Key signature: Cmajor
Submitted on September 24th 2011 by peirol.
This tune has been added to 2 tunebooks.
X: 1
T: I Long For Thy Virginity
M: 4/4
L: 1/8
R: reel
K: Cmaj
C2 F3 G A2 |F2 cA GF D2 |F3 G A2 d2 |c2 A2 cA GF :|
GF GA d2 A2 |c2 A2 cA GF |GF GA d2 A2 |cA GF D4 |
fe de (3:2:1f(3:2:1e(3:2:1d e2 |GF GA d2 A2 |cA GF D4 :|
Another tune of Sir Gordon of Straloch His Lute Book (1627-9).
I wonder how such an indecent title found it's way into Sir Gordon's collection. ;)
# Posted on September 24th 2011 by peirol
"Sir Gordon of Straloch His Lute Book "
This seems to be a pretentious title based on similar books of the period. The original book by Robert Gordon of Straloch (I don't think he was ever knighted) is now lost, but it was titled:
"Ane playing booke for the Lute, wherein are contained many currents and other musical things. Musica mentis medicina mœstæ. At Aberdeen, noted and collected by Robert Gordon, in the year of our Lord 1627, in February."
It is now normally referred to as "The Straloch Manuscript" or "Robert Gordon's Lute Book" or similar. Some of the contents were transcribed by George Farquhar Graham in 1847 and are held in the National Library of Scotland. I would be interested in learning where you got your book title from.
# Posted on September 24th 2011 by Weejie
It does appear that he may have been knighted, or at least known as "Sir Robert Gordon of Straloch". Other than that, the book title appears to be pretentious.
# Posted on September 24th 2011 by Weejie
it only appears pretentious in modern usage. in the early 17th century, contractions like '...Straloch's...' likely weren't typographically formalized, but written as '..Straloch his...'. does _Sir Gordon of Straloch's Lute Book_ still appear pretentious?
# Posted on September 24th 2011 by 'tinamatt
Actually, the genitive singular suffix 'es' was in common usage even in the sixteenth century - though in Elizabethan times (this book is later than that) it was not uncommon to word sentences as the OP presented it. However, it appears pretentious because it has never been referred to under that name, so why apply it now when that form of sentence is considerably out of date? Moreover, when it is used in a situation like this, it is a reference, so "The Straloch MS" or (Sir) Robert Gordon's Lute Book" would be more appropriate, as it is a valid reference to the manuscript. It is a bit like submitting a tune from the Fitzwilliam Virginal book, and saying "this tune comes from Ye Fitzwilliam Virginal Book" just to make it appear 'old'.
I stand by what I said.
# Posted on September 24th 2011 by Weejie
"does _Sir Gordon of Straloch's Lute Book_ still appear pretentious?"
No, but apart from the fact that he was referred to as either Robert or Sir Robert Gordon of Straloch, the apostrophe in this case is not a contraction of 'his' but a relic from the days when modern grammar was being formalised - the contraction was only an assumption. In reality the 's' at the end (sometimes 'es' in Old English) was harking back to the 'Saxon genitive' which placed an 's' at the end of possessive nouns - it is why you see an apostrophe followed by an 's' even as a suffix to nouns in the female gender (Mary's shoes, for example - it doesn't denote "Mary his shoes").
At least that appears to be the commonly accepted explanation.
Irrelevant anyway. The book was never titled "Sir Gordon of Straloch His Lute Book" - and the manuscript was pretty obscure in its day, so I find it hard to believe that it was referred to as such even back in the days when the 'his genitive' was fashionable.
# Posted on September 24th 2011 by Weejie
Further to this, it seems Robert Gordon spelled 'virginity' as 'virginitie' so if you want authenticity......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyhBI-CERRs
# Posted on September 24th 2011 by Weejie
I like it, thanks for posting. It's nice to discover all these old manuscripts (regardless of how pretentious the title is) as I wouldn't know where to start otherwise!
At least he didn't notate it as a 3/4 hornpipe...
# Posted on September 24th 2011 by SmashTheWindows
Sir Gordon of Straloch His Lute Book
In the original title there is reference to "currents". Would a "current" in this context be equivalent to a "courante" a century later (cf. courantes in Bach's works for solo violin and cello)?
# Posted on September 25th 2011 by Trevor Jennings
"At least he didn't notate it as a 3/4 hornpipe..."
Neither did the other poster (at least not willingly) - that tune was later presented as a 3/2 hornpipe (and despite your prediction, it was retained by Jeremy) - though it was actually divided as a 12/8 which is perfectly legitimate as pointed out in the paper that I linked to. The poster claimed to have transcribed the tune from a particular player and gave a relatively accurate reference to the source. The 12/8 timing was actually nearer to the phrasing of the tune by the player than the more conventional cut common time adopted in notating hornpipes. You were mistaken on that one, I'm afraid.
However, in this case, the source is questionable. Is this from George Farquhar Graham's transcription, or that in the Alfred Moffat MS (in which the notation for this particular piece is said to be "faulty"), or has the poster discovered the original manuscript, lost since the death of "James Chalmers" in the 19th century? The latter is unlikely!"
It's clearly not a reel, as the harp rendition linked to makes clear - as does this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5TnTa-ak9g
I think this is relevant, because it is the second tune submitted from this mysterious source.
# Posted on September 25th 2011 by Weejie
"Would a "current" in this context be equivalent to a "courante""
That is quite likely.
# Posted on September 25th 2011 by Weejie
There's some interesting stuff on his title in this book http://www.archive.org/details/popularsongssco00grahgoog
An alternative version is http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/9/93/IMSLP98510-PMLP202395-songsofscotland00grah.pdf, and there are mentions in http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/0/08/IMSLP100629-PMLP206592-Surenne_dancemusicofscotland_1870.pdf and http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/7/73/IMSLP101137-PMLP201681-illustrationsof_lyric_poetry_scotland_acc_scots_mus_stenhouse_1853_1.pdf
A recording of the tune also exists here http://www.tescoentertainment.com/store/mp3/robert-gordon--the-straloch-lute-book-canarie--i-long-for-thy-virginitie--a-daunce--a-port--ladie-ann-gordons-lilt--canaries/2%3A35265353/
While I admit I was wrong about the hornpipe, it's the way you approached commenting on both that tune and this one that I was referring to.
# Posted on September 25th 2011 by SmashTheWindows
" it's the way you approached commenting on both that tune and this one that I was referring to."
I haven't really approached commenting on this tune - other than to say it is not a reel in response to your hornpipe remark. It's the bogus and pretentious title of the source manuscript that I was taking issue with.
# Posted on September 25th 2011 by Weejie
Interesting that Graham comments on this ambiguous title of "Sir". It is quite possible that as he became the 'laird' of Straloch (not by title but by possession) he was known locally as "Sir Robert" and there are sources who refer to him as such (Glasgow University has done, for example). Moreover, he was apparently given special protection by Act of Parliament - which extended to his heritable assets and tenants. The most detailed account of the geezer I have found is here (and he is merely "Mr Gordon" in this article):
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/other/gordon_robert.htm
# Posted on September 25th 2011 by Weejie
Sir Gordon of Straloch His Lute Book
Weejie, your comment on "current" confirms my suspicion that it is the English form of the continental "courante". It presumably comes from the Latin "currere" meaning "to run", signifying the piece is charactised by rapid running passages.
In Bach's English and French Suites for keyboard, the three partitas for solo violin, and the six cello suites, 9 of the courantes are in 3/2, 11 in 3/4, and only 1 in 6/4 (in French Suite #3).
The courantes in the six English Suites are all in 3/2. Four of the courantes in the six French Suites are in 3/4, one in 3/2, and one in 6/4.
Five of the cello courantes are in 3/4; the only one in 3/2 is in Suite #5, and there is a suspicion that this suite may have had its origin as a lute suite.
# Posted on September 25th 2011 by Trevor Jennings
It's just unfortunate that Farquhar Graham decided he would only transcribe a limited number of the lute pieces, Trevor. It is intriguing to contemplate what was contained in the full manuscript.
# Posted on September 25th 2011 by Weejie
The following is an extract from "Ancient Scotish Melodies from a Manuscript of the Reign of King James VI", by William Dauney, 1838. It lists the contents of the Robert Gordon MS and mentions "Currants" (also spelled "Currands" elsewhere in the book). I used OCR to copy it, so there may be an error or two, though there are odd spellings in the original:
It appears that the MS. volume, mentioned pp. 84 and 147, Dissertation, is in the
possession of Mr Chalmers of London. It is written in Lute Tablature, on a
stave of six lines, and was presented to Dr Burney, in June 1781, by Dr George
Skene, Professor of Humanity and Philosophy in Marischal College,
Aberdeen. The title of the work is, " An Playing Booke for the Lute. Where in ar contained many cvrrents and other mvsical things. Musica mentis medicina mœstæ. At Aberdein. Notted and collected by Robert Gordon, (the well-known Sir Robert Gordon of Straloch.) In the year of our Lord 1627. In Februarie ;"
and on the back of the title there is a drawing of a person playing on the lute. Its contents
were inserted in the Gentleman's Magazine for February 1823 ; and, as we have
not seen the original volume itself, we here transcribe the list of the tunes as given in
that work, although we have neither time nor space to accompany them with
any remarks. It should be premised, that, besides those here mentioned, there
are others which are simply distinguished as " Ballets," or " Currants :"
" The Buffens.—Sleepe wayward thoughts.—Sannicola.—Sheepheard saw thou
not.—What if a day.—Give caire does cause men cry.—Canaries.—Finis, quod
Ostend, (no title) Finis ballat, or Almon.—Hurries Current.--Queen's Current.
—Frogge's Galzeart.—Lyke as the Dumbe.—When Daphne did.—The Prince
Almon.—The day dawes.—Cum sueit Love lett sorow ceasse.—Finis, Haddington's
mask.—Thir Gawens.—Finis, Queene's Almone, as it is played on a fourteen
cord lute.—A Saraband.—Ther wer three Ravns.—In a gardeen so green.—Haddington's
maske.—The barg of maske.—Begon sueit night.--Tell me Daphne.—
Lachrymy.—A stryng of the Spanish Pavin.—Finis, Darges Current.—Fantasie.
—A passing sour.—Ballart's Current.—The quadro pavin.—The galziart of the
pavin.—In till a mirthful May Morning.—Orlio's Current.—Hebrun's
Current.— A Port.—Port Priest.—Before the Greekes.—Brangle, simple.--The
Old Man. —I long for the Wedding.—Gray steel.—Put on the Sark on
Munday.—Brail de Poyctu.—Ostende.—God be with the Geordie.—A Pasmissour.—A Brangle with
the braking of it.—A Braill : second, third, fourt, fift, sext braill.—Thoes rare and
good in all.—Finis, Lilt Ladie : An. Gordone.—A daunce.—Green greus þe rashes.
—Com Love lets walk.—Finis. Cum lett us walk into yon springe.—Hunter's
carrerre.—Vpon a Sommer's time.—Its a wonder to see how þe world doos goe.—
An thou wer myn oun thing.—Finis port Jean Kinsey.—Cock-stouns hoggie.—
Wo betyke thy waerie bodie.—Ladie Laudion's Lilt.—Have over the water.—
From the fair Lavinian shore. — Keath keares not for thy kyndnes.—Earlie in the Mornning.—Galua Tom.—The tript of Diram.—
Kist her while she blusht.—God be with my bonnie love.—Whip my toudie.—
Don acord.—My beelful breest.—Hench me malie Gray.—Thir gawens ar gey.—
A preludium.—Finis huic libro impositus. Anno D. 1629. Ad finem. Decem. 6. In Stra-Loth."
# Posted on September 26th 2011 by Weejie
For some reason the tune submitted here is not in that list of contents.
# Posted on September 26th 2011 by Weejie
After aenea15 has mentioned in the discussion of http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/11496 I looked up the copy of the MS and found that the tablature of this tune does not work out as a regular measure. Part A has upbeat - 3 - 4 - 3 - 4, part B 3 - 3 - 3 - 4 [third line] 4 1/2 [!] - 6 - 3.
Makes both reel and hornpipe a wrong transcription from the historical point. But both ways can happen in the processes of straightening out in a tradition or transcription for practical use outside academia.
The 4-beats versions was the one I got handed down three or four years ago, and since then we have had much fun with it in our all-strings meeting. It's a bit of a pity we got scattered through the country and don't meet so often. We, that was theorbo, classical guitar and my medieval harp. We had much fun, except that the theorbo player sometimes got the fff-fever and the harp was run over by him.
# Posted on September 26th 2011 by peirol
" But both ways can happen in the processes of straightening out in a tradition or transcription for practical use outside academia."
Except this particular tune is not really part of a tradition.
It lay dormant until it was played from a page by revivalists.
Renaissance Lute music practically died out during the latter half of the 19th century - like recorder music. It was played occasionally by specialist renaissance players (to a large part, the "academia") but was not a living tradition.
# Posted on September 26th 2011 by Weejie
That should read 18th century.
# Posted on September 27th 2011 by Weejie
"I looked up the copy of the MS and found that the tablature of this tune does not work out as a regular measure"
Did you also notice Farquhar Graham's comment - "The notation for this (tune?) is very faulty"?
# Posted on September 27th 2011 by Weejie
Hi Weejie,
you write "Except this particular tune is not really part of a tradition."
Same goes for many folk songs, which are only in the repertoire because some collector wrote them down in a book from which it was retrieved later. That is the re-entering proces that was mentioned elsewhere in here.
And then you should also argument against those tunes which where written by XY and transcribed from a recording.
But it seems you tend to construct your world as you like to have it, picking points you can make a big thing about. This is talk for talk's sake. I suppose peirol is right when he wote that it does not make sense to discuss with you.
# Posted on September 28th 2011 by maharion
Not really, aena 15. This particular tune is not even 'traditional' in structure. I don't "construct" my world when it comes to traditional music. There is a tradition to do that for me. I agree that tunes can "re-enter" a tradition. It happens all the time. However, it is impossible for a tune to re-enter a tradition if it was never part of a tradition in the first place. This tune appears to be more of a "court piece" - and looking at the manuscript, that can be said of a lot of them (though not all). I don't hear many "ballets" or "courantes" in pub sessions (though granted, there may be room for the odd one as a novelty piece). As for folk songs, there is a similar basic structure and lyrical content behind them - those that are revived from manuscripts are revived if they conform, even remotely in some instances, to that structure and content. I wouldn't expect to hear too many madrigals in a traditional singing session - there may be sessions where this happens, but I've yet to encounter one. Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against these tunes. I'm quite fond of Renaissance music - even more fond of Baroque music - but it isn't "traditional" in the commonly accepted sense. I would attribute it as "anonymous" in any recording, rather than "traditional".
If you feel that you don't want to discuss things like that with me that is up to you. Nevertheless, however nice the tune is, it doesn't really fit in with the kind of tunes I hear in trad music sessions.
# Posted on September 28th 2011 by Weejie
I perfectly understand peirol's pov, and if he has slipped from the discussion, well...
I'm sorry for my harsh reaction but these days are to full of pressing stuff and I get a bit quick with loosing patience with stuff that is just a 'hobby' to me.
Yes, the construction of a concept of tradition... It's a question of social pressure, of what is acceptable within a rather closed and self-proclaimed elitist group declaring this as part of OUR tradition, and if YOU want to be part of it, don't step over the line WE have drawn right HERE unless you step to the position of an alpha wolf. It's the same everywhere. (And something which makes me question the readiness of humanity for democracy, but this is really not a topic for TheSession I'm afraid.)
But let's have a look at an example for re-entering.
Carolan's music. Carolan's Concerto is no neat traditional if taken seriously, yet it is one of the most popular compositions of that man. Let's have a look at the 1748 arrangements of his music (only 10 years after his death): those are too weird for straight Italian continuo. But it's probable that his music was played like this. Then 19th century came wih simple chord progressions and harpists got stuck with this ever since Egan built his beautiful harps. Some tried to bring Carolan's style into the public consciousness like Grainne Yeats. But this music takes to much effort, practice and commitment for the average player.
Please, don't think, that I advocate museal preparations of a style nobody remembers nowadays, but neither do I advocate sticking to a fixed style of tradition which has been just another recent invention like the idea of the session itself.
Some point I did not write about in my last reply, to get back to these tunes submitted here, is Graham's comment of faultiness. The 4 1/2 beat measure is dubious, no questioning of this. But an irregular is not necessarily faulty, as we nowadays accept in academia. The 19th century had a lot of problems with this idea and cutting stanzas from songs or adding was common practice, so it does not take me wonder if Graham would have eyed such a notation as dubius too. But did he really mean these?
Some questions are coming to my mind (before I ugently have to get back to work): Where do you draw a distinction between anonymous--traditional--known composer in relation to tradition? It's an open secret that for many 'traditionals' the composer is known. Is it enough to write in the 'traditional style'? Or do you have to be accepted by this tradition? Is a 'traditional' immediately tradition-borne? How many people have to know(recognise), play or record it to enter tradition?
# Posted on September 28th 2011 by maharion
Well, one generally accepted facet of traditional music is its oral transmission. This particular tune has no indication that it was orally transmitted through generations before being transcribed into tablature by Robert Gordon. The tune has all the trappings of a Renaissance court piece (I mean the Renaissance in a British sense) and as it was transcribed during the transition from the late Renaissance to the Baroque period it was possibly a contemporary piece. If it was a traditional tune, passed down orally through generations there would likely be some variations in existence (though not necessarily so). We only have it appearing in the Straloch MS and the Skene MS - both from roughly the same period.
Carolan music is not considered mainstream traditional music, but some of his tunes have been absorbed into the oral tradition (also, Carolan didn't write down his compositions and even those tunes once said to be published during his lifetime are now thought by some to have been published after his death). They have been passed down orally and have many variations due to this process.
There is no indication that this particular lute piece has ever been absorbed into an oral tradition and the only sources of the tune (which comes from a genre of music generally associated with court musicians - and music that was usually transmitted by way of notation) were likely to have been transcribed when the tune was contemporary.
As for what makes a piece traditional when it is newly composed, this is another minefield in itself. If it is played by traditional musicians (musicians who play traditional music) and is passed orally - not necessarily through generations, it is well on its way to becoming absorbed into the tradition.
It could even happen to this piece - but that would not be re-entering the tradition. Somehow though, given its structure, I doubt it.
# Posted on September 28th 2011 by Weejie
Sir Gordon of Straloch His Lute Book
"If it is played by traditional musicians (musicians who play traditional music) and is passed orally ... it is well on its way to becoming absorbed into the tradition."
We have a tune of that description being played regularly in my English session. If it is played at another session it's taken at its face value as being authentically traditional and someone is likely to ask its name and where it came from. The answer given is that it was composed by our session "leader" (he wouldn never accept that designation!) who doesn't read or write music, so it has been passed around by ear and as far as I know it has never been written down. I don't suppose for a moment that the tune is unique in this respect.
# Posted on September 29th 2011 by Trevor Jennings