Weiss, S. L. - Fantasie

[pogmoor]

This is an unmeasured prelude, originally written in baroque lute tablature (the original manuscript tablature version is written with no barlines). I haven't checked it in detail but I think the convention used in your copy is that accidentals apply only in the octave in which they appear.

[Rylan]

Thanks pogmoor,


Is there anything concrete as a rule to hold onto pogmoor, as I want to be sure and the copy I have is from trinity publications and even when I searched the same piece on the internet I got an excerpt from this piece showing the music written the same way.

[Rylan]

Pogmoor,
Occasionally we do find mistakes in trinity college books so just to be sure I cross verified it with a version on the internet.

[clivepics]

Brilliant! I am working on this piece and am gradually getting there. Loved your interpretation.

[Rylan]

Guys is there anyone to help me out?
It would be appreciated!

[attila57]

[attila57]

I overviewed the whole portion once again and understand that if any note is made sharped then the sharped note must be made specifically natural by putting a natural sign if it's required to be played natural again in the music anywhere further. But this is the only place in the picture I still didn't understand as to why he's playing as a g note at point 2 whereas in the previous line he's played g#. Here there's no natural sign to bring it back to be played natural.

Help would be really appreciated..

Thanks.

I'm a little bit into that piece right now and I believe there is some general disagreement concerning what to play at point No.1. First of all, the original lute version is c minor, not d minor. In the original c minor version at point 1 there's a f natural, but often fis is played instead. Likewise, in the d minor version gis is played instead of g natural. Point 2 is not marked in any manner in the original lute version, so, if f is considered correct at point 1, naturally f should be played at point 2, too. Then the question goes back to why fis is played instead of f at point 1. I have yet to look into that, but I think it goes back to the interpretation of the previous broken chord succession. Some chords can be considered in different ways, and fis might suit better into a particular succession. Some might like to stick to the original f. Presently, I'm working on a 7-string and a 10-string version, that's why I dare to say something about this issue, but I might be wrong.

Attila

[attila57]

Guys is there anyone to help me out?
It would be appreciated!

Hello Rylan,
That's me once again. I think you'd better check the original tabulature version, that'll give you an unambiguous answer.

[pogmoor]

Guys is there anyone to help me out?
It would be appreciated!

A facsimile of the original manuscript is here: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=48667 together with M. Delcamp's transcription (into E minor). M Delcamp has carefully transcribed the MS source into staff station and his version shows an A sharp at the first point and an A (without an accidental) at the second, corresponding with the G sharp and G in the Trinity College transcription that you have illustrated. Look at the facsimile (and it needs a bit of focus to sort this out) bearing in mind that the baroque lute is tuned: f' d' a' f d A G F E D C B A (with adjustments of the bottom courses depending on key - in this case ninth course is tuned to E flat rather than E, and the lowest two courses are not used). If you do this you will see that the corresponding notes would be transcribed as F sharp and F (corresponding to the key of C minor). This shows you that the G sharp followed by G natural interpretation is correct.

[DmitriTchoulanov]

nice, thanks

[DmitriTchoulanov]

Ps. It's also good and useful to see the hands of a performer. Thanks anyway! it sounds great

[teddyofarrell]

Thanks so much for sharing this recording, very nice playing! It inspires me to want to take a "peek" at this piece! Thanks so much! Keep up the good work!