4 ms·

This was reconstructed from fingering instructions with no information on rhythm or pitch. Maybe by looking at the crude drawings available of the instrument to

This was reconstructed from fingering instructions with no information on rhythm or pitch. Maybe by looking at the crude drawings available of the instrument to make a better guess what the pitches might be, but this is definitely more of a creative interpretation than a historical record.

colordrops 4y ago
Even if rhythm and pitch were available it would still be a creative interpretation. With full sheet music we don't always know the full intention of the composer or the nuances that would be taught in person.
- slingnow 4y ago
  If your argument is just that "everything boils down to a creative interpretation", I don't see how this is a really meaningful or interesting take. The point is that there are widely varying degrees of creative interpretation, and this "transcription" is _nothing_ at all like interpreting a piece of sheet music.
- dwohnitmok 4y ago
  Yes but there's different degrees of creative interpretation. To boomlinde's point, modern "reconstructions" of the hymn differ wildly, to the point that a listener wouldn't be able to tell they were the same song, or even that they were really related.
- boomlinde 4y ago
  > Even if rhythm and pitch were available it would still be a creative interpretation. The important difference here I think is that with a well-defined and understood notation there is a shared frame of reference for interpretation. I can take take two interpretations of works from BWV where the performers can liberally indulge in artistic license where the notation leaves something up to the performer, and I can reflect on the differences and similarities without ever mistaking them for different compositions. Here, it is not just the interpretation of the notation by the performer that requires creative license, but the interpretation by who ever "transcribed" it to modern notation. The video in the article plays two different such interpretations that for obvious reasons then sound entirely different and are not recognizable as the same piece of music, because they really are not. If you take away the pitch and rhythm information from BWV and add a long forgotten system of tablature for some long forgotten instrument that we've only ever seen represented as crude carvings and ask people to transcribe and play it, you'd get similar results.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    But the notation does leave something up to the performer, just a bit more than usual. Relative changes are what makes the melody, you could transpose it up or down and stretch the pitches every way that you want, change the tempo etc but it still would be (for me, at least) recognizably the same melody. I often pick up on artists borrowing bits and pieces (and sometimes more than bits) from each other by looking at the structure and the relative changes even if it sounds completely different.
    - boomlinde 4y ago
      > But the notation does leave something up to the performer, just a bit more than usual. We don't know how much the notation leaves up to the performer. For all we know there could have been a formal system for tuning the instrument this was intended to be played on and a formal system for rhythm; a musical tradition that makes it very obvious how the piece should have been performed that is now forgotten. > Relative changes are what makes the melody, you could transpose it up or down and stretch the pitches every way that you want, change the tempo etc but it still would be (for me, at least) recognizably the same melody. This is not simply a matter of transposition or a tempo difference. No one knows the relative changes in pitch.
    - darkerside 4y ago
      A lot more than usual. Leaving the rhythm open to interpretation, much more so than pitch, can lead to wildly different pieces of music. It's like having no punctuation. You can end up with an entirely different piece.
      - seanhunter 4y ago
        Agreed, although in a lot of systems of early notation the rhythm is sort of implied by the text and contextual clues such as knowing whether a particular piece was a certain sort of dance and therefore the likely range of tempi and main beat stress patterns etc. I think it was around 1300 BCE when western music notation included both pitch and rhythm (with mensural notation).
      - 4y ago
ionwake 4y ago
Which is the oldest song with rhythm and pitch? Anyone know?
- dwohnitmok 4y ago
  Seikilos Epitaph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikilos_epitaph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikilos_epitaph
  - anotheryou 4y ago
    but still no tempo, right? listening to the sung sample¹ I could totally imagine it being double as fast and walzing a bit more. I actually really like it played at double tempo, my firefox can do it on right click. ¹ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/%CE%9F_%CE%95%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%AC%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85_%CE%A3%CE%B5%E1%BF%96%CE%BA%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85_-_Epitaph_of_Seikilos.ogg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/%CE%9F_%...
    - dwohnitmok 4y ago
      No there is no tempo given.

colordrops 4y ago

Even if rhythm and pitch were available it would still be a creative interpretation. With full sheet music we don't always know the full intention of the composer or the nuances that would be taught in person.

slingnow 4y ago
If your argument is just that "everything boils down to a creative interpretation", I don't see how this is a really meaningful or interesting take. The point is that there are widely varying degrees of creative interpretation, and this "transcription" is _nothing_ at all like interpreting a piece of sheet music.
dwohnitmok 4y ago
Yes but there's different degrees of creative interpretation. To boomlinde's point, modern "reconstructions" of the hymn differ wildly, to the point that a listener wouldn't be able to tell they were the same song, or even that they were really related.
boomlinde 4y ago
> Even if rhythm and pitch were available it would still be a creative interpretation. The important difference here I think is that with a well-defined and understood notation there is a shared frame of reference for interpretation. I can take take two interpretations of works from BWV where the performers can liberally indulge in artistic license where the notation leaves something up to the performer, and I can reflect on the differences and similarities without ever mistaking them for different compositions. Here, it is not just the interpretation of the notation by the performer that requires creative license, but the interpretation by who ever "transcribed" it to modern notation. The video in the article plays two different such interpretations that for obvious reasons then sound entirely different and are not recognizable as the same piece of music, because they really are not. If you take away the pitch and rhythm information from BWV and add a long forgotten system of tablature for some long forgotten instrument that we've only ever seen represented as crude carvings and ask people to transcribe and play it, you'd get similar results.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  But the notation does leave something up to the performer, just a bit more than usual. Relative changes are what makes the melody, you could transpose it up or down and stretch the pitches every way that you want, change the tempo etc but it still would be (for me, at least) recognizably the same melody. I often pick up on artists borrowing bits and pieces (and sometimes more than bits) from each other by looking at the structure and the relative changes even if it sounds completely different.
  - boomlinde 4y ago
    > But the notation does leave something up to the performer, just a bit more than usual. We don't know how much the notation leaves up to the performer. For all we know there could have been a formal system for tuning the instrument this was intended to be played on and a formal system for rhythm; a musical tradition that makes it very obvious how the piece should have been performed that is now forgotten. > Relative changes are what makes the melody, you could transpose it up or down and stretch the pitches every way that you want, change the tempo etc but it still would be (for me, at least) recognizably the same melody. This is not simply a matter of transposition or a tempo difference. No one knows the relative changes in pitch.
  - darkerside 4y ago
    A lot more than usual. Leaving the rhythm open to interpretation, much more so than pitch, can lead to wildly different pieces of music. It's like having no punctuation. You can end up with an entirely different piece.
    - seanhunter 4y ago
      Agreed, although in a lot of systems of early notation the rhythm is sort of implied by the text and contextual clues such as knowing whether a particular piece was a certain sort of dance and therefore the likely range of tempi and main beat stress patterns etc. I think it was around 1300 BCE when western music notation included both pitch and rhythm (with mensural notation).
    - 4y ago

ionwake 4y ago

Which is the oldest song with rhythm and pitch? Anyone know?

dwohnitmok 4y ago
Seikilos Epitaph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikilos_epitaph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikilos_epitaph
- anotheryou 4y ago
  but still no tempo, right? listening to the sung sample¹ I could totally imagine it being double as fast and walzing a bit more. I actually really like it played at double tempo, my firefox can do it on right click. ¹ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/%CE%9F_%CE%95%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%AC%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85_%CE%A3%CE%B5%E1%BF%96%CE%BA%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85_-_Epitaph_of_Seikilos.ogg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/%CE%9F_%...
  - dwohnitmok 4y ago
    No there is no tempo given.