On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:05:22 +0100, Dale Carr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Even before he wrote this in 1977, I had been made aware of the fact that
>adding ties was an option for the player. I have not compared sources, but
>my impression is that 17th-century copyists were as inventive with ties as
>with ornament signs. Maybe somebody knows of 17th-century sources that
>tell how keyboard players reacted to written notation?
One doesn't find much _written_ on ties, I think, but the reverse is
described historically here and there, and especially in connection with
continuo playing [no, I don't give references in the middle of the night
coming home on the 5th of 7 concert days in a row, sorry]: 'if the
instrument does not sustain very long, one should strike again', it says.
This means to me that attack was often a secondary issue, meaning
obviously: either way. Ever more so in Lute-imitation music, like in these
So I suppose that neither a written nor a missing tie is to be confused
with ultimate prescription. Often the context or parallel spots suggest a
misty path towards consistency, but sometimes rather the instrument or the
after-sound of the hall dictate the amount of strike-agains, sometimes the
player has a Repeaty Day and likes to stammer his melodies out into the
audience, while he another day may have a Wagnerian fit instead, and will
tie everything together.