Phil,
You're absolutely right (and I apologize if I suggested you didn't
know that)---as you say, my terms weren't precise either. In medieval
and Renaissance theory, C is tempus imperfectum cum prolatione minore,
"cut C" is tempus imperfectum cum prolatione maiore; in other words,
both are duple meters, one with the "lesser" note values (a semibreve
tactus divided into minims), and one with "greater" note values (a
breve tactus divided into semibreves).
Here's what Richard Rastall says in *Grove Music Online*, s.v. "Time signature":
Some signatures are survivors of the system of proportions and
mensuration signs (see NOTATION, §III, 3(VII), 4(III): [C] s used for
4/4 and [cut C] for 2/2 (also called alla breve). [C] s a relic of the
medieval tempus imperfectum cum prolatione minore, a mensuration where
each long contained two breves and each breve contained two
semibreves. The sign [cut C] is now used to indicate quick duple time,
the beat falling on the minim rather than the crotchet. In medieval
terms the tactus in [C] time fell on the semibreve; in [cut C] time it
fell on the breve.
Best,
Andrew
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
>> With respect and collegiality, I just wanted to clarify that
>> Dowland's original time signatures are C and "cut C": these
>> mensural time signatures only look like modern 4/4 or 2/2, but
>> they are not the same. The C generally means that each tactus
>> or metrical group is made up of two minims (modern half
>> notes), and the cut C means that each tactus is made up of two
>> semibreves (modern whole notes). But in this case I think the
>> C meter just means, "the pulse moves in minims"--it does not
>> indicate a regular grouping of beats the way a modern meter
>> does. Downand's bar lines, it seems to me, indicate musical
>> and poetic phrases, not a metrical pattern.
>>
>>
>> I know there are wide disagreement about this, but in
>> transcribing for modern performers, I think one should render
>> the original into basic modern notation--that is, notation
>> that will not surprise modern performers--while doing the
>> least violence to the original. I don't think you gain any
>> advantage in a piece like this from having mixed meters, and
>> certainly not from having two simultaneous meters.
>>
>>
>> In this case, I would recommend transcribing the piece in 4/2,
>> with perhaps an odd 2/2 bar where necessary. Even if this
>> means that a phrase ends in the middle of a bar, I think you
>> can trust modern performers to recognize that and not
>> automatically put a strong downbeat on the first beat of every
>> bar. If you think about how the piece should sound, sensitive
>> performers will probably produce similar results regardless of
>> where you put the bar lines.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Andrew Cashner
>>
>
> To be honest, I was aware that 4/2 and 2/2 are not the correct descriptions
> of the mensuration signs in the Dowland piece: however, to render them in
> LilyPond you would use these time signatures in a mensural context.
>
> Not convinced that C and cut C are correct either: probably the best
> description for the "C" would be tempus imperfectum and the "cut C" alla
> breve?
>
> --
> Phil Holmes
In the hope that this will provide some helpful references for others following this thread...