Tablature c vs. r
Renaissance-style French tab fonts in MuseScore so far all display a c like -- a c. Some of the Baroque fonts in MuseScore provide the r-like symbol, but what is lacking is the r-like c in a renaissance-style font, as found in arguably the most famous of all lute sources, the MSS created by the famous scribe, Matthew Holmes and others around the same time period (1590-1610) (Pickering Lute Book, Euing lute book, Herbert of Cherbury Lute Book, and other MS sources, such as the Braye Lute Book), as well as many printed works of the time, such as Varietie of Lute Lessons, all the Dowland Books of Ayres, Robert Dowland's Musicall Banquet, the John Danyel and Francis Pilkington lute song collections, William Barley Lute book, Thomas Robinson Schoole of Musicke -- all of these use renaissance-style fret marks with the r-type c. I favor Renaissance style as I think it is easier to read than the more florid Baroque styles, and the r is clearer than the c. So I would like to see this style represented in MuseScore. You can check to see what these sources look like on my website . Thank you.
Comments
Presently there is ongoing development regarding incorporating different styles of Renaissance/Baroque TAB fonts into MuseScore.
See:
https://musescore.org/en/node/76561#comment-351766
where the r-type c is mentioned under 'Late Renaissance' style.
That entire forum page is a brainstorming session as to which TAB styles might be included.
I do believe that what you are referring to may be implemented.
If not, your participation in that particular thread is encouraged.
Regards.
First of all, mss are important but tricky without the backing of printed editions, falling to idioms peculiar to a single copyist is always possible.
About the printed sources you quote in your post and host in your site and which I could identify:
The Varieties, 1605 Pilkington's Ayres and 1603 Robinson's Schoole of Musicke (which seem printed by the same printer or at least with the same movable types) do not seem to me have the 'short'-c at all (I don't like to call it 'r', it is not an 'r' and should not be confused with one), they distinctly have a two-time first stroke of the 'c'; occasionally the second stroke does not show through but this has to accounted to the inking variations of the hand-operated presses and possibly to the low resolution of the reproduction. They also exhibit an imbreviatura 'e' (with the second stroke descending and turning right) which would puzzle many modern readers.
Barley's 1596 New booke is a rather crude printing; it is difficult to tell from that reproduction, but it seems to me a not entirely successful attempt at an etched print (it looks like a xilography but this would seem to me extravagant at this time!); its 'c' is not the short form used elsewhere, but another, different, form; this print also shows variable forms of 'a' and 'b'; I would hesitate to base any reproduction on it.
Also, considered cumulatively, these sources show rather different forms of many letters: 'a', 'b', 'e', 'f', 'g' are different across the different sources. All in all, it does not seems to me that a reasonably consistent 'style' emerges from this mass of documents, but a number of (local? individual?) styles, in which the form of the 'c' is possibly not the main detail.
While someone could be interested in 'abstracting' an artificial style from them, this is an approach I do not agree with. Following cadiz1 suggestion, I included in the last addition an 'abstract' style derived from modern lute instructional material (the so called "Lute didactic"), considering it a source in itself, and it is already creating problems!
So, if you can point to a source (or a group of stylistically consistent sources) which you consider worth reproducing, more styles can be added, but mix and (mis-)matching shapes from different styles is not a way I want to follow.
In any case, thanks for sharing your valuable repository of reproductions!!!
M.
P.S.: it is also perhaps the case to overcome the distinction Renaissance vs. Baroque, as far as music printing is concerned. I think the big difference to be between movable type and engraved printing. The first attempts of engraved printing date from the end of XVI c. (for instance the wonderful Verovio prints of '80s and '90 of XVI c.), but engraving did not gained widespread diffusion until mid XVII c. or even later, well into the Baroque period.
So, the styles you, rightly, qualify as 'florid' are not really Baroque (considered as a music history category) but rather engraved, versus the 'simpler' movable type styles.
ADDENDUM I: I forgot to observe that all the examples you quote come from England; are you hinting that one (or more) specific English style(s) should be added?
As I said above, if a source -- or a group of stylistically consistent sources -- can be identified, adding (a) new style(s) exampled on it/them is definitely a possibility! (no ETA promised, though)
ADDENDUM II: Even in England at that time, other styles were also in use, similar to those used on the Continent; for instance Windet prints (among them: 1605 Dowland's Lachrimæ, 1605 T. Hume's Musicall Humours and 1607 T. Hume's Poeticall Musicke, all of them available on IMSLP) show letter forms of the same palaeographic context of, for instance, earlier and contemporary LeRoy-Ballard prints in Paris (and have a very 'standard' form of 'c').
In reply to ADDENDUM I: I forgot to by Miwarre
Well, you are obviously much more knowledgeable than I in this area.
I like the idea of defining an "English style" to contrast with the later engraved style and the earlier continental styles. Perhaps you could take Varietie of Lute Lessons as a printed standard for this style. I find it very readable.
My main interest would be to see a version of alphabetic tab that is maximally clear and easy to read for performers, which I don't believe the engraved style is.
In reply to Well, you are obviously much by sgerbode
You stated: My main interest would be to see a version of alphabetic tab that is maximally clear and easy to read...
See:
https://musescore.org/en/node/76561#comment-351841
where 'lute didactic' is being considered as a generic style for easier reading.
Regards.
In reply to Well, you are obviously much by sgerbode
With all probability, I am not more knowledgeable at all; I am not a lutenist (nor a guitarist: I play viola da gamba), and I definitely do not know the instrument literature, its monuments and their relative importance, as well as a lute player would.
However, I frequent Renaissance and Baroque musical sources since decades, once upon a time as my primary study field, then (life often takes unexpected turns) as a collateral interest; in addition my formal study has been in Latin Palaeography, so I have presumably gained some knowledge of letter history and developed some 'eye' for their shapes and their relationships (at least, I was expected to! ;) ) and this might complement the knowledge of a specialist of the instrument.
If you think, from a lutenist perspective, that the letter forms used in the Varietie (and, as we see, in a number of other prints of the same time) would be a valuable addition to the repertoire of styles, I think it can be done; I cannot state any deadline right now, but it should be there before the release of 2.1. The reproductions I could get (from the Lute Society of America web site) are not of very high quality, but perhaps it can be integrated with other prints using the same types (as this Corkine's <i>Second Booke</i> ) which seem at a higher resolution.
For the sake of completeness, you presumably noticed that these prints use a peculiar form of 'c' (kind of 't'-shaped, for lack of a better analogy) and of 'e' (made of two 'corners', one above the other)? Do you consider these forms too "very readable"?
In reply to With all probability, I am by Miwarre
I confess I am not very fond of the "Lute didactic" font, though it is clearer than some of the others. The c in that one looks *too* much like an r. I know. I'm being picky.
I meant -- way more knowledgeable in typography. All I have are opinions and preferences. (prejudices?).
I like both the c and the e found in Varietie. I agree, that c is not much like an "r". The main thing is that all the letters in that font are maximally distinguishable from each other -- one of those little things that makes sight reading easier -- and I need all the help I can get.
I used to be into scanning the LSA microfilm collection but found it to be of almost uniformly poor quality. I find IMSLP much more useful, though they don't have everything. Also the Bavarian State Library digital collection . I have just been picking stuff up over some decades, many from other lutenists who just happen to have copies.
In reply to I confess I am not very fond by sgerbode
"I confess I am not very fond of the "Lute didactic" font [...]. The c in that one looks *too* much like an r.": and I have (subjectively) corrected it a little to remove what seems to me the more 'r' distinctive feature in the original form, i.e. the upper stroke turning up at its end. Maybe, it can be cleaned a little more.
I am regular user of the BSB web site too; unfortunately they do not seem to have digitized any musical book printed in London from 1575 to 1625!
I'll put that "Varietie-Corkine" font into the "foundry queue", and we'll see what comes out of it!
In reply to "I confess I am not very fond by Miwarre
Cambridge University has recently digitized many of their MSS. It looks as though British Library intends to also, but I could not find where online. I have grabbed some of the BL MSS and put them on my site . Best lead otherwise was Wikimedia Commons or IMSLP. I look forward to seeing your Varietie/Corkine font when it comes out.
A first screen-shot with a draft of the coming "Varietie" tab font. This is mostly for my own use to look at proportions and overall colour, and there are several things to correct.
But I thought it could be nice to let you know that work is going on... The piece is the beginning of the second Fantasie for the lute from the Varietie itself.
NOT FOUND: 1
Back to work...
In reply to A first screen-shot with a by Miwarre
Looks great, Maurizio! Very clear, very nice!
--Sarge
In reply to Looks great, Maurizio! Very by sgerbode
Thanks, glad you like it! Larger screen-shots will follow as soon as the most obvious oddities will be cleaned.
UPDATE!
It took longer than I expected, but at last this is a reasonably final version of the Corkine-Varietie fret font. The first screen-shot has no musical sense; it is just to list glyphs showing respective sizes and alignments.
The second example is the same as above, taken from the "Varietie" itself, with the latest glyphs.
Question: How this fret style should be named? The other current styles from specific exemplars are named "MuseScore Phalèse", "MuseScore Bonneuil-de Visée" and "MuseScore Bonneuil-Gaultier". I am thinking of naming this one "MuseScore Corkine" as it has also been used for at least two Corkine works and it seems to me this would more immediately recall an English milieu. What do you think?
NOT FOUND: 1
______________________________
NOT FOUND: 2
In reply to UPDATE! It took longer than I by Miwarre
Looks great! My only comment would be that I would prefer the k to be a bit more different from the l and the f, just for readability. The rest is super readable.
--Sarge
In reply to Looks great! My only comment by sgerbode
Thanks. I'll see if making the two 'eyes' of the 'k' less different in size and, as a whole, slightly larger would work.
What about the style name? Any comment about "MuseScore Corkine" or other suggestions?
In reply to Thanks. I'll see if making by Miwarre
About the style name, I do not have really one fundamental objection, but some reserves. Indeed, it is really a little-known composer. Eg it does not appear in this English lutenists list : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_composers_for_lute#England
We only know that he has written two books, but we know absolutely nothing of his life. So is it a good idea to assign a style name to an almost unknown composer? Apart from this, is that the name "Corkine" sounds typically English, in the sense that there will be no ambiguity.
I ask to see ...
Unfortunately, I have no (brilliant) idea to present as an alternative. I had seen "English style". But too general ...? So for now I seek and I can not find ...
In reply to About the style name, I do by cadiz1
Thanks for your comments.
Actually, there are several prints of lute tablatures using this types, from different publishers, not evidently connected beyond the fact they all worked in London in the very last years of 16th c. - first years of 17th. c.
So, I browsed your collection of fac-similes again and I noticed a possible candidate in Robertson's Schoole of Musicke. What about a name like "MuseScore Schoole of Musicke"? It is evidently English and, given the spelling, evidently 'old', even for peoples who may be unfamiliar with the specific work.
In reply to About the style name, I do by cadiz1
One possibility would be "Holmes style", after the scribe who wrote so many of the famous lute MSS. Alternately, how about "Varietie style" or "Dowland style", because it most closely resembles the style of "Varietie of Lute Lessons", edited by by Robert Dowland, containing many of his dad's most famous works. The one existent Dowland autograph MS is in a similar but not identical style.
![2.11_crop.png]( "2.11_crop.png")
![folger_cropped.jpg]()
![var_crop.png]( "var_crop.png")
Here is a sample from CUL Dd.2.11 (Holmes is the scribe):
One from the Dowland autograph MS:
And one from Varietie of Lute Lessons:
The MS samples are less ornate and less clear, so I think Miwarre has done the right thing in choosing this one. As for the name, Dowland would be the better known name, but Varietie would be more accurate.
In reply to One possibility would be by sgerbode
At this stage, I tend to vote for "Dowland style".
"Varietie" is probably (?) a matter for specialists, and to a lesser extent, for the "Schoole of Musicke".
Dowland is the only unifying name, he is right on target. And after all, it represents two composers: John, the best known, of course, and Robert, his son, who composed the "Varietie" (of Lute-Lessons) ...
In reply to At this stage, I tend to by cadiz1
Ok, deal! I have to note that for instance Dowland's Seven Lachrimæ original print uses a style very similar to current "MuseScore Renaissance" but, if two specialists of the field agree on "Dowland", I will not let this consensus to evaporate, "Dowland" be!
EDIT: PR with new "MuseScore Dowland" fret style pushed to githib: https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/2299 ('k' slightly amended and hopefully improved).
In reply to Ok, deal! I have to note that by Miwarre
Well, it's an opinion.
So, if we choose this "Dowland style," and according to what you just write above, then perhaps we should redefine or clarify the current "MuseScore Renaissance? Don't know.
I remember this thread: https://musescore.org/en/node/76561#comment-351516
and your response:
"for the Renaissance style, the sources have been mainly Le Roy/Ballard prints of mid XVI c. (Premiere livre de tabulature, Bakfark's Premier livre, Alberto da Ripa Quart livre, ...) to early XVII (Airs de différents auteurs, mis en tablature de luth...) and Windet (London) prints around 1600 (including some Dowland works)."
EDIT: but we will probably have the same difficulty to find and to be agree on a more specific style name?! So, it was just an idea ...
In reply to Well, it's an opinion. So, if by cadiz1
For info, the new historical English fret style ("MuseScore Dowland") is now merged, since yesterday:
https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/commit/8357f93b6528b471529b35325…
In reply to For info, the new historical by cadiz1
Fine! It is good to see, that the tablature part is getting improved. But currently it really seems to be difficult to tell the "e" from the "c" in this font, isn't it?
BTW - it would be nice also to have a "Weiss" font after the autograph writing of Silvius Leopold Weiss. Examples can be seen here: http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/92747/5/0/ - Suite Nr. 1+2+4 are all in his hand.