First of let me say that there are two errors in my transcription - which I
did in rather a hurry. In the second bar of the first stave there should,
as Stuart says, be a low E as well as a high one on the 4th quaver. And in
the first bar of the third stave the C on the fourth quaver should be
natural.
The first thing I'd ask Monica is how she would have transcribed a
campanella passage. Her transcription assumes a low D for the fourth
course.
I assume you are referring to the passage in the first and second bars of
the second stave. I have transcribed all the notes on the 4th and 5th
course there in the upper octave because that makes the best musical sense
to me. I could have put in the low D on the first quaver of the second bar
as well as the high one - which would create a more continuous bass line.
I have left out the high notes on the fourth course in other places because
it make the music very difficult to read and write out. I did think about
marking them in some way. In practice - and I spent some time yesterday
playing the piece - the high octave string doesn't make very much
difference. In places it actually fills out the harmony a bit. It is
just
that you are assuming that the melodic line is different from what you will
hear when the piece is played.
My second transcription (no doubt with mistakes, but the principle is
clear enough) is fully re-entrant. Perhaps the 'masters of Rome' or Italy
(that Sanz mentions) liked this. I'm just baffled: fully re-entrant
tuning really is very, very strange except for chords and maybe very
simple music (the exact opposite of what Sanz seems to be saying).
It looks very strange on paper - but it doesn't necessarily sound like that.
(Gordon has made a very nice recording of Sanz with the re-entrant tuning)..
This is exactly what cittern music looks like when written out in staff
notation. If you like I will send you and example - later on.
Here's Los Paysanas from Murcia. ('Greensleeves'). The arrow
points to an f which you really (really) wouldn't want an octave higher.
http://www.tuningsinthirds.com/Baleto/paysana.jpg
I can't really see (or hear) a problem with the F. If you are using
bordones on both the 4th and 5th courses the open 5th course will also sound
an octave higher - leading into the G of the next chord.
Monica is interpreting the piece as having octaves on the fourth course
(which is what most people do). OK. But she - and Rob - insist, very
strongly, that the high D, the upper octave, must be heard. The thumb hits
the high string before the low on the fourth course. And unless you do
something about it (e.g. play only one string of the course) the high
string will be heard very clearly indeed. OK again. So where are the notes
of the higher D of the fourth course in Monica's transcription?
As I say - I haven't put them in because of the complications with the
notation. The point is that it is almost impossible to write out the music
in staff notation in the way in will sound. Even staff notation has its
limitations.
right. After all, transcriptions of lute music with octaves on the sixth
course don't try to represent the upper octave.
Of course - but the upper octave notes will be there. Again - the point is
that staff notation is limited in what it can portray.
Indeed - but the lute is very different. On a lute the lower note is
struck first and there's nothing quite like the re-entrant camapanella
effect. (Interestingly, some lute players today, playing music from the
late 15th century, utterly refuse to put octaves on the lower courses of
the lute because they say it will ruin the integrity of the lines in the
music of Obrecht etc.)
Maybe - but what they are doing may not be "historically accurate". In the
15th century the lute was played with a plectrum (I am just reading Jon
Banks book on the subject). If there were octave strings it would be
difficult to leave them out.
Here's the end of a passacalle from de Murcia. (I like the de Murcia of
the Resumen and the Passacalles y Obras. I don't know whether he composed,
arranged or just nicked these pieces. I somehow feel he knew what he was
doing in presenting these pieces to us.):
http://www.tuningsinthirds.com/Baleto/Murzia.jpg
Again - this is just the way the music is and doesn't seem to me to be a
problem.
Monica suggests I just play Baroque guitar music on a modern classical
guitar. There are many reasons why not, but this is the most crucial
reason: the fourth course is sometimes high and sometimes low. Well, in
re-entrant music it's always high but I think that is just a mystery.
The same is (probably) true of the fifth course too.
Well - yes - this is how the instrument is and ironing out its
idiocyncracies is impossible. You have to accept that they are
characteristic of the guitar. The whole problem with people who play the
baroque guitar is that they have this idea that there are rules etc
governing both the harmony and voice leading which must be meticulously
observed. But if the instrument is strung and played properly there is a
very considerable degree of ambiguity in the way which it sounds.
You either like it or hated.
Monica
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
