VOX:
Yes, I am aware of these distinctions. I make a living from performing and editing 15th, 16th & some early 17th c. music, but my main area of interest is Franco Flemish rep. from the High Renaissance - Gombert et al.
Assuming we are talking about the very same article, I read the Bowers some time ago and Parrott's response to it, which makes some interesting points and rightly points out his (Bowers') "personal aversion" to substantial downwards transposition of high clef scores.
On the issue of the use of the term "transposition", whatever the thought processes of 16th c. performers were, we all know what it means. It's interesting and valuable info., nevertheless. I sing a great deal of chant from four line staves in C and F clefs, so I know the feeling; I have never found it useful to impose key signatures, although some colleagues find that a must. Interestingly, Michael Praetorius, uses the word "transposition" when discussing clef combinations and performance practice, and blows Bowers' preference for transposition done a whole tone of high clefs out the water. (Yes, early 17th. c, but that's fine by me!) An organ book by Giovanni Croce reserves the whole tone transp. for natural clef combinations only, I seem to recall.
All of which takes us some way from the present discussion, but thanks for indulging me!
To be fair, Wulstan was only developing a view of pitch that already been gaining ground during the earlier twentieth century (Fellowes had already noted that transposition upwards by a minor third often best suited Byrd's music and there were others before him). The issue of "chiavette" is entirely independent from that of any pitch standard.
Roger Bowers agrees that pieces in high and low clefs were performed within the same compasses as those in "normal" clefs, but is no more prescriptive than that. He carefully avoids using the word "transposition", pointing out that, for Tudor singers, it wasn't a question of moving a piece's pitch up or down, but simply of finding a pitch for each piece that fell within the standard voices ranges.
On the issue of the use of the term "transposition", whatever the thought processes of 16th c. performers were, we all know what it means. It's interesting and valuable info., nevertheless. I sing a great deal of chant from four line staves in C and F clefs, so I know the feeling; I have never found it useful to impose key signatures, although some colleagues find that a must. Interestingly, Michael Praetorius, uses the word "transposition" when discussing clef combinations and performance practice, and blows Bowers' preference for transposition done a whole tone of high clefs out the water. (Yes, early 17th. c, but that's fine by me!) An organ book by Giovanni Croce reserves the whole tone transp. for natural clef combinations only, I seem to recall.
All of which takes us some way from the present discussion, but thanks for indulging me!
Comment