Janequin: images of original scores?
arunchandra1954
undergraduate music theory class. I have my students analyze portions
of these pieces, and sing them as well.
Does someone have digital images of the original scores of either of
these pieces that I could show to my students?
I'd like my students to see the original musical notation of these
pieces, and how they were passed down to us.
On the web, I've only been able to find modern versions of these
scores, and not the original versions.
If you could, please send and email to aruncha...@gmail.com.
thanks in advance,
Arun Chandra
The Evergreen State College
Olympia, WA 98505
Alain Naigeon
but I don't know what are the conditions to get a copy.
--
Fran�ais *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
Sybrand Bakker
<aruncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Does someone have digital images of the original scores of either of
>these pieces that I could show to my students?
Scores didn't exist in Jannequin's time. You need copies of the
original partbooks. I believe Jannequins Opera Omnia have been
reprinted in a volume of the CMM series (Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae).
While this is score, the critical report will list all manuscript and
printed sources.
--
Sybrand Bakker
John Howell
Sybrand is correct. But one has to be careful in using words like
"score," which can have different meanings. In a modern sense, it
does mean a piece of music in which all the different parts have been
concatenated together, at least for most choral people and most
conductors, but some people use the word "score" to mean any piece of
paper with music notation on it, for example, just a 2nd oboe part.
Then there is the "vocal score" or "piano-vocal score" to musical
theater shows, which typically is NOT a full score but a limited
score with the vocal parts and a realization of the orchestral score
for piano. The same is true of many "choral scores," which do not
include the orchestral parts.
In fact, the renaissance was not the only time period or the only
genre in which "full scores" were not typically produced. Band music
of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century was usually
published not with a full score, but with a "short score" in which
the parts are compressed into a two- or three-line grand staff, and
many marches lacked even that, the "score" being the 1st cornet part
with a few cues indicating when other instruments had prominent
parts. And most Broadway musicals have NEVER had full scores
available, because they were never printed and published. The use of
computerized notesetting has changed this in the past 10 years or so,
because once all the parts are entered it is a trivial matter to
produce a full score.
But I believe that Sybrand was indicating that not only were full
scores not produced in the renaissance, but that as far as we know,
they were not used for composing, either. At least there is little
or no evidence that they were. And of course the reason so many
early operas have been completely lost--only some 21 of Vivaldi's 49
operas are known to exist, for example, and we have only three (I
think) of Monteverdi's five or more operas--is that in the absence of
copyright laws and protections, operas were almost never published,
so that composers could retain control of them. Monteverdi's
"L'Orfeo" was an exception, since his Duke had it published as a
souvenir for the guests who had attended, and published in full
score, at that!
The same semantic problem exists for the term "sheet music." As I
grew up it was a specific term meaning the published version of any
popular song, usually with the melody line, lyrics, and a fairly
simple piano accompaniment. Nowadays some people use it to refer to
any printed music, including music that we would call a "score" or a
"part."
And of course (and this is a pet peeve!), even the word "music" has
taken on a more diffused meaning. A "music store" used to be a store
where one could buy instruments, accessories, and printed music--the
necessary items for MAKING music. Today it can mean a store where
one buys recordings, for a great many people--the necessary items for
CONSUMING music! In fact, when someone on the Internet says they are
looking for the "music" to a particular song, one has to ask whether
they mean the sheet music or a recording.
And as with most things, I'm sure that meanings and translations
differ from one country and one language to another.
John
--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John....@vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.
Adam Funk
> Sybrand is correct. But one has to be careful in using words like
> "score," which can have different meanings. In a modern sense, it
> does mean a piece of music in which all the different parts have been
> concatenated together, at least for most choral people and most
> conductors, but some people use the word "score" to mean any piece of
> paper with music notation on it, for example, just a 2nd oboe part.
What is the correct term for the set of sheets showing the 2nd oboe
part for the whole duration of the piece?
(I thought that was the "2nd oboe score" and the thing with all the
parts was the "full score", "full orchestral score", or something like
that.)
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance. [Robert R. Coveyou]
howard posner
On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Adam Funk wrote:
> What is the correct term for the set of sheets showing the 2nd oboe
> part for the whole duration of the piece?
Second oboe part
John Howell
>
>What is the correct term for the set of sheets showing the 2nd oboe
>part for the whole duration of the piece?
In this neck of the woods, "the 2nd oboe part."
>
>(I thought that was the "2nd oboe score" and the thing with all the
>parts was the "full score", "full orchestral score", or something like
>that.)
Some people do use that form, as I said. I think it's
confusing--sort of musical metonomy: confusing the container with
the thing contained. When I say "score," I mean a full score, unless
the situation prevents that usage. The two major music notation
programs, Finale and Sibelius, also use that distinction, and speak
of "extracting parts" from the "score."
The librarians that supervise the rentals of Musical Theater
materials use the German term for full score: "Partitur." Which
makes them sound pretty stuck-up! (At least I THINK it's German; at
least it isn't English.)
Stephen Bloch
> Scores didn't exist in Jannequin's time. You need copies of the
> original partbooks. I believe Jannequins Opera Omnia have been
> reprinted in a volume of the CMM series (Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae).
> While this is score, the critical report will list all manuscript and
> printed sources.
If we define "score" as "music written in such a way that you can see
all the parts at once," then scores most certainly <em>did</em> exist
in Janequin's time, and for at least 200 years before. "Choirbook
format", which was already in use in the 14th century, typically shows
(for 3-part music) one part in the upper two thirds of the left page,
another part in the upper two thirds of the right page, and a part
(typically the Bassus) across the bottoms of both pages. Or for 4-
part music, a part in the upper-left, one in the lower-left, one in
the upper-right, and one in the lower-right.
If we define "score" as "music written with a system for each part,
all together, followed by another system for each part, etc."
then I think I've seen an example of it from the late 14th century,
although it wasn't common for hundreds of years thereafter. (It was
some ms. Pat Petersen showed us at Amherst this summer....)
Adam Funk
> At 9:43 PM +0000 12/2/09, Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>>What is the correct term for the set of sheets showing the 2nd oboe
>>part for the whole duration of the piece?
>
> In this neck of the woods, "the 2nd oboe part."
OK, I think I can remember that.
>>(I thought that was the "2nd oboe score" and the thing with all the
>>parts was the "full score", "full orchestral score", or something like
>>that.)
>
> Some people do use that form, as I said. I think it's
> confusing--sort of musical metonomy: confusing the container with
> the thing contained. When I say "score," I mean a full score, unless
> the situation prevents that usage. The two major music notation
> programs, Finale and Sibelius, also use that distinction, and speak
> of "extracting parts" from the "score."
Thanks.
> The librarians that supervise the rentals of Musical Theater
> materials use the German term for full score: "Partitur." Which
> makes them sound pretty stuck-up! (At least I THINK it's German; at
> least it isn't English.)
It's one of those crazy German words borrowed from Romance languages.
(I looked it up: it comes from Italian "partitura", meaning
arrangement, disposition, division.)
--
Take it? I can't even parse it! [Kibo]