet is _ad secundum_, or for lutes tuned a step apart, and of course the duet part is printed upside down so both can play from the same book. There seems to have been no standard convention in labeling the separate parts of a lute duet but the most typical indication for different parts was to label them superius, bassus, or tenor, such as found in Pacoloni, 1564. Nevertheless, _secunda pars_ is not likely an indication for a separate instrumental part. RA __ From: lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu on behalf of Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:45 PM To: Jussi-Pekka Lajunen ; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2 Oh! I didn't find that score. Thanks so much! One approach would be to intabulate the missing parts from the score, as a second lute part (maybe using red notes) or just to fill them in so a single lute could play the complete piece. Since the first part does not have gaps or red notes, it, too might have to be edited (red notes or whatever) to fit the score. All that is a bit of an undertaking. Meanwhile, I am soldiering on through the MS. --Sarge On 9/9/2020 15:31, Jussi-Pekka Lajunen wrote: > No, I haven't seen, but the numbers correspond to the duration of > rests in the first choir's part (and the nine semibreve long section > not included in the tablature). If you look at the score[1], you can > see there are rests that last for two semibreves on page 25, for five > semibreves on page 27, for 11 semibreves on pages 30–32, for three > semibreves on page 36, for six semibreves on pages 38–39 and for 13 > semibreves on pages 40–42. Then there is a nine semibreve long section > on pages 33–34 that is missing from the tablature. > > There is no second lute part on the spreads in question (neither in > red notes nor reversed), which is the reason why I thought that the > possible second lute part might not be in the same manuscript. > > [1] > [1]https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fks.petruccimusiclibrary.org%2Ffiles%2Fimglnks%2Fusimg%2F4%2F41%2FIMSLP145&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1d122b2434f14668a1e508d855c0e2c1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637353634211155008&sdata=WpwxBSNuL32CEyzsR%2F2csoPK5fkznKS2gzIkUs0JqXA%3D&reserved=0 459-WIMA.26bd-battu.pdf > > Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 10.9.2020 klo 0.08: >> Well, as we have discussed, the red notes are apparently played from >> the same score on a second lute, and elsewhere in Eysert, there are >> apparently both parts of some duets, some reversed to play off >> the same >> MS (haven't run across them yet). That suggests that there may >> not be a >> second part book, which doesn't mean a second part isn't lurking in >> some other random MS. >> I we ignore the # º notations entirely, Part 2 sounds quite all >> right to >> my ears as is, so the notations might mean something entirely >> different... >> Andre Nieuwlaat is going to hunt around and see if he can find
[LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
The battle of Jannequin traditionally has had a first and second part,
sequentially.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 1:00 PM guy_and_liz Smith
<[1]guy_and_...@msn.com> wrote:
I've played a lot of Renaissance polyphony in facsimile (on
sackbut), and in that context, secunda pars means exactly what Ron
describes. With large numbers of voices, you will sometimes see XYZ
Vox to indicate a part/voice by number, such as Quinta Vox, but I've
never seen "pars" used to indicate a part/voice .
Guy
-Original Message-
From: [2]lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu
[mailto:[3]lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Ron
Andrico
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 12:35 PM
To: Frank A. Gerbode, M.D.; Jussi-Pekka Lajunen;
[4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
Sarge, I think you'll find that the term _secunda pars_
universally
applies to the second section of a composition that was conceived
in
more than one section, typically setting the continuation of a
long
poem or another sectional text.
For instance, in Phalese _Luculentum Theatrum Musicum_, 1568,
you'll
find on f.58v the Secunda pars and Tertia pars of a solo lute
setting
of Josquin's motet, Benedicta es. The rubrics indicate that the
motet
was composed in three sequential sections. On the following
page, f.
59, you will find lute duets with the heading,_Sequntur deinceps
carmina, duabus testudinibus accomoda_ ([music] following the
sacred
songs is accommodated for two lutes). The two different lute
parts are
not labeled other than the fact that the primary part carries an
indication that this particular duet is _ad secundum_, or for
lutes
tuned a step apart, and of course the duet part is printed upside
down
so both can play from the same book.
There seems to have been no standard convention in labeling the
separate parts of a lute duet but the most typical indication for
different parts was to label them superius, bassus, or tenor,
such as
found in Pacoloni, 1564. Nevertheless, _secunda pars_ is not
likely
an indication for a separate instrumental part.
RA
__
From: [5]lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu
<[6]lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu> on behalf of Frank A.
Gerbode,
M.D. <[7]sa...@gerbode.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:45 PM
To: Jussi-Pekka Lajunen <[8]jlaju...@gmail.com>;
[9]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
<[10]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
Oh! I didn't find that score. Thanks so much! One approach
would be
to
intabulate the missing parts from the score, as a second lute
part
(maybe using red notes) or just to fill them in so a single lute
could
play the complete piece.
Since the first part does not have gaps or red notes, it, too
might
have
to be edited (red notes or whatever) to fit the score.
All that is a bit of an undertaking.
Meanwhile, I am soldiering on through the MS.
--Sarge
On 9/9/2020 15:31, Jussi-Pekka Lajunen wrote:
> No, I haven't seen, but the numbers correspond to the duration
of
> rests in the first choir's part (and the nine semibreve long
section
> not included in the tablature). If you look at the score[1],
you can
> see there are rests that last for two semibreves on page 25,
for five
> semibreves on page 27, for 11 semibreves on pages 30â32, for
three
> semibreves on page 36, for six semibreves on pages 38â39 and
for 13
> semibreves on pages 40â42. Then there is a nine semibreve long
section
> on pages 33â34 that is missing from the tablature.
>
> There is no second lute part on the spreads in question
(neither in
> red notes nor reversed), which is the reason why I thought that
the
> possible second lute part might not be in the same manuscript.
>
> [1]
>
[1][11]https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2
F%2Fks.petruccimusiclibrary.org%2Ffiles%2Fimglnks%2Fusimg%2F4%2F41%2
FIMSLP145&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1d122b2434f14668a1e508d855c0e2c1%7C8
4df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637353634211155008&sda
ta=WpwxBSNuL32CEyzsR%2F2csoPK5fkznKS2gzIkUs0JqXA%3D&reserved=0
459-WIMA.26bd-battu.pdf
[LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
Yes, I understood that the Battaglia is truly in two parts. I was
looking to see if there was a second *duet* part, to fill in what I now
understand to be gaps in the MS, as explained well by Jussi-Pekka
Lajunen . Looking at the vocal score I can see the
gaps would be filled in by a second 4-voiced choir. I understand that
Andre Nieuwlaat is going to look for a second
lute part (terminology is confusing, here), somewhere. Absent that, the
second part will have to be reconstructed from the vocal score.
--Sarge
On 9/10/2020 14:01, Sean Smith wrote:
The battle of Jannequin traditionally has had a first and second part,
sequentially.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 1:00 PM guy_and_liz Smith
<[1]guy_and_...@msn.com> wrote:
I've played a lot of Renaissance polyphony in facsimile (on
sackbut), and in that context, secunda pars means exactly what Ron
describes. With large numbers of voices, you will sometimes see XYZ
Vox to indicate a part/voice by number, such as Quinta Vox, but I've
never seen "pars" used to indicate a part/voice .
Guy
-Original Message-
From: [2]lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu
[mailto:[3]lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Ron
Andrico
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 12:35 PM
To: Frank A. Gerbode, M.D.; Jussi-Pekka Lajunen;
[4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
Sarge, I think you'll find that the term _secunda pars_
universally
applies to the second section of a composition that was conceived
in
more than one section, typically setting the continuation of a
long
poem or another sectional text.
For instance, in Phalese _Luculentum Theatrum Musicum_, 1568,
you'll
find on f.58v the Secunda pars and Tertia pars of a solo lute
setting
of Josquin's motet, Benedicta es. The rubrics indicate that the
motet
was composed in three sequential sections. On the following
page, f.
59, you will find lute duets with the heading,_Sequntur deinceps
carmina, duabus testudinibus accomoda_ ([music] following the
sacred
songs is accommodated for two lutes). The two different lute
parts are
not labeled other than the fact that the primary part carries an
indication that this particular duet is _ad secundum_, or for
lutes
tuned a step apart, and of course the duet part is printed upside
down
so both can play from the same book.
There seems to have been no standard convention in labeling the
separate parts of a lute duet but the most typical indication for
different parts was to label them superius, bassus, or tenor,
such as
found in Pacoloni, 1564. Nevertheless, _secunda pars_ is not
likely
an indication for a separate instrumental part.
RA
__
From: [5]lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu
<[6]lute-...@new-old-mail.cs.dartmouth.edu> on behalf of Frank A.
Gerbode,
M.D. <[7]sa...@gerbode.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:45 PM
To: Jussi-Pekka Lajunen <[8]jlaju...@gmail.com>;
[9]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
<[10]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Numbers in a battle (Eysert), part 2
Oh! I didn't find that score. Thanks so much! One approach
would be
to
intabulate the missing parts from the score, as a second lute
part
(maybe using red notes) or just to fill them in so a single lute
could
play the complete piece.
Since the first part does not have gaps or red notes, it, too
might
have
to be edited (red notes or whatever) to fit the score.
All that is a bit of an undertaking.
Meanwhile, I am soldiering on through the MS.
--Sarge
On 9/9/2020 15:31, Jussi-Pekka Lajunen wrote:
> No, I haven't seen, but the numbers correspond to the duration
of
> rests in the first choir's part (and the nine semibreve long
section
> not included in the tablature). If you look at the score[1],
you can
> see there are rests that last for two semibreves on page 25,
for five
> semibreves on page 27, for 11 semibreves on pages 30â32, for
three
> semibreves on page 36, for six semibreves on pages 38â39 and
for 13
> semibreves on pages 40â42. Then there is a nine semibreve long
section
> on pages 33â34 that is missing from the tablature.
>
> There is no second lute p
