Re: Divisions and hexachords ?

["Mathias Rösel"]

Dear Stewart,

you are certainly right in saying that decisions as to which hexachord
would have been right to choose for the composer are a bit like chicken
and egg. That's why I prefer to first see what _has_ been composed, then
describe it in terms as appropiate as possible. (That way, compositions
can never be "wrong".) As far as Rossignol is concerned, I do not think
of what the composer could have chosen but what in fact has been written
(E natural or E flat). Anyway, melodic description is far more helpful
to me in checking out what is going on in Rossignol than harmonic
thinking, and I'm glad to see that we agree on how that can be done.

> Deciding which hexachord is appropriate is a bit like the chicken
> and the egg. Did composers choose their notes according to which
> hexachord they thought they were in at any one time, or was it that
> singers decided on the hexachord when they were faced with the music
> which had already been composed?
> 
> The choice of hexachord, as you rightly say, is determined by where
> the semitones come in the music. Musica recta semitones have to
> involve mi and fa. So, if we solmise bar 2, we end up with
> 
> _h___f__d__c__a_
> _d__c_|_
> __|_
> __|_
> __|_
> __|_
> 
>  la sol fa mi re
>  sol fa mi
> 
> Thomas Morley advises against singing ut, unless the note really is
> the lowest of all. In fact I would avoid re too in bar 2, and sing
> "la sol fa mi sol fa mi".
> 
> If, on the other hand, the last note of bar 2 were e' flat (b2), the
> harmony would incline towards F major with a dominant 7th. A minor
> would not feature at all. We would have to choose a different
> hexachord for the last few notes of the bar, so that mi fa coincided
> with d' (a2) and e' flat (b2):
> 
> _h___f__d__c__a_
> _d__b_|_
> __|_
> __|_
> __|_
> __|_
> 
>  la sol fa mi re
>   la sol fa
> 
> In other words, the composer could have chosen e' or e' flat at the
> end of bar 2 -  both notes are musica recta - and his decision would
> determine which hexachord was appropriate for solmising.

-- 
Best wishes,

Mathias

Mathias Roesel, Grosze Annenstrasze 5, 28199 Bremen, Deutschland/
Germany, T/F +49 - 421 - 165 49 97, Fax +49 1805 060 334 480 67, E-Mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Divisions and hexachords ?

[Peter Nightingale]

Dear Stewart and Mathias,

It seems that we all ended up on the same page on this one.  At least, if
you agree with my summary and interpretation of the discussion:

Divisions are driven by melodic considerations and the choices are limited
by the desire to keep the number hexachord mutations to a minimum.  
Stewart's implied preferences seem to be as follows (in decreasing order):

1. stay in the current hexachord: e nat'ls in my Rossignol division.
2. anticipate a mutation: nat'l followed by flat
3. anticipate even more: two flats
4. mutate back and forth (e flat followed by e nat)

This ranks my four division possibilities. Have I stripped away too many
subtleties?

Peter.

-- 
the next auto-quote is:
Martyrdom has always been a proof of the intensity, never of the
correctness of a belief.
(Arthur Schnitzler)
/\/\
Peter Nightingale  Telephone (401) 874-5882
Department of Physics, East Hall   Fax (401) 874-2380
University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881

Divisions and hexachords ?

[Stewart McCoy]

Dear Mathias,

You are right to say that harmonic and melodic aspects are both
important in determining which notes should be sharp, flat or
natural. In fact I made this very point with regard to the last note
of bar 2.

As far as the harmony is concerned, again we are both right. The
chord at the end of bar 2 could be described either as a 1st
inversion of F major with an unaccented passing note e', or a root
position chord of A minor with an accented passing note f'. You
could even argue that it is an F major chord followed by a chord of
A minor. However, the important thing, as far as I was concerned,
was the fact that the last note of the bar (c2) was a perfect fifth
above the bass in Lute 2.

_d_c_a_c_d_c_d_f___h___f_d_c_a___
_|_d_c_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_

Deciding which hexachord is appropriate is a bit like the chicken
and the egg. Did composers choose their notes according to which
hexachord they thought they were in at any one time, or was it that
singers decided on the hexachord when they were faced with the music
which had already been composed?

The choice of hexachord, as you rightly say, is determined by where
the semitones come in the music. Musica recta semitones have to
involve mi and fa. So, if we solmise bar 2, we end up with

_h___f__d__c__a_
_d__c_|_
__|_
__|_
__|_
__|_

 la sol fa mi re
 sol fa mi

Thomas Morley advises against singing ut, unless the note really is
the lowest of all. In fact I would avoid re too in bar 2, and sing
"la sol fa mi sol fa mi".

If, on the other hand, the last note of bar 2 were e' flat (b2), the
harmony would incline towards F major with a dominant 7th. A minor
would not feature at all. We would have to choose a different
hexachord for the last few notes of the bar, so that mi fa coincided
with d' (a2) and e' flat (b2):

_h___f__d__c__a_
_d__b_|_
__|_
__|_
__|_
__|_

 la sol fa mi re
  la sol fa

In other words, the composer could have chosen e' or e' flat at the
end of bar 2 -  both notes are musica recta - and his decision would
determine which hexachord was appropriate for solmising.

Best wishes,

Stewart.


- Original Message -
From: ""Mathias Rösel"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lutelist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Divisions and hexachords ?


> Dear Peter ans Stewart,
>
> thank you for tipping on this topic. Harmonic thinking certainly
is a
> way to explain things, but just as certainly not the only one. If
you
> say, Stewart, the composer chose or avoided this or that tone
because of
> possible resulting harmonies, you would have to assume the melody
was
> shaped in accordance with the accompaniment. IMHO, that is not
> necessarily the way tunes and their related accompaniments were
> composed. Btw, the chord in bar 2, 2nd half, IMO is an inverted F
major
> (on a G-lute), not A minor.
>
> You could just as easily explain changes from natural to flat in
terms
> of hexachords. Melody starts with a tone that is a minor third
above
> lute 2. It could be Fa or Sol. It is immediately made clear it's
Fa by
> the following note which is Mi. So, Ut is on 2nd course, 3rd fret
(2d, F
> on a G-lute). Once the melody passes that mark downward, it has to
be
> made clear as soon as possible, which hexachord we have now. This
is
> made clear by the step Mi - Fa. First, it is 2r - 2d, which means
Ut is
> on 3d. After that, it is changed: Mi - Fa is by now 2a - 2b, which
means
> Ut is on 3b (hexachordum molle). Between these two, the melody
goes to
> and fro until, finally, it returns to the intial hexachord.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mathias

Re: Divisions and hexachords ?

["Mathias Rösel"]

Dear Peter ans Stewart,

thank you for tipping on this topic. Harmonic thinking certainly is a
way to explain things, but just as certainly not the only one. If you
say, Stewart, the composer chose or avoided this or that tone because of
possible resulting harmonies, you would have to assume the melody was
shaped in accordance with the accompaniment. IMHO, that is not
necessarily the way tunes and their related accompaniments were
composed. Btw, the chord in bar 2, 2nd half, IMO is an inverted F major
(on a G-lute), not A minor.

You could just as easily explain changes from natural to flat in terms
of hexachords. Melody starts with a tone that is a minor third above
lute 2. It could be Fa or Sol. It is immediately made clear it's Fa by
the following note which is Mi. So, Ut is on 2nd course, 3rd fret (2d, F
on a G-lute). Once the melody passes that mark downward, it has to be
made clear as soon as possible, which hexachord we have now. This is
made clear by the step Mi - Fa. First, it is 2r - 2d, which means Ut is
on 3d. After that, it is changed: Mi - Fa is by now 2a - 2b, which means
Ut is on 3b (hexachordum molle). Between these two, the melody goes to
and fro until, finally, it returns to the intial hexachord.

"Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Dear Peter,
> 
> I have tried in vain to read your tablature, but there is too much
> material on each line, and after many attempts I can't get it to
> stop wrapping around.
> 
> The e flats and e naturals are the result of harmonic thinking,
> taking into account what is in the Lute 2 part, avoiding where
> possible the dreaded diminished fifth/ augmented fourth.
> 
> Here is the tablature of the first two bars without rhythm signs,
> scored up so that you can see the harmony. I've taken it from the
> Board Lute Book, 6r, making the first chord of Lute 2 G minor
> instead of G major.
> 
> _d_c_a_c_d_c_d_f___h___f_d_c_a___
> _|_d_c_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> 
> _a___c_d___f_
> _a___|_|_
> _b___|_|_
> _c___|_c___e___|_
> _|_|_
> _a___a___|_|_
> 
> The last note of bar 2 is e' natural,
> 
> 1) because it is part of an A minor chord. The e' is a perfect fifth
> above the bass (e4 in Lute 2). If you had e' flat instead, you would
> create a diminished fifth.
> 
> 2) to avoid an augmented fourth created by the melody from c1 three
> notes earlier.
> 
> Here are the next two bars:
> 
> _a___a_c_
> _a_c_d___b_d_|_d_d_a_b_d_a_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> 
> 
> _h___f___d_c___d_
> _|_d___a___|_
> _|_|_
> _f___|_|_
> _a___|_c___|_
> _|_d___|_
> 
> 
> For the 2nd note of bar 3 (Lute 1), the composer keeps e' as a
> natural, presumably to let it match the e' natural which has gone
> before. True, it is an augmented 4th above the bass (f4 in Lute 2),
> but it's only an unaccented passing note, so no harm is done.
> 
> For the 4th note of bar 3 (Lute 1), the composer has an e' flat,
> because the e' forms part of a chord of C minor, which is the
> subdominant of G minor. The piece is in G minor, so unless you have
> a good reason (e.g. melody going from e' to f'#), you would want the
> C chord to be C minor.
> 
> Having established e' flat, it makes sense to stay with e' flat for
> the 6th note of bar 4. Again it is only an unaccented passing note
> over a chord of B flat major, so it's perfectly OK.
> 
> I'm tempted to ask why you should want to add divisions to this
> piece, which seems perfectly charming as it is. If you do, I
> wouldn't go for lots of fast notes. Tasteful might be something like
> this for bars 3 and 4 of Lute 1:
> 
> _a___a_c_
> _a_c_d_a_b_d___b_|_d_d_a_b_d_a_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> 

-- 
Best wishes,

Mathias

Mathias Roesel, Grosze Annenstrasze 5, 28199 Bremen, Deutschland/
Germany, T/F +49 - 421 - 165 49 97, Fax +49 1805 060 334 480 67, E-Mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Divisions and hexachords ?

[Stewart McCoy]

Dear Peter,

Thanks for re-doing the tablature, which makes everything clear. My
own view, for what it's worth, is that you should stick with the e'
naturals until the composer changes to e' flats. The original has e'
natural for the first half of the bar, and changes to flats on the
3rd minim:

  |\|\ |\|\
  |\|  |\|
  | |  | |
 a_
|_a__c__d__b__d|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|

I think your divisions should stick to the same arrangement with

  |\|\ |\|\
  |\|\ |\|
  |\|  | |
 a_
|_a_a__c__d__c__d__b__d|
|d_|
|__|
|__|
|__|

rather than

  |\|\ |\|\
  |\|\ |\|
  |\|  | |
 a_
|_a_a__c__d__b__d__b__d|
|d_|
|__|
|__|
|__|

You don't have to think about when to change from one hexachord to
another, if you stick to what the original composer did.

-o-O-o-

There are times when when things get complicated, because some
composers deliberately change the hexachord early in one part to
create dissonance. What I have in mind is this sort of cadential
scrunching from Albert de Rippe's intabulation of Voulant honneur,
from his _Premier Livre_ (Paris, 1553):

 |\|\  |\|\
 |\|\  |\|\
 |\|\  |\|\
 | |   |\|
_c_a___a___c_a__
___._e_c_a_c_e_._|___._e_c_f_e_f_e_c_e_|_f__
_d_.___._|_a_._f_.___.___._|
_a___c___|_e___|
_d___|_c___a___c___|
_|_|

Here we have F against F#, D and E against E flat, F# against C
(tritone). The drive towards the final G involves an F# leading note
which overides everything else, dragging E naturals in its wake.
It's perhaps a bit of an extreme example, but thank Heavens for
tablature. With all those discords flying around, a modern editor,
faced with the same music in staff notation, might have been tempted
to edit out much of the dissonance. It is scarcely believable.

Best wishes,

Stewart.










- Original Message -
From: "Peter Nightingale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: Divisions and hexachords ?


> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Stewart McCoy wrote:
>
> > Dear Peter,
> >
> > I have tried in vain to read your tablature, but there is too
much
> > material on each line, and after many attempts I can't get it to
> > stop wrapping around.
>
> Dear Stewart,
>
> Thanks for your explanation!
>
> I'm sorry to hear that you got wrapped up in my wrap-around email.
With my
> email reader it was no problem at all.  I've cut all that was not
really
> necessary away and include a new wrap-proof version below.
>
> But before we get to that, let me explain my thinking. First of
all, I'd
> like to ignore the question whether mutilating poor old Rossignol
in this
> fashion is or is not a good idea.  Let's just suppose we have to
do it and
> want to do it "correctly".
>
> Imagine you are a renaissance singer who dabbles on the lute. You
think in
> hexachords and I suppose that in that case you would be inclined
to keep
> the number of mutations as small as possible.  From that point of
view,
> some divisions might be more natural than others.  I've never
understood
> how you decide when to switch for one hexachord to the other, but
I guess
> that, in addition to a few other rules, inertia, i.e., keeping the
number
> of mutations small, must be a major part of the art.
>
> This view is almost completely orthogonal to the harmonic view
that you
> present. I'm not sure how far you would get with harmony, because
whatever
> is "divisively"  inserted is almost by definition a passing tone.
Or is
> that too simplistic?  Probably not, because the following argument
points
> in the same direction:  if divisions are inserted
improvisationally and
> there are two or more people involved, the divisions will surely
have a
> driving force that is more melodic than harmonic in nature.
>
> In other words, I'm still am as confused as ever.
>
> Regards,
> Peter.
>
> Here are the third measures of the Rossignol:
>
> Part 1:
>   |\|\ |\

Re: Divisions and hexachords ?

[Peter Nightingale]

ecause the e' forms part of a chord of C minor, which is the
> subdominant of G minor. The piece is in G minor, so unless you have
> a good reason (e.g. melody going from e' to f'#), you would want the
> C chord to be C minor.
> 
> Having established e' flat, it makes sense to stay with e' flat for
> the 6th note of bar 4. Again it is only an unaccented passing note
> over a chord of B flat major, so it's perfectly OK.
> 
> I'm tempted to ask why you should want to add divisions to this
> piece, which seems perfectly charming as it is. If you do, I
> wouldn't go for lots of fast notes. Tasteful might be something like
> this for bars 3 and 4 of Lute 1:
> 
> _a___a_c_
> _a_c_d_a_b_d___b_|_d_d_a_b_d_a_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> _|_|_
> 
> Although I am not a great fan of fast divisions for the old
> Rossignol, I have found that it lends itself to ornaments. Stacks of
> them. I forget where I heard it - perhaps Anthony Rooley? - but
> little pull-offs sound nice with the high repeated h's:
> 
> _h__h__h__h__hh__
> ___|_
> ___|_
> ___|_
> ___|_
> ___|_
> 
> could become
> 
> _ih_ih_ih_ih_ih_ih_ih_ih___
> _|_
> _|_
> _|_
> _|_
> _|_
> 
> This is a fair reflection of the Nightingale's Jug jug jug jug",
> although you might think all the i's a bit de trop.
> 
> Margaret Board adds a couple of ornaments in the following bar:
> 
> _+f__d__.c
> |_
> |_
> |_
> |_
> |_
> 
> which I would interpret as
> 
> _hf__d__cdcdc___
> __|_
> __|_
> __|_
> __|_
> __|_
> 
> with the first note of each group starting on the beat, not in
> anticipation of the beat. My interpretation of the two signs (single
> cross and dot alongside the letter) concurs with Martin Shepherd's,
> who wrote an important article about ornaments a few years ago in
> _The Lute_.
> 
> Anyway, to sum up, if I were you, I'd go for ornaments rather than
> divisions in La Rossignol.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Stewart.
> 
> PS Does your interest in this piece arise because of your name, or
> is it purely coincidental?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Peter Nightingale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:12 PM
> Subject: divisions and hexachords ?
> 
> 
> > Dear List,
> >
> > I'm trying to add divisions to La Rossignol and I appended the
> fruits of
> > my labor.  (Pls widen your window if the modified version wraps
> around.)
> > I'm having problems with measure 3: for the 4th and 6th note I can
> (or
> > maybe not ?) choose an e of an e-flat, which gives me four
> combinations to
> > choose from. (Or five if you count not doing anything at all.)
> How do I
> > make the choice? How do I know that what sounds right to me would
> have
> > sounded right to Renaissance ears?  Do the rules of hexachord
> mutations
> > reduce the number of "valid" choices?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Peter
> >
> >|\   |\ |\   |\ |\
> |\  |\
> >|\   |  |\   |  |\|
> |\
> >||  ||  | |
> |
> >  __d__c__a__c__d__c__d__f_ _h__f__d__c__a___
> a_ a__c
> >
> |_|d__c_|_a__c__d__b__d|
> _dd_
> >
> |_|_|__|
> 
> >
> |_|_|__|
> 
> >
> |_|_|__|
> 
> >
> |_|_|__|
> 
> >
> >
> >|\   |\|\ |\ |\
> |\ |\|\  |\
> >|\   |\|\ |\ |\
> |\ |\|   |\
> >||\|  |  |\
> |  |

Divisions and hexachords ?

[Stewart McCoy]

Dear Roman,

Garry's hit the nail on the head. It's the old diabolus in musica.

However, diminished fifths and augmented fourths had been in common
use a long time before the Rossignol came along. The common
progression of I - VIIb - Ib involves a chord with a tritone:

_a___aa___a_
_a___e___a||__a___e___a__||_
_c___d||__b___d__||_
_c||__c__||_
__||_||_
_a___c___e||__a___c___d__||_

 G major  G minor

Strictly speaking, if the composer of the Rossignol had kept to
modern usage, he might have opted for e' flat instead of e' natural
at the end of bar 2:

_d_c_a_c_d_c_d_f___h___f_d_c_a___
_|_d_c_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_

_a___c_d___f_
_a___|_|_
_b___|_|_
_c___|_c___e___|_
_|_|_
_a___a___|_|_

The last note of Lute 1's 2nd bar would need to be e' flat (b2) to
create a chord of VIIb. Presumably the composer didn't like the
exposed tritone, so opted for e' natural instead. Either that or
he'd been knocking back the old barenjager too.

By the way, my ornamentation of those h's certainly was de trop. I
intended to write:

_ih__h__ih__h__ih__h__ih__h___
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_

and that was before nipping off to the pub for a couple of pints.

Best wishes,

Stewart.



- Original Message -
From: "Garry Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Roman Turovsky'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: Divisions and hexachords ?

> -Original Message-
> From: Roman Turovsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:09 PM
> To: Stewart McCoy; Lute Net
> Subject: Re: Divisions and hexachords ?
>
> > The e flats and e naturals are the result of harmonic thinking,
> > taking into account what is in the Lute 2 part, avoiding where
> > possible the dreaded diminished fifth/ augmented fourth.
> Could you elucidate why these are to be dreaded?
>
> Diabolus in Musica
>
> Otherwise known as a TRITONE!!! Aieee!
>
> I think I got that right. I've been drinking barenjager, so I'm
not sure
> right now >:)
>
> Garry
>
> RT

Re: Divisions and hexachords ?

[Roman Turovsky]

Fux as composer was a model of inspiration and memorability, if you acquire
my drift. I think he made a BIG strategic mistake in misjudging tritones'
usefullness. 
RT
>>> The e flats and e naturals are the result of harmonic thinking,
>>> taking into account what is in the Lute 2 part, avoiding where
>>> possible the dreaded diminished fifth/ augmented fourth.
>> Could you elucidate why these are to be dreaded?
>> 
>> Diabolus in Musica
>> 
>> Otherwise known as a TRITONE!!! Aieee!
> But these are not nearly as problematic in baroque music, aren't they?
> 
> Dunno. But Fux didn't like 'em. He probably liked Barenjager, though...Hic!
> Fux may not have been Baroque, though; "Gradus ad Parnassum" made a good bit
> of money, I think >:)
> 
> 
> 
> Garry
> 
> RT
> __
> Roman M. Turovsky
> http://turovsky.org
> http://polyhymnion.org
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Divisions and hexachords ?

[Roman Turovsky]

>> The e flats and e naturals are the result of harmonic thinking,
>> taking into account what is in the Lute 2 part, avoiding where
>> possible the dreaded diminished fifth/ augmented fourth.
> Could you elucidate why these are to be dreaded?
> 
> Diabolus in Musica
> 
> Otherwise known as a TRITONE!!! Aieee!
But these are not nearly as problematic in baroque music, aren't they?
RT
__
Roman M. Turovsky
http://turovsky.org
http://polyhymnion.org

RE: Divisions and hexachords ?

[Garry Bryan]

-Original Message-
From: Roman Turovsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:32 PM
To: Garry Bryan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Divisions and hexachords ?

>> The e flats and e naturals are the result of harmonic thinking,
>> taking into account what is in the Lute 2 part, avoiding where
>> possible the dreaded diminished fifth/ augmented fourth.
> Could you elucidate why these are to be dreaded?
> 
> Diabolus in Musica
> 
> Otherwise known as a TRITONE!!! Aieee!
But these are not nearly as problematic in baroque music, aren't they?

Dunno. But Fux didn't like 'em. He probably liked Barenjager, though...Hic!
Fux may not have been Baroque, though; "Gradus ad Parnassum" made a good bit
of money, I think >:)



Garry

RT
__
Roman M. Turovsky
http://turovsky.org
http://polyhymnion.org

Re: Divisions and hexachords ?

[Roman Turovsky]

>> The e flats and e naturals are the result of harmonic thinking,
>> taking into account what is in the Lute 2 part, avoiding where
>> possible the dreaded diminished fifth/ augmented fourth.
> Could you elucidate why these are to be dreaded?
> 
> Diabolus in Musica
> 
> Otherwise known as a TRITONE!!! Aieee!
> 
> I think I got that right. I've been drinking barenjager, so I'm not sure
> right now >:)
Just stay away from Southern Comfort.
RT
__
Roman M. Turovsky
http://turovsky.org
http://polyhymnion.org

RE: Divisions and hexachords ?

[Garry Bryan]

-Original Message-
From: Roman Turovsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:09 PM
To: Stewart McCoy; Lute Net
Subject: Re: Divisions and hexachords ?

> The e flats and e naturals are the result of harmonic thinking,
> taking into account what is in the Lute 2 part, avoiding where
> possible the dreaded diminished fifth/ augmented fourth.
Could you elucidate why these are to be dreaded?

Diabolus in Musica

Otherwise known as a TRITONE!!! Aieee!

I think I got that right. I've been drinking barenjager, so I'm not sure
right now >:)

Garry

RT

Re: Divisions and hexachords ?

[Roman Turovsky]

> The e flats and e naturals are the result of harmonic thinking,
> taking into account what is in the Lute 2 part, avoiding where
> possible the dreaded diminished fifth/ augmented fourth.
Could you elucidate why these are to be dreaded?
RT

Divisions and hexachords ?

[Stewart McCoy]

Dear Peter,

I have tried in vain to read your tablature, but there is too much
material on each line, and after many attempts I can't get it to
stop wrapping around.

The e flats and e naturals are the result of harmonic thinking,
taking into account what is in the Lute 2 part, avoiding where
possible the dreaded diminished fifth/ augmented fourth.

Here is the tablature of the first two bars without rhythm signs,
scored up so that you can see the harmony. I've taken it from the
Board Lute Book, 6r, making the first chord of Lute 2 G minor
instead of G major.

_d_c_a_c_d_c_d_f___h___f_d_c_a___
_|_d_c_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_

_a___c_d___f_
_a___|_|_
_b___|_|_
_c___|_c___e___|_
_|_|_
_a___a___|_|_

The last note of bar 2 is e' natural,

1) because it is part of an A minor chord. The e' is a perfect fifth
above the bass (e4 in Lute 2). If you had e' flat instead, you would
create a diminished fifth.

2) to avoid an augmented fourth created by the melody from c1 three
notes earlier.

Here are the next two bars:

_a___a_c_
_a_c_d___b_d_|_d_d_a_b_d_a_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_


_h___f___d_c___d_
_|_d___a___|_
_|_|_
_f___|_|_
_a___|_c___|_
_|_d___|_


For the 2nd note of bar 3 (Lute 1), the composer keeps e' as a
natural, presumably to let it match the e' natural which has gone
before. True, it is an augmented 4th above the bass (f4 in Lute 2),
but it's only an unaccented passing note, so no harm is done.

For the 4th note of bar 3 (Lute 1), the composer has an e' flat,
because the e' forms part of a chord of C minor, which is the
subdominant of G minor. The piece is in G minor, so unless you have
a good reason (e.g. melody going from e' to f'#), you would want the
C chord to be C minor.

Having established e' flat, it makes sense to stay with e' flat for
the 6th note of bar 4. Again it is only an unaccented passing note
over a chord of B flat major, so it's perfectly OK.

I'm tempted to ask why you should want to add divisions to this
piece, which seems perfectly charming as it is. If you do, I
wouldn't go for lots of fast notes. Tasteful might be something like
this for bars 3 and 4 of Lute 1:

_a___a_c_
_a_c_d_a_b_d___b_|_d_d_a_b_d_a_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_
_|_|_

Although I am not a great fan of fast divisions for the old
Rossignol, I have found that it lends itself to ornaments. Stacks of
them. I forget where I heard it - perhaps Anthony Rooley? - but
little pull-offs sound nice with the high repeated h's:

_h__h__h__h__hh__
___|_
___|_
___|_
___|_
___|_

could become

_ih_ih_ih_ih_ih_ih_ih_ih___
_|_
_|_
_|_
_|_
_|_

This is a fair reflection of the Nightingale's Jug jug jug jug",
although you might think all the i's a bit de trop.

Margaret Board adds a couple of ornaments in the following bar:

_+f__d__.c
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_

which I would interpret as

_hf__d__cdcdc___
__|_
__|_
__|_
__|_
__|_

with the first note of each group starting on the beat, not in
anticipation of the beat. My interpretation of the two signs (single
cross and dot alongside the letter) concurs with Martin Shepherd's,
who wrote an important article about ornaments a few years ago in
_The Lute_.

Anyway, to sum up, if I were you, I'd go for ornaments rather than
divisions in La Rossignol.

All the best,

Stewart.

PS Does your interest in this piece arise because of your name, or
is it purely coincidental?









- Original Message -
From: "Peter Nightingale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:12 PM
Subject: divisions and hexachords ?


> Dear List,
>
> I'm trying to add divisions to La Rossignol and I appended the
fruits of
> my labor.  (Pls widen your window if the modified version wraps
around.)
> I&#x

divisions and hexachords ?

[Peter Nightingale]

Dear List,

I'm trying to add divisions to La Rossignol and I appended the fruits of
my labor.  (Pls widen your window if the modified version wraps around.)
I'm having problems with measure 3: for the 4th and 6th note I can (or
maybe not ?) choose an e of an e-flat, which gives me four combinations to
choose from. (Or five if you count not doing anything at all.)  How do I
make the choice? How do I know that what sounds right to me would have
sounded right to Renaissance ears?  Do the rules of hexachord mutations
reduce the number of "valid" choices?

Thanks,
Peter

   |\   |\ |\   |\ |\|\  |\ 
   |\   |  |\   |  |\|   |\ 
   ||  ||  | |   |  
 __d__c__a__c__d__c__d__f_ _h__f__d__c__a___ a_ a__c
|_|d__c_|_a__c__d__b__d|_dd_
|_|_|__|
|_|_|__|
|_|_|__|
|_|_|__|


   |\   |\|\ |\ |\|\ |\|\  
|\   
   |\   |\|\ |\ |\|\ |\|   
|\   
   ||\|  |  |\|  | |   
|
 __d__c__a__c__d__c__d__f_ _h__f__h__f__d__c__a___ a_ 
a__c ___a__c__d__a__f_
|_|__d__c_|_a_a__c__d__b__d__b__d|_dd__a__c__d__a_|_b__d
|_|___|d_||_
|_|___|__||_
|_|___|__||_
|_|___|__||_
   
 

-- 
the next auto-quote is:
You cannot play the Song of Freedom on an instrument of oppression.
(Stanislaw J. Lec)
/\/\
Peter Nightingale  Telephone (401) 874-5882
Department of Physics, East Hall   Fax (401) 874-2380
University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881