well, I have a suspicion that its Andrew Lawrence King. It doesn't sound like Bill Taylor to me. Those are the only two that I know of that recorded this in gut, and I'm not even positive about ALK.
Thanks for the hint. I can say for sure it is not William Taylor, as his interpretation is not as pronounced as this, and his harp doesn't have the same timbre. The name of the piece is definitely Kaniad Ystafell, The Song of the Chamber.
Obvioulsy this is a real interest of yours and I agree with many of your points. There will always be an element of conjecture and uncertainly in regards to the MS. That is part of what has always attracted me as well as introducing me to a very eclectic, opinionated group of people who, likewise, find this a fascinating work.
The issue for me is that we have a fascinating document that has been shoehorned into an expectation. The system of 1 and 0 nas been 'translated' by reversing a convention used in another form of musical notation, which may produce a logcal result but is a long way from definite, and the rhythmc interpretation comes from comparing 2 parts of the manuscript, not an actual key that says 'THIS IS.'
The harp illustrated is a small silver award, not an actual instrument. Re tuning, there are dispositions given, but no concrete pitches or intervals.
Whilst there is belief that Ap Huw was a harpist, the fact that he colated the work does not automatically make it for harp... Beethoven was a pianist, but not everything he wrote was for piano. (cont)
As far as i can tell (being that my familiarity with written Welsh is limited), nowhere does it actually say in the manuscript that it is for harp, nor do we have a translation or tuning schedule or key for reading it, so any interpretation is complete conjecture.
There is actually quite a bit in the MS. to give some indication as to the techniques used. Page 35 (translated as "Alphabet to Learn the Pricking") shows interpretations of how to play the figures and several tunings (scales) can be found on page 108. Robert ap Huw was a harper and wrote this tablature for harp although it may have been used for other instruments too. There is even a drawing of a harp in the MS from a later date. There is certainly still much that is conjecture.
As far as I can tell,only one piece is designated as for harp, but then, one piece is designated as being played when the salt was put before King Arthur.
Aside from the copying date, no date, age or period is given, and unfortunately, as the manuscript is difficult to read, most of the information available, from Dolmetsch on is accepted, and those working on it argue about the detail, without solving the big questions because they are happy to assume its for harp, (cont)
I would love the manuscript to be mediaeval harp music, but as yet I do not see enough definite evidence to say that it is.... even that it is harp music at all. Just as with the Sumarian hymn, we have a system. It can be interpreted, but not conclusively transcribed, so we really should be very careful about talking in definites. sorry.. these seem to have come out in reverse order....
The only place where it says that is, I believe, on the cover of the 1748 manuscript bound in 1771... not in the manuscript itself.
Please, if you have a reference or other information, I would love to hear it. It is a fascinating manuscript, but at present, reading it is like trying to follow a recipie without any weights or measures, and with a lot of the ingredients given in shorthand.
Who is performing here?
jevalles 2 years ago
well, I have a suspicion that its Andrew Lawrence King. It doesn't sound like Bill Taylor to me. Those are the only two that I know of that recorded this in gut, and I'm not even positive about ALK.
harpnfiddle 2 years ago
Thanks for the hint. I can say for sure it is not William Taylor, as his interpretation is not as pronounced as this, and his harp doesn't have the same timbre. The name of the piece is definitely Kaniad Ystafell, The Song of the Chamber.
jevalles 2 years ago
Obvioulsy this is a real interest of yours and I agree with many of your points. There will always be an element of conjecture and uncertainly in regards to the MS. That is part of what has always attracted me as well as introducing me to a very eclectic, opinionated group of people who, likewise, find this a fascinating work.
birch411 2 years ago
The issue for me is that we have a fascinating document that has been shoehorned into an expectation. The system of 1 and 0 nas been 'translated' by reversing a convention used in another form of musical notation, which may produce a logcal result but is a long way from definite, and the rhythmc interpretation comes from comparing 2 parts of the manuscript, not an actual key that says 'THIS IS.'
parkerharps 2 years ago
The harp illustrated is a small silver award, not an actual instrument. Re tuning, there are dispositions given, but no concrete pitches or intervals.
Whilst there is belief that Ap Huw was a harpist, the fact that he colated the work does not automatically make it for harp... Beethoven was a pianist, but not everything he wrote was for piano. (cont)
parkerharps 2 years ago
As far as i can tell (being that my familiarity with written Welsh is limited), nowhere does it actually say in the manuscript that it is for harp, nor do we have a translation or tuning schedule or key for reading it, so any interpretation is complete conjecture.
parkerharps 2 years ago
There is actually quite a bit in the MS. to give some indication as to the techniques used. Page 35 (translated as "Alphabet to Learn the Pricking") shows interpretations of how to play the figures and several tunings (scales) can be found on page 108. Robert ap Huw was a harper and wrote this tablature for harp although it may have been used for other instruments too. There is even a drawing of a harp in the MS from a later date. There is certainly still much that is conjecture.
birch411 2 years ago
As far as I can tell,only one piece is designated as for harp, but then, one piece is designated as being played when the salt was put before King Arthur.
Aside from the copying date, no date, age or period is given, and unfortunately, as the manuscript is difficult to read, most of the information available, from Dolmetsch on is accepted, and those working on it argue about the detail, without solving the big questions because they are happy to assume its for harp, (cont)
parkerharps 2 years ago
I would love the manuscript to be mediaeval harp music, but as yet I do not see enough definite evidence to say that it is.... even that it is harp music at all. Just as with the Sumarian hymn, we have a system. It can be interpreted, but not conclusively transcribed, so we really should be very careful about talking in definites. sorry.. these seem to have come out in reverse order....
parkerharps 2 years ago
You mean aside from where it says 'for harp'?
brayharper 2 years ago
The only place where it says that is, I believe, on the cover of the 1748 manuscript bound in 1771... not in the manuscript itself.
Please, if you have a reference or other information, I would love to hear it. It is a fascinating manuscript, but at present, reading it is like trying to follow a recipie without any weights or measures, and with a lot of the ingredients given in shorthand.
parkerharps 2 years ago
point taken!
Seems like some people speak about their interpretation so positively that don't want to admit its all contingent on believing in their system
brayharper 2 years ago