'Re: Re:Variable length bars (Phil Holmes)'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List: lilypond-user
Subject: Re: Re:Variable length bars (Phil Holmes)
From: Graham King <graham.king () tremagi ! org ! uk>
Date: 2014-06-28 19:28:00
Message-ID: 1403983680.3254.267.camel () oberon ! tremagi ! org ! uk
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]

On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:30 -0500, Andrew A. Cashner wrote:

> Phil,
> 
> You're absolutely right (and I apologize if I suggested you didn't
> know that)---as you say, my terms weren't precise either. In medieval
> and Renaissance theory, C is tempus imperfectum cum prolatione minore,
> "cut C" is tempus imperfectum cum prolatione maiore; in other words,
> both are duple meters, one with the "lesser" note values (a semibreve
> tactus divided into minims), and one with "greater" note values (a
> breve tactus divided into semibreves).
> 
> Here's what Richard Rastall says in *Grove Music Online*, s.v. "Time signature":
> 
> Some signatures are survivors of the system of proportions and
> mensuration signs (see NOTATION,  §III, 3(VII), 4(III): [C] s used for
> 4/4 and [cut C] for 2/2 (also called alla breve). [C] s a relic of the
> medieval tempus imperfectum cum prolatione minore, a mensuration where
> each long contained two breves and each breve contained two
> semibreves. The sign [cut C] is now used to indicate quick duple time,
> the beat falling on the minim rather than the crotchet. In medieval
> terms the tactus in [C] time fell on the semibreve; in [cut C] time it
> fell on the breve.
> 
> Best,
> Andrew
> 
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Phil Holmes <mail@philholmes.net> wrote:
> >> With respect and collegiality, I just wanted to clarify that
> >> Dowland's original time signatures are C and "cut C": these
> >> mensural time signatures only look like modern 4/4 or 2/2, but
> >> they are not the same. The C generally means that each tactus
> >> or metrical group is made up of two minims (modern half
> >> notes), and the cut C means that each tactus is made up of two
> >> semibreves (modern whole notes). But in this case I think the
> >> C meter just means, "the pulse moves in minims"--it does not
> >> indicate a regular grouping of beats the way a modern meter
> >> does. Downand's bar lines, it seems to me, indicate musical
> >> and poetic phrases, not a metrical pattern.
> >>
> >>
> >> I know there are wide disagreement about this, but in
> >> transcribing for modern performers, I think one should render
> >> the original into basic modern notation--that is, notation
> >> that will not surprise modern performers--while doing the
> >> least violence to the original. I don't think you gain any
> >> advantage in a piece like this from having mixed meters, and
> >> certainly not from having two simultaneous meters.
> >>
> >>
> >> In this case, I would recommend transcribing the piece in 4/2,
> >> with perhaps an odd 2/2 bar where necessary. Even if this
> >> means that a phrase ends in the middle of a bar, I think you
> >> can trust modern performers to recognize that and not
> >> automatically put a strong downbeat on the first beat of every
> >> bar. If you think about how the piece should sound, sensitive
> >> performers will probably produce similar results regardless of
> >> where you put the bar lines.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Andrew Cashner
> >>
> >
> > To be honest, I was aware that 4/2 and 2/2 are not the correct descriptions
> > of the mensuration signs in the Dowland piece: however, to render them in
> > LilyPond you would use these time signatures in a mensural context.
> >
> > Not convinced that C and cut C are correct either: probably the best
> > description for the "C" would be tempus imperfectum and the "cut C" alla
> > breve?
> >
> > --
> > Phil Holmes

In the hope that this will provide some helpful references for others
following this thread...

Willi Apel's book is still a reliable reference for renaissance ("white
mensural") notation.  It is available online at
https://archive.org/details/notationofpolyph1953apel and elsewhere.

In the following summary, the original note values are used (breve,
semibreve, minim, semiminim, etc.).  Modern editions often half, or even
quarter, these values.

The mensuration sign C indicates "tempus imperfectum cum prolatione
imperfecta" which is to say that the breve is "imperfect" (divided into
two, not three, semibreves) and the semibreve is also imperfect (divided
into two minims).  The tactus (a constant pulse of about 50 b.p.m.
pervading renaissance music) falls on the semibreve.

Cut-C is a sign of "proportion" indicating, at least before Josquin's
period, that the tactus falls on the breve (hence "alla breve"), and so
the music is effectively twice as fast as the same notes rendered in
"C".  Both the tempus and prolation remain imperfect.  By Dowland's era,
however, cut-C was used interchangeably with C, and any effect of this
proportion needs to be deduced from the context.

In the case of "Come ye heavy states of night", for which a facsimile is
available at http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/278945 , the
canto and tablature are presented in score format, with the canto in C
and the tablature in cut-C, so we can infer that these signs are meant
to be equivalent.  As for bar lines, which are notably absent from the
alto, tenor and bass parts, they are probably intended to do no more
than indicate temporal congruences between the canto voice and the lute.
Certainly the bar lines had not yet, by this period, any fixed
relationship to the mensuration.  We are still dealing with signs of
mensuration and proportion, not with time signatures in the modern
sense.

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
 <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
 <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.6.2">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:30 -0500, Andrew A. Cashner wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Phil,

You're absolutely right (and I apologize if I suggested you \
didn't know that)---as you say, my terms weren't precise \
either. In medieval and Renaissance theory, C is tempus \
imperfectum cum prolatione minore, &quot;cut C&quot; is \
tempus imperfectum cum prolatione maiore; in other words, both are duple meters, one with the &quot;lesser&quot; note values (a \
semibreve tactus divided into minims), and one with \
&quot;greater&quot; note values (a breve tactus divided \
into semibreves).

Here's what Richard Rastall says in *Grove Music Online*, s.v. \
&quot;Time signature&quot;:

Some signatures are survivors of the system of proportions \
and mensuration signs (see NOTATION, &#167;III, 3(VII), \
4(III): [C] s used for 4/4 and [cut C] for 2/2 (also \
called alla breve). [C] s a relic of the medieval tempus \
imperfectum cum prolatione minore, a mensuration where each long contained two breves and each breve contained two \
semibreves. The sign [cut C] is now used to indicate quick \
duple time, the beat falling on the minim rather than \
the crotchet. In medieval terms the tactus in [C] time \
fell on the semibreve; in [cut C] time it fell on the \
breve.

<FONT COLOR="#000000">Best,</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Andrew</FONT>

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Phil Holmes &lt;<A \
HREF="mailto:mail@philholmes.net">mail@philholmes.net</A>&gt; wrote: &gt;&gt; With respect and collegiality, I just wanted to clarify \
that &gt;&gt; Dowland's original time signatures are C \
and &quot;cut C&quot;: these &gt;&gt; mensural time \
signatures only look like modern 4/4 or 2/2, but &gt;&gt; they are not the same. The C generally means that each \
tactus &gt;&gt; or metrical group is made up of two \
minims (modern half &gt;&gt; notes), and the cut C means \
that each tactus is made up of two &gt;&gt; semibreves \
(modern whole notes). But in this case I think the &gt;&gt; C meter just means, &quot;the pulse moves in \
minims&quot;--it does not &gt;&gt; indicate a regular \
grouping of beats the way a modern meter &gt;&gt; does. \
Downand's bar lines, it seems to me, indicate musical &gt;&gt; and poetic phrases, not a metrical pattern. &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I know there are wide disagreement about this, but \
in &gt;&gt; transcribing for modern performers, I think \
one should render &gt;&gt; the original into basic \
modern notation--that is, notation &gt;&gt; that will \
not surprise modern performers--while doing the &gt;&gt; \
least violence to the original. I don't think you gain any &gt;&gt; advantage in a piece like this from having mixed meters, \
and &gt;&gt; certainly not from having two simultaneous \
meters. &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; In this case, I would recommend transcribing the piece \
in 4/2, &gt;&gt; with perhaps an odd 2/2 bar where \
necessary. Even if this &gt;&gt; means that a phrase \
ends in the middle of a bar, I think you &gt;&gt; can \
trust modern performers to recognize that and not &gt;&gt; automatically put a strong downbeat on the first beat of \
every &gt;&gt; bar. If you think about how the piece \
should sound, sensitive &gt;&gt; performers will \
probably produce similar results regardless of &gt;&gt; \
where you put the bar lines. &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Best,
&gt;&gt; Andrew Cashner
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; To be honest, I was aware that 4/2 and 2/2 are not the \
correct descriptions &gt; of the mensuration signs in \
the Dowland piece: however, to render them in &gt; \
LilyPond you would use these time signatures in a mensural context. &gt; &gt; Not convinced that C and cut C \
are correct either: probably the best &gt; description \
for the &quot;C&quot; would be tempus imperfectum and the &quot;cut C&quot; \
alla &gt; breve?
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; Phil Holmes
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
In the hope that this will provide some helpful references for others following this \
thread... 
Willi Apel's book is still a reliable reference for renaissance (&quot;white \
mensural&quot;) notation.&nbsp; It is available online at <A \
HREF="https://archive.org/details/notationofpolyph1953apel">https://archive.org/details/notationofpolyph1953apel</A> \
and elsewhere. 
In the following summary, the original note values are used (breve, semibreve, minim, \
semiminim, etc.).&nbsp; Modern editions often half, or even quarter, these \
values. 
The mensuration sign C indicates &quot;tempus imperfectum cum prolatione \
imperfecta&quot; which is to say that the breve is &quot;imperfect&quot; (divided \
into two, not three, semibreves) and the semibreve is also imperfect (divided into \
two minims).&nbsp; The tactus (a constant pulse of about 50 b.p.m. pervading \
renaissance music) falls on the semibreve. 
Cut-C is a sign of &quot;proportion&quot; indicating, at least before Josquin's \
period, that the tactus falls on the breve (hence &quot;alla breve&quot;), and so the \
music is effectively twice as fast as the same notes rendered in &quot;C&quot;.&nbsp; \
Both the tempus and prolation remain imperfect.&nbsp; By Dowland's era, however, \
cut-C was used interchangeably with C, and any effect of this proportion needs to be \
deduced from the context. 
In the case of &quot;Come ye heavy states of night&quot;, for which a facsimile is \
available at <A HREF="http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/278945">http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/278945</A> \
, the canto and tablature are presented in score format, with the canto in C and the \
tablature in cut-C, so we can infer that these signs are meant to be \
equivalent.&nbsp; As for bar lines, which are notably absent from the alto, tenor and \
bass parts, they are probably intended to do no more than indicate temporal \
congruences between the canto voice and the lute.&nbsp; Certainly the bar lines had \
not yet, by this period, any fixed relationship to the mensuration.&nbsp; We are \
still dealing with signs of mensuration and proportion, not with time signatures in \
the modern sense. 
 
</BODY>
</HTML>

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 