Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 23 Nov 1998 07:54:27 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Daniel Lindholm generously summarizes Wulfstan's conclusions about those
single- and double-slash ornament signs in English virginalist music.
Please don't take time from this if it's inconvenient, but if anyone can
translate some of these descriptions into something more suitable for a
complete non-musicological idiot like yours truly, it would be most
appreciated. The gestures themselves in practice are probably familiar, but
the terminology eludes me. My own fault, but you can't do everything.
owen
>That said, he does offer some general guidelines. He concludes that the
>SINGLE STROKE had at least two meanings:
> FIRST: in earlier music, where the harmony permits (that is, where the 3rd
>below is present or implied) it equals:
> a) on slow to moderate notes a dotted or plain slide.
> b) on rapid notes a simultaneous forefall (= a 'lower acciaccatura')
> SECOND: In other contexts than the one mentioned above it equals:
> a) on slow to moderate notes a forefall (rising appoggiatura)
> b) on rapid notes a simultaneous forefall (= a 'lower acciaccatura')
>
>The DOUBLE STROKE had more possibilities:
> FIRST: on the down-beat, especially where the previous note is lower, it
>equals:
> a) on slow to moderate notes an undershake or mordent
> b) on rapid notes a simultaneous forefall (=a 'lower acciaccatura')
> SECOND: where the previous note is higher it equals
> a) on slow to moderate notes a short shake
> b) on rapid notes a simultaneous backfall (= an 'upper acciaccatura')
> THIRD: in ascending off-beat patterns it equals
> a) on slow to moderate notes a short shake plus turn
> b) on rapid notes a short shake or a simultaneous backfall
> FOURTH: ascending; or with closing notes (but not when followed by a
>written-out
> trill) it equals:
> a) on slow to moderate notes an extended turn, a turn plus trill, or
> a reverse turn plus trill.
> b) on rapid notes (Not applicable)
>
>This summary certainly does not do justice to Wulstan's presentation. The
>entire chapter is rich in examples, and its detail should repay close scrutiny
>by anyone with a serious interest in this music. Whether one agrees with all
>the conclusions or not, one must admire Wulstan's attempt to take a reasoned
>position in such a complex and controversial area.
> Dan Lindblom
>[log in to unmask]
|
|
|