Clean up lutes in instruments.xml ?!
First of all, my astonishment for discovering today this change, merged in 2.2 and master branch, about the denomination of the lutes: https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/3166
For a result:
As in such a case, where is the discussion, the debate for it? Has anyone opened a thread for this? Or maybe I missed it?
- Then, a point of detail, I guess it's a typo: it is not Rennaissance (with two n), but Renaissance (with only one n).
There are much more important and annoying points (if not false). I will develop.
Comments
About your arguments:
1) "For lute instruments I think it is helpful to have the possibility to choose tablature in instruments.xml directly, as normally these instruments are notated in tablature (french or italian)."
About this point, I agree. Of course, the lute repertoire is written in tablature, and so it's makes sense that this is taken into account in the score wizard.
For the rest, I disagree.
2) "Also I think that it is not necessary to have for instruments with different course-number different instruments, as you always - or at least often - have to change the tuning of the basses"
In my opinion, you are inaccurate here. I own a 6-course lute, a 7-course lute, and a 8-course lute. They are instruments with a specific tuning in the extra-basses, and this precisely avoids having to change the tuning of each one.
Let us take the example of a 7-course lute. The 6th course is in G2 as usual, and the 7th course in D2. And sometimes indeed, considering the key signature of the piece, the 7th course goes into F.
So, default: G2 -> D2
With a 8-course lute, these two strings are present right away, F2 for the 7th course, and D2 for the 8th course.
So: G2 -> F2 -> D2
Now, and regrettably, you have created a sort of unique renaissance lute, by default of 11 courses (?), properly imaginary.
And, this is the most serious point, the tuning is wrong, since you have, from the sixth course, lower the strings in a diatonic and regular way, that is to say: G2 -> F2 -> E2 -> D2 -> C2 -> B1
To my knowledge, this lute does not exist (or in special arrangements, a sort of exception that confirms the rule)
![lute1.jpg]( "lute1.jpg")
Indeed, it is generally accepted (well, that is what I was taught) that the Renaissance lute name refers to instruments between 6 to 10 courses.
See (Wiki):
And later, in the baroque period, and another tuning, with 11-course instruments (generally for the French repertoire), and a little later, with 13-course (for the German repertory, Weiss as a figurehead)
![Sans titre 1.jpg]( "Sans titre 1.jpg")
3) "And if you don't need them, it doesn't harm imho. And it is very easy to delete not needed string in staff properties / strings."
And so, it doesn' harm indeed, but it's at least curious/strange to create eg a score for a 8-course lute, and to have three extra strings completely useless. You can easily remove them, but you have to do it anyway! And above all, as said, you must also, and in more, rectify the inappropriate tuning by default of these strings.
I will finish with a question later, and a beginning of proposal (I did not have time to think about it at length, but it will be a start to the discussion).
In reply to About your arguments: 1) by cadiz1
@cadiz1:
Thank you for beginning a discussion here!
There seem to be some people interested in historical tablature, but often it was very difficult to start a discussion ... (I know, lute tablature is a quite wide field, that is unknown to many musicians).
My change was especially caused by being annoyed to have to change the instruments to tablature first.
And my other thought was to reduce lute instruments in instruments.xml to the smallest possible number.
1.) You agree about the first point. I think the first point is a strong argument not to expand the lute instrument family too much (IMHO). I have tried to give the typical tablature ways that had been used.
2.) "Also I think that it is not necessary to have for instruments with different course-number different instruments, as you always - or at least often - have to change the tuning of the basses"
I know that you are right in saying there had been some typical bass tunings, but as you already showed, often they had to be re-tuned to other notes.
So for me it is an open question if we should use every tuning in instruments.xml
6-course normally have the typical Renaissance tuning (sorry for the Rennaissance, which indeed is a typo by me), but sometimes even the 6th course had been tuned to F (should we also add this? I would say no).
7-course lutes normally share the 6-course tuning, but have different bass tunings F2 or D2 - I think it is possible to only use the D2 in instruments.xml, if the 7th course lute should be added there (or should both variants been added?);
For 8-course lute I normally also would tune the 7th-> F2 and the 8th-> D2, but sometimes you have to change that tuning also, f.i. 8th->C2 (so include both variants??)
For 9-couse lute it is a little bit more complicated, also I have to admit, that I either have one, nor know how it is normally tuned (if there is any normal tuning at all ....)
10-course lute normally is tuned diatonically F2-E2 (or Eb2!)-D2-C2 (e.g. Vallet)
So in short the tuning is a real complicated thing, and as far as I know the sources, it is not at all a canonical one!
And you have 11-course Renaissance lute at least for one print! (currently I can't say, if it is the only one, but it is not at all obscure ;-) It is the "Musicalische Lustgarten" of E.Reusner the Older from 1645. (wiki doesn't know all the things correctly ...). So the general definition of 6-10 courses for Renaissance lute is not correct, though widely accepted.
For sure my argument, that it is easy to reduce the bass string numbers and tune them could also be returned: It is as easy to add bass strings and tune them. But additinal bass strings mostly don't harm (cf. 3.) ).
Look, for the baroque lute, which is btw the area, where I know nearly every manuscript ( http://mss.slweiss.de ), you have the standard d minor tuning with many different tunings of the basses (should all of them be included? - I would say loudly: NO); and furthermore you have many different accords nouveaux (cf. the site of Andi Schlegel and François-Pierre Goy http://www.accordsnouveaux.ch/ ). It would be fatal to include all of them, although some of them even might be used moreover than 8-course Renaissance lute, which to my knowledge isn't very common in lute literature (although it is probably today the most used lute, as you can play most of the repertory with it).
The 14-course baroque lute btw seems to have been existing, but there is no historical literature for it ... - if you don't count the Bach g-minor suite (in notation) as argument for it.
So the question for me is, how much lute types should be added to instruments.xml (each with a certain tablature) and how few are needed. I know it is a difficult one. And therefore I choose to only give few.
3.) Indeed you don't have to delete not needed strings. You could use a 14-course baroque lute for an 11-course one, as the additional courses will not be visible, as they are not used. But - that is true for sure - if you do "intabulate" or let's better say automatically copy notes into the tablature line, it is wise to delete the not used basses before (but this in fact is the only case, where they have to be removed).
And furthermore:
There would be other instruments added that should probably been added: e.g. the Angelique, which was widely used, but we don't have much repertory for it
Others weren't notated in tablature, so they would be no problem (d-minor theorbo, starting with the d, whithout the f in the first course)
-> so I stilll would use as few as possible lute instruments in instruments.xml to have the chance to add other totally different tunings!
In reply to @cadiz1: Thank you for by MLutz
Thanks for reply.
You did not really understand the meaning of my agreement on the first point. The lute family exists, and it is numerous. This is how. It must be taken into account, and not drown it in an unique and generic renaissance 11-course lute that has no meaning.
Now, the continuation of my reflection that I had written this morning.
In my opinion, the terms Renaissance and Baroque are useless and give any informations about the number of strings and tuning of these instruments. There are lutes above all.
As said, "your" Renaissance lute 11-course does not exist, and leads to wrong tunings.
So, priority must be given to redefining each instrument specifically according to the number of strings (and tuning).
Similarly, the direct choice of Italian and French tabs is irrelevant, and inconsistent with the classification of other stringed instruments, eg the guitars family, in MuseScore.
By default, a guitar tab (classical, acoustic, electric, etc.) is displayed as "Common" (most commonly used?) It could be "Simple" or "Full."
By default, and by consistency, the Tablature of the lutes could be "French tab" (the most used also?)
(Note that it’s already the case, if you choose the “Lute [Tablature]” (6-course default), in the actual classification. See image below:
Then, the user can easily modify in the right column the type of Tab (as the guitarists do for its own case regarding their need and habit.)
And it’s a way, in the wizard, to keep consistency in choice display of stringed/plucked instruments.
In consequence, the classification might be (see below). I omit volontary the 9-course (unusual/unknow), and I add the 11-course (I persist, considered as a lute of the baroque area, French repertoire as said, and also eg almost the entire Ms London of Weiss can be played on a 11-course)
If considering as too long (but it’s better in the sense of complete), it would be preferable to keep the current display.
Indeed, to my knowledge, and in my memory, this did not provoke particular remarks of the lutenists on the forums (and I have been there for nearly four years ...)
So:
- Lute 5-course
- Lute 5-course [Tablature]
- Lute 6-course (which replaces the previous default Lute)
- Lute 6-course [Tablature]
- Lute 7-course
- Lute 7-course [Tablature]
- Lute 8-course
- Lute 8-course [Tablature]
- Lute 10-course
- Lute 10-course [Tablature]
- Lute 11-course
- Lute 11-course [Tablature]
- Lute 13-course
- Lute 13-course [Tablature]
- Archlute
- Archltute [Tablature]
- Theorbo
- Theorbo [Tablature]
In reply to Thanks for reply. You did not by cadiz1
"As said, "your" Renaissance lute 11-course does not exist, and leads to wrong tunings."
That is not at all true. The mentioned print has a Renaissance lute tuning (which is quite standardized) with 11 courses - maybe I didn't write that clear enough?
And I also don't want to cling to the idea, that we should have that in the list - it was not used very often (but I will hopefully have the answer how often of Andi Schlegel tommorow,) - but I thought to have it would be senseful if we use a wider thing like 7-10/11 courses.
Indeed one can discuss the terms Renaissance lute and Baroque lute, but in fact they identify the main tunings of over 300 years of lute playing, and are really used very widely in lute and other musical circles.
But in fact the "old" tuning, to use another historically used term, reached far in the baroque times (especially used for theorbos). To name it Renaissance lute tuning still has its right because of the origin!
With the courses alone you only have a really shallow identification, that says nothing at all about the sort and tuning of the lute.
It is true, that most 11-course lutes are in d minor, but not all (as you can see above).
So I think it would be necessary to say at least 11-course d minor lute (or Baroque lute), because that is what you have above as 11-course. To only name the courses is no good at all. Also you have left out the mandora, which has a quite huge repertory, and has another tuning!
And it would also be good to have an instrument for the rennaissane guitar (4 or 5 courses).
The other question for me is, if it is senseful at all to have the notated versions, as lutes very seldom had been notated that way (and if, the way of notation - I only mention at which octave - is the next question). If someone needs notation of it, he can simply add the notation line, that he needs.
BTW - mostly indeed French tab is senseful, but in case of the 6-course (Ren) lute I would give it as alternativ, and for the Archlute (archiliuto) it should be the preset.
- Renaissance Guitar 4-course [Tablature]
?- Lute 5-course
- Lute 5-course [Tablature]
? - Lute 6-course (which replaces the previous "generic" lute)
- Lute 6-course [Tablature]
- Lute 6-course [Tablature - Italian] (quite often used, e.g. Francesco da Milano etc.)
? - Lute 7-course
- Lute 7-course [Tablature]
? - Lute 8-course
- Lute 8-course [Tablature]
? - Lute 10-course
- Lute 10-course [Tablature]
? - Lute d minor 11-course
- Lute d minor 11-course [Tablature]
? - Lute d minor 13-course
- Lute d minor 13-course [Tablature]
? - Archlute
- Archltute [Tablature - Italian] (only Italian Tab was used)
? - Theorbo
- Theorbo [Tablature]
- Theorbo [Tablature - Italian]
- Mandora [Tablature] = tuning like guitar (often only the 5 first courses) with up to 4 additional diatonical basses, but french tab! tuned in d or in e)
- Angelique [Tablature] (cannot currently be set in musescore because of missing signs)
In reply to "As said, "your" Renaissance by MLutz
« The other question for me is, if it is senseful at all to have the notated versions, as lutes very seldom had been notated that way (and if, the way of notation - I only mention at which octave - is the next question). If someone needs notation of it, he can simply add the notation line, that he needs. «
I think we can find some common ground on this. My proposal was consistent with the usual MuseScore display. But it is debatable in the case of lutes.
EDIT: Agree of course about adding a renaissance guitar (I own 2!) Well, its "real" name was "guiterne" or "guiterre"...
About mandora and angelique, why not. We are entering in a domain little used, and I have not seen any request concerning this to date. But no contrary opinion here for that.
EDIT (next):
"As said, "your" Renaissance lute 11-course does not exist, and leads to wrong tunings. "
"That is not all true. The mentioned print has a Renaissance lute tuning (which is quite standardized) with 11 races - maybe I did not write that clear enough?"
Quite standardized? On this point, we will not find common ground. And, as said, you put all the lutes from 6 to 10 courses (well, 11 for you) in the same basket, with inappropriate tunings. So, definitely/totally disagree here.
In reply to « The other question for me by cadiz1
If I say standardized, I mean the first 6 courses of the Renaissance tuning - probably didn't say it exactly enough -, which normally hadn't been tuned and are similar in all of this old lute types (which I would call Renaissance). These are the same in the E. Reusner (the father) print.
And these also are the same in 6-course, 7-course, 8-course, 9-course, 10-course lutes.
Therefore I put all of them into the same basket, being aware, that it is necessary to tune and adjust the bass courses (perhaps that comes from being a baroque lute player first ;-)).
In fact this old tuning is much more standardized than the - what I call baroque lute - tuning in d minor. In the 17th century there were really hundreds of variations in the tuning of the playing courses (cf. the accordex nouveaux). - For me it is clear, that musescore will not have them as presets.
The tuning of the added bass strings always (for Ren and Baroque lutes) depend on the number of bass strings, on the key etc. (take Vallet as example, who tunes especially the second bordoun to E or Eb according to the key of the piece) - this is in fact not at all standardized. That is in my opinion true for the Renaissance lutes and for baroque lutes.
For baroque lutes, there is mostly a fixed relation between the key of a piece and the tuning of the bass courses. Would be nice, if the tuning of the bordouns (and even of all courses) could be handled in musescore on the same stage as key handling, so that it would be possible to have different tunings in one file with different pieces.
In reply to If I say standardized, I mean by MLutz
"that it is necessary to tune and adjust the bass courses (perhaps that comes from being a baroque lute player first ;-))"
Problably indeed!
"The tuning of the added bass strings always (for Ren and Baroque lutes) depend on the number of bass strings, on the key etc. (take Vallet as example, who tunes especially the second bordoun to E or Eb according to the key of the piece) - this is in fact not at all standardized"
I think you are looking for the little beast.
Concentrate on the essentials, ie by adopting the most commonly observed tunings (as Miwarre well did it ).
Don't forget the consistency of the MuseScore display and behaviour between the different stringed plucked instruments - with your Renaissance / Baroque denominations, and the direct choice of the Italian and French Tabs, you did something apart, as different from the usual behavior of MuseScore, and in my opinion it's a strong mistake of consistency - , and so, we will be probably on a better way.
In reply to "that it is necessary to tune by cadiz1
No, for sure I don't try to complicate things.
I don't need to have that 11-course Renaissance lute in instruments.xml.
But I try to get a better system in the really vast land of lute instruments.
The first thing to tell the instruments from one another is the tuning: There is a real difference between Renaissance and Baroque tuning. I do not cling to this terminology, though it is widely used, but it is necessary to differ between instruments with vieille ton and the d minor tuning. This isn't taken into account with the current naming of lute instruments. That should be changed, especially as the differing of only the courses is not at all good. Else we would have to call the archlutes 17- or 18-course lutes (which would be possible also, but not very useful).
The other difference of added bass strings is second important for me.
Anyway I don't get yet the point, why choosing a specific tablature would fall out of the usual behaviour of MuseScore. You already now can choose directly between tablature and notation for guitar. Why not do this for french and italian tablature for lute instruments?
I know, that I can change this in the instrument dialogue.
But everyone who is new to MuseScore and wants to write some tablature for lute, has a problem with this.
And the problems are even bigger, as the default instrument dialogue (for me, and possibly on other systems also) doesn't show up with the possibility to choose the form of notation. I have either to maximize the dialogue or scroll, and I also have to scroll in the notation popup to see the 6-c french tablature. So this is really difficult for persons that don't know the program yet.
Therefore I think it should be possible to choose french or italian tablature directly.
In reply to No, for sure I don't try to by MLutz
“Therefore I think it should be possible to choose french or italian tablature directly.”
When you want to create a guitar tab, do you have the ability to choose directly "Simple", "Common" or "Full" staff type?
Answer: no ( and nobody complains)
This is an example of inconsistency with your PR devoted to the lutes that I wanted to emphasize.
In reply to “Therefore I think it should by cadiz1
I don't think, that this is on the same level.
In guitar tab you have spanish tab, that can be shown in different ways, with beams or without.
In lute tablature, French tab and Italian tab are really different ways of notations - so I don't think, this is the same!
And it does make sense to choose that, when starting to notate a piece.
If I would request to have a special style of French tablature, I would concur, that this shouldn't be in instruments.xml! But not on the stage of really different notations/tablatures - if German tablature also would be possible, that would even be much clearer, as this is a completely different notation system.
In reply to I don't think, that this is by MLutz
Now I looked once again on the guitar tabs:
I would say indeed, that tab simple, common and full are different styles of one way of notation (notation system?). These three options are on the same level as things you can change under advanced style properties in lute notation - there are many possibilities under the level of different tab systems.
So I see a certain inconsistency in the template menu, as styles and ways of notation are indeed mixed (that's probably very useful, but that is another question).
So in short I see Italian tab, and French tab on the same level as notation and [spanish] tab (simple or common, one of them to be default). And if there would be German tab oder German keyboard tab (a historical notation of e.g. Buxtehude and other composer from Northern Germany), I would add them also in this category. Jianpu btw is another way of notation, that has many similarities to German keyboard tablature.
Therefore I strongly vote for using not only French tab but also Italian tab for lutes with the old tuning in instruments.xml. In baroque times Italian tab wasn't used for the d minor and similar lutes).
In reply to « The other question for me by cadiz1
BTW - Andi Schlegel already answered me. In his book "The Lute in Europe 2" he has a map, where he also lists lutes with more than 10 courses with their literature.
As he told me today, probably there had been much more 11-course lutes in use, as we thought some years ago. There is 10-course literature, that also uses a course deeper than the 10th course, and there are much more things probably to find.
So in short Andi voted for including a 11-course lute in old tuning. Probably we should do the same with a 9-course lute, as Downland used it and others too.
Especially these are the problems, why I proposed to use an open system:
Rennaissance tuning with 7-11 courses.
But if every different bass option should be mentioned, we really should add more things ...
In reply to BTW - Andi Schlegel already by MLutz
« As he told me today, probably there had been much more 11-course lutes in use, as we thought some years ago. There is 10-course literature, that also uses a course deeper than the 10th course, and there are much more things probably to find. «
Do you really know, in real life, a significant number of luthists who would play this instrument?
I know more of this type: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u17wsHb1I0
« Especially these are the problems, why I proposed to use an open system:
Rennaissance tuning with 7-11 courses. But if every different bass option should be mentioned, we really should add more things ... »
Sigh. I fear we are drifting towards a truly useless puzzle...
In reply to « As he told me today, by cadiz1
Yes, I know many people who play 11-course and 13-course lute; and to make it clear, the lute in the video is a baroque - d minor lute; and it is a piece by Esaias Reusner the younger, who played contrary to his father in the "modern" d-minor tuning.
I do not know many people who play an 11-course lute in Renaissance tuning btw (which I meant in the quote you give).
But to come to the point again: I think it is useful to have these different instruments in musescore. Not only because people play these instruments, but also because it is good to have the possibility to notate the historical music with a good notation program.
It will even be more senseful, as MuseScore is also taking part in the MEI program!
In reply to "As said, "your" Renaissance by MLutz
Sorry for not answering for quite a time - I had been very occupied by my profession.
To sum up, what is most important for me:
- It probably would be enough to have the lutes in tablature only (it would be no harm to also add a notation way also, but it would not be necessary, as normally historical lutes are notated in tablature). BTW - the way of notation is the next problem. With one line, we should use G8vb, but it also could be a good solution to use a combined system of G and F as in Weiss Sämtliche Werke (but I'm not sure, if that is possible in musescore currently).
- As a standard I would use French tab, but would make 2 exceptions: for 6-course lute Italian tab was quite common also (and German tab also, but we don't have that in musescore currently), eventually also for 7-course lute. And Italian Tab was used afaik exclusively for Archlute (archiliuto - probably we better should use this name?)
- I think we could use "lute" (without Renaissance) for the lute types up to 1650, but we should use an additional "baroque" or "d-minor" for the later 11/12/13- and 14-course lutes.
- Probably it is useful to concentrate on the most used lute types: 4,5,6, 8, 10-course for Renaissance lutes (also being aware that 7,9, and even 11-course lutes in this tuning had been used). For baroque lutes I would say the same and use 11- and 13-course lute
- Further I would add Archlute (archiliuto) with Italian Tab only, theorbo (reentrant tuning) with Italian and French tab; Mandora in d (guitar tuning one tone lower) with bass courses diatonically, often beginning with the 6th course; Angelique, an 16-course "harp-like" lute instrument.
- I would propose to use "French Tablature" instead of only "Tablature", as the latter is meant to be guitar tablature, which is in fact "Spanish Tablature"!
- For notation purposes it would be good to have an normal G8vb and also as alternative a combined system of G and F clef.
So I would propose the following (eventually for every instrument also the notation alternative):
- Lute 4-course [French Tablature], also for Renaissance guitar/cittern etc.
- Lute 5-course [French Tablature]
- Lute 6-course [French Tablature]
- Lute 6-course [Italian Tablature] (quite often used, e.g. Francesco da Milano etc.)
- Lute 7-course [French Tablature]
- Lute 8-course [French Tablature]
? Lute 9-course [French Tablature]
- Lute 10-course [French Tablature]
? Lute 11-course [French Tablature] !in Renaissance tuning!
- Lute baroque/d minor 11-course [French Tablature]
? Lute d minor 12-course [French Tablature] - 13-course d minor lute could be used for that!
- Lute d minor 13-course [French Tablature]
? Lute d minor 14-course [French Tablature]
- Archlute [Italian Tablature] Italian Tab was used)
- Theorbo [French Tablature]
- Theorbo [Italian Tablature]
- Mandora [French Tablature]
- Angelique [French Tablature] (normally with an additional sign for the 8th course (a with an underline), further bordouns as baroque lute
In reply to Sorry for not answering for by MLutz
"Probably it is useful to concentrate on the most used lute types: 4,5,6, 8, 10-course for Renaissance lutes (also being aware that 7,9, and even 11-course lutes in this tuning had been used). "
What?! "Being aware that 7-course has been used."
The 7-course is the most common renaissance lute played, because the more versatile. Very used by students or professionnals, I would even say it's a sort of the "standard" lute for renaissance repertoire.
Otherwise, always disagree for adding two 11-courses (agree for the Dm, but not the other one)
In reply to "Probably it is useful to by cadiz1
Sorry for adding the 7-course in my comment - I didn't make a question mark in the list though. And I forgot to change that in the comment.
I don't want to struggle for which is the most used or not, as I don't have any reliable counting on it (probably the 6-course lute has most pieces, but I really can't say that in a reliable way).
Probably even the 9-course lute was more often used then as the 8-course lute (which is today quite commonly used).
And as you can see, I have made a question mark to the 11-course Renaissance type lute, though it was used and existed, I don't cling to have it in musescore. If I would notate the Reusner chorals, I would know how to do it ;-).
In reply to Sorry for adding the 7-course by MLutz
"Probably even the 9-course lute was more often used then as the 8-course lute (which is today quite commonly used)."
No.
"probably the 6-course lute has most pieces"
Possible, but no sure.
In reply to "Probably even the 9-course by cadiz1
The following site lists up lute manuscripts and prints with the number of courses, that are used (unfortunately it doesn't add the tuning, which is a problem):http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/1600.html
But if you look at the 11-course lute before 1640, you see that there are around 20 manuscripts that have such a lute, most probable with old tuning. The later ones are, at least mostly, in transitional or d minor tuning.
Also in the 16th century: http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C16/1500.html you'll find there, that most of the manuscripts before 1590 had been 6 course only. Then 7-, 8-, 9- and later 10-course or more courses had been used. Furthermore, as you can see under: http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C16/contentlst.html , most of the books had been printed in Italian tablature, followed by French and German tab.
Here is an overview (I used the search function, 16th century / 17th century):
6-course 409 / 51 = 460
7-course 39 / 79 = 118
8-course 13 / 32 = 45
9-course 3 / 39 = 42
10-course 1 / 115 = 116
11-course 0 / ca. 20 ~ 20 (estimated, probably even more - Reusner the Elder is N° 31) as the later 11-course lutes are clearly tuned to d minor)
It is only a rough overview, as there are doublings (mss with 6+7+8-course etc.), but it really gives an impression of the lute music corpus for lute in Renaissance tuning.
So 6-course has the biggest corpse of music, followed by 7 course. Then comes 10-course followed by 8 and 9 course lutes, that nearly are equally represented. But if you take into account, that many tablatures that have 9 course lute music also include 8 course music, possibly 9-course was even wider spread.
Thank you for chiming in. The PR was there for 20 days without any reaction so I decided to merge it to get some reactions as said in the comments. As you know, I have little knowledge about Lute.
If you and markus could agree on some better changes, that would be perfect. For the moment, I will revert to the previous state.
In reply to Thank you for chiming in. The by [DELETED] 5
Thanks.
You said "any reaction" about this PR ? Well, because I do not have an account on GitHub. And I do not want to have any because my contribution would simply be useless, I am not developer alas...
So, this kind of PR must first be put on the public square in other words on the forum by opening a thread. Hence my astonishment yesterday, because usually, and with good reason, you are concerned about this.
This discussion on Lute tuning and notation is very interesting to me. I'm a lover of history with no knowledge of lutes, so I can add nothing specific to the lute discussion. I have previously proposed something that I believe would be useful to the many lute tunings as well as other instruments. My proposal is about allowing the instruments.xml to be edited by the user through a MuseScore dialog. Since I'm not a programmer I can't implement it, but here are the main points of my idea.
The user will be able to select an existing instrument, or have a new instrument option using a define button in the Instruments dialog. This define button would bring up a window similar to the staff properties dialog that currently exists. This would allow the user to define the instrument as a string instrument (like violins), a plucked instrument (like lutes), a pitched instrument (includes all wind instruments and pitched percussion) or an unpitched percussion instrument. If the user selects an existing instrument, that instruments options would be used. If the user selects a plucked instrument he would have the option of defining the number and pitches of strings as well as the number of frets. If the user selects a different pitched instrument he would have the option of selecting pro/am bottom and top notes and the key of the instrument. There would be a grand staff with a visual display of the instruments range. If the top was more than a fifth above F on the treble clef the 8va, 15va or 22va line would be displayed as appropriate. If the bottom note is more than a fifth below the bass clef this vb ottavas would be displayed in a similar manner. The user would have the option of defining display in concert pitch and transposed pitch. The user could also select the default clef (Treble, alto, tenor, bass...) or grand staff if appropriate. The user would also be able to select which instrument would be used as default in the mixer by typing the name of the sound it will select. The mixer would of course decide the final sound if someone chooses the carrion and there is no carrion sound font loaded.
For example, someone requested a Db piccolo be added to instruments.xml. In this case, the user would want all notes in transposed pitch to be displayed using a standard treble clef. He would select the treble clef for display purposes. In concert pitch, the user might be happy with the 8va treble clef, so he would select that clef for display. MuseScore would then do the calculations necessary to transpose the instrument up an augmented 7th.
I have seen many unusual instruments that I had never seen before in the romantic and later era repertoire including bass clarinets written in bass clef in both the key of A and Bb, an F alto saxophone and a bass clef C baritone saxophone. There are others, but I can't think of them right now. I've also seen various requests for Tubas, euphonium variations and trombones written in various clefs not currently defined by MuseScore.
Most importantly, allowing for this would help with what is specifically being discussed in this thread. It would allow you to create the lutes the way you want for your computer. A new lute family instrument could have as many or few courses as desired and allow other members of the lute family to be easily defined by adjusting the number of frets on the instrument. It would also reduce this discussion to coming up with a consensus on the default lutes defined by MuseScore.
In reply to This discussion on Lute by mike320
A fascinating thought indeed. But this would need some work of coding.
If someone would do it, I would vote for it.
Anyway I think it is necessary to decide which lutes and which notation system are used by default. To add others was already possible - by editing instruments.xml with an editor, saving it somewhere and add file and path to the options.