AVRP répertoire

Dans la DropBox AVRP, nous avons crée un dossier “répertoire” où vous trouverez l’ensemble du répertoire à partie manquante. Un fichier nommé “code couleur” accompagne l’arborescence qui permet de connaître l’état d’avancement de chacun des fichiers.

3 thoughts on “AVRP répertoire

  1. Pour les reconstitutions, pouvons nous adopter l’idée d’ajouter nos initiales en fin de titres afin de conserver l’original tel quel, puis ajouter la version RF, puis celle de MB etc. etc. ?

  2. A few initial comments on the layout of the thesaurus, which to me looks very promising.
    1. The basic idea that the musical/textual phrase is the backbone of the thesaurus seems to me inescapable. On the other hand, we would not want to loose sight of the entire piece as a well-balanced sequence of more or less contrasting phrases. So would it make sense to have a “phrase layout” section (or “Form?”), perhaps in the “Work” tab, with the phrase structure of the entire piece, listing basic info about texture, cadences, etc. which are then described more in detail at the level of the individual phrase.
    2. The issue of how to organize entries for each large category (p. 11 of the model) is indeed a critical one. The current annotations under “Entradas” suggest to me that it might be a good idea to indicate Counterpoint (“S and T at the octave”) separately from Texture (“non-imitative duo”), perhaps through an ad hoc labeling system (say, capital letters to indicate Texture and roman numerals to indicate contrapuntal patters, or some such, though this may result in rather cryptic language if the labels get too complex).
    3. A note on terminology. The use of the Spanish “Entrada” strikes me as a bit odd in a site that will use English (and French?) as the operative language. I would personally prefer a modern equivalent. More problematic to me is the term “accompaniment,” to refer to “various voices and combinations of intervals” (i.e., “free counterpoint”?). I feel that “accompaniment” is not part of the analytic toolkit of Renaissance music, and vocal polyphony in general, and rightly so because its texture is generally not articulated into a main melody + accompaniment, as in later practices. Indeed, in many instances the boundary is often fuzzy between the main subjects and the “free counterpoint” around them. Might not simply “Counterpoint” be a better option? But it occurs to me that I may not be completely clear on the difference between “Entrada” and “Accompaniment” as currently conceived.

  3. Stefano,

    These are interesting suggestions.

    For your #1, does page 7 in the recent AVRP Model of 11/2011 serve this purpose? It shows and entire work as an overview, listing each line of poetry and the corresponding phrases and commonplaces.

    For #2. Yes, some way of grouping the sub-types will be essential. Peter Schubert does this quite systematically. Perhaps there will be other characteristics (these can be in the form of ‘tags’ or ‘attributes’ that those compiling the Thesaurus will attach to each phrase. They could be searchable.

    For #3. I am completely open on the subject of general terminology. I was simply using Cerone’s broad categories (and rough English translations in the case of the Accompaniment types) as points of departure. It’s worth talking about. I am also trying to be practical–and have categories that are simple enough to be memorable in electronic conversations like these! Also easy to represent (like E or I for the imitative points; C for cadences; and something else for the contrapuntal combinations you explain.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>