I'm coming late to this thread, so forgive me if I'm duplicating.
Clearly, the style of the music is relevant to the kind of tuning you should use. I was just at a wonderful vocal workshop where the acoustics of the hall rendered the overtone series unusually audible. (In fact, one participant performed "Taps" on a single fundamental). This demonstrated to ALL the a capella singers present, many of whom were newbies, just how different acoustic thirds sound from the ET piano!
By no coincidence, much of the chosen repertoire was from the Renaissance. In medieval music, where thirds were considered unstable and needing a resolution to a fifth, a less "sweet" tuning would be appropriate. Likewise, in music clearly conceived for equal temperament, one would tune accordingly. The choice is ESSENTIAL for keyboard tuning, of course, but needs to be considered by singers (and other instrumentalists) as well. Just think: is the interval stable or unstable?
Similarly for sevenths: are they resolving or are you sitting on them?
At 11:54 AM -0400 7/13/09, Margaret Hasselman wrote:
>By no coincidence, much of the chosen repertoire was from the Renaissance. >In medieval music, where thirds were considered unstable and needing a >resolution to a fifth, a less "sweet" tuning would be appropriate. >Likewise, in music clearly conceived for equal temperament, one would tune >accordingly. The choice is ESSENTIAL for keyboard tuning, of course, but >needs to be considered by singers (and other instrumentalists) as well. >Just think: is the interval stable or unstable?
I've known Margaret for a long time, and played and sung with her a lot, so she knows how much I respect her musicianship and opinions. Indeed, she told me about this List, the first I ever joined. Still, she is a keyboardist and I am not. And she has also been attending the sessions at Kalamazoo regularly, which I have not.
Here's my conceptual problem. Granted, I think the medieval theorists did write about Pythagorean tuning (just as renaissance theorists wrote about equal temperament, and I'm sure Margo or Todd could provide the citations that I cannot). But does that mean that they actually sang the extremely wide Pythagorean major 3rds? It seems that fashion today accepts that they did. But I have to question that, because I find it hard to believe that medieval singers' ears would accept the harsh beats of those intervals, especially in a reverberant hall, when a slight adjustment would make them pure. Pythagorean intervals are, of course, a perversion of the pure intervals of the natural harmonic series, which both Pythagorus and his later disciples understood quite well, and Pythagorean is a keyboard temperament.
Granted, the theorists also considered 3rds and 6ths "imperfect consonances"--neither dissonant nor fully consonant--and that continued into the early 16th century in the structure of renaissance cadencial formulas, moving from dissonance (2nds or 7ths) to imperfect consonances (3rds or 6ths) to perfect consonances (octaves, 5ths & 4ths). And of course this observation can be used on either side of the argument: either medieval major 3rds WERE more dissonant than later major 3rds, or their ears were more attuned to the perfect consonances so that 3rds and 6ths just SEEMED more dissonant.
(To be fair, when I attempt to tune our small organetto, I do tune perfect 5ths because they simply sound better, and let the 3rds fall where they may!)
Adding to that the fact that all "theorists" were first and foremost performing musicians, however, I have to wonder about those Pythagorean major 3rds, when pure 3rds were so easy to hear and sing. (At one point in history, when Bob Marvin was making sets of recorders with Pythagorean tuning, I had the perfect opportunity to ask him about it, but at that time I didn't even understand the problem! Or how recorders could be in Pythagorean tuning in more than a single key.)
John
-- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:John.How...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians.
In article <mailman.365.1247513762.84820.early...@wu-wien.ac.at>, John Howell <John.How...@vt.edu> wrote:
>Granted, I think the medieval theorists did write about Pythagorean >tuning (just as renaissance theorists wrote about equal temperament, >and I'm sure Margo or Todd could provide the citations that I >cannot). But does that mean that they actually sang the extremely >wide Pythagorean major 3rds? It seems that fashion today accepts >that they did. But I have to question that, because I find it hard >to believe that medieval singers' ears would accept the harsh beats >of those intervals, especially in a reverberant hall, when a slight >adjustment would make them pure.
It's certainly my belief that singers did sing the wide thirds. My aural intuition is the same. A lot of medieval music sounds absolutely absurd to me in any other tuning; I can't even listen to it.
Linear concerns and keeping the same notes sung at the same pitch throughout a piece are very important to this music. I've heard e.g. a Dufay mass sung with singers adjusting notes to have pure vertical thirds in the middle of phrases, and it just sounds ridiculous, making a total jumble of the musical logic. But then that's to my ears.
Here's my conceptual problem. Granted, I think the 21st Century theorists did write about Equal Temperament. But does that mean that they actually sang the extremely tasteless 3ds and 5ths? It seems that fashion today accepts that they did. But I have to question that, because I find it hard to believe that post-modern singers' ears would accept the boredom of those intervals, especially in a reverberant hall, when a slight adjustment would make them pure. Equal temperament intervals are, of course, a perversion of the pure intervals of the natural harmonic series, which both Ellis and his later disciples understood quite well, and Equal Temperament is a keyboard temperament.
On 14 July, 09:50, pedrosousasilva <pedrosousasi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's my conceptual problem. Granted, I think the 21st Century > theorists did write about Equal Temperament. But does that mean that > they actually sang the extremely tasteless 3ds and 5ths?
This is the key: "tasteless"
This, of all words, has no absolute point of reference from century to century! What is tasteless to one generation may be the height of elegance in the next, and vice versa.
It
> seems that fashion today accepts that they did. But I have to > question that, because I find it hard to believe that post-modern > singers' ears would accept the boredom of those intervals, > especially in a reverberant hall, when a slight adjustment would make > them pure.
Sorry, what do you mean exactly? What post-modern singers? Which intervals are "boring"? Why?
Equal temperament intervals are, of course, a perversion of
> the > pure intervals of the natural harmonic series, which both Ellis > and his later disciples understood quite well, and Equal Temperament > is a keyboard temperament.
All temperaments are keyboard temperaments, (although I believe ET as a theory was mentioned by lutenists more often than keyboardists, as there seems to be no easy way to match mean-tone on a lute.) All temperaments involve compromising the natural harmonic series - mean tone prioritises thirds in home keys, Pythagorean prioritises 5ths, ET spreads the "problem" equally.
>Here's my conceptual problem. Granted, I think the 21st Century >theorists did write about Equal Temperament. But does that mean that >they actually sang the extremely tasteless 3ds and 5ths? It >seems that fashion today accepts that they did. But I have to >question that, because I find it hard to believe that post-modern >singers' ears would accept the boredom of those intervals, >especially in a reverberant hall, when a slight adjustment would make >them pure. Equal temperament intervals are, of course, a perversion of >the >pure intervals of the natural harmonic series, which both Ellis >and his later disciples understood quite well, and Equal Temperament >is a keyboard temperament.
I agree completely. You may now remove your tongue from your cheek! (Makes it difficult to talk.)
John
-- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:John.How...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians.
The discussion on temperaments can easily become a matter of clubism if some previous points are not made. In every period, including ours, there is so much of empiricism as reflective knowledge. Imagine for instance that one wants to understand pop music without ever listening to any of it, only from books, critics, interviews, scores, photos and cd covers. How further in understanding or recreating pop could one go with this information only?
As human beings, we all create our emotional-logical references that guide our perception. This dictates greatly our conception of a given repertory and help us to build a picture of how things "were", "are" or "should be". There is no right or wrong in such a matter as temperaments. My inversion of John Howell's text was to demonstrate that the same words and reasoning could apply to equal temperament and that the conclusions could be equally true or false, according to who reads them. That's why John is "convinced that" or Todd has an "aural intuition". These expressions are true since they participate on their perception of the phenomena but they might be false to someone else.
However, and this is a very big however, when we devote ourselves to historical practices we have to consider greatly the factor "context". Music from the the XIVth century is different from the one from the XVIth, XVIIIth or somewhere else. We all know that, of course, but it seems we easily forget it. Let me give you an example: Everyone likes to quote Galillei when it comes to "defend" ET. Some will remember that we have to consider that Vicenzo was a lutenist and therefore we have to restrain his information from the lute world. But a slightly younger lutenist, John Downland, also proposes a temperament which is (suprise!) a slightly modified Pythagorean (not meantone). So, two contemporary lutenist propose solutions which are so opposite among them and that not comply to what to "should be" the standard from the period, meantone. We have, however, to keep in mind that the music from Galillei is very different from Downland's. Galillei has pieces written in 24 keys, which cannot be separated from the fact that he advocated ET; or in other words, Gallilei advocated ET which cannot be separated from the fact that he wrote pieces in 24 keys (aka the chiken and the egg paradox). Another example worth mentioning is Rameau, also considered to be a defensor of ET. But in 1726 he proposes a temperament "pour avantager les tonalités avec dièses" in which the keys with sharps will sound exactly as 1/4 meantone. Evidently that taste changes, at least Rameau's did.
Going back to middle age we fewer options. If in Renaissance and Baroque we have many "solutions" to the "problem", in continental middle ages all indicators point to a Pythagorean model. In Marchetto's temperament, major 3ds are even bigger than in Pythagorean. Temperament, harmony and counterpoint go hand in hand. The same way that in continental music we cannot separate the tuning of a major 3rd or 6th from the rule that states "all perfect consonances should be approached by the nearest imperfect consonance", we should not put in the lot English music which is related to Anonymous 4's notion that "3ds are the best consonances". Some might object that theory is one thing and practice is other, and that is true since many treatises start stating that they write about what musicians are doing already. But it will take an while until non- Pythagorean solutions will start to spring, so it seems that Pythagorean and medieval harmony are quite inseparable issues.
In short, there is no answer to this "problem". In fact, there isn't a problem at all. There are options and contexts.
kind regards,
Pedro
P.S. I'm unfamiliar with the expression "remove your tongue from your cheek".
On Jul 16, 2009, at 9:11 AM, pedrosousasilva wrote:
> Some > will remember that we have to consider that Vicenzo was a lutenist and > therefore we have to restrain his information from the lute world.
You mean we have to limit what he says to the context of the lute?
> But > a slightly younger lutenist, John Downland, also proposes a > temperament which is (suprise!) a slightly modified Pythagorean (not > meantone). So, two contemporary lutenist propose solutions which are > so opposite among them and that not comply to what to "should be" the > standard from the period, meantone. We have, however, to keep in mind > that the music from Galillei is very different from Downland's. > Galillei has pieces written in 24 keys, which cannot be separated from > the fact that he advocated ET; or in other words, Gallilei advocated > ET which cannot be separated from the fact that he wrote pieces in 24 > keys (aka the chiken and the egg paradox).
You make good points, but while it may be logical to assume that Vicenzo Galilei's yen for ET went hand in hand with writing music that needed ET, Vicenzo's music actually tends to be less tonally adventurous than some of Dowland's, particularly the chromatic fantasies. Galilei's 24-key pieces contain a good many pieces obviously conceived in simple keys (by which I mean both simpler in terms of sharps and flats as well more comfortable for the player's hands -- for example, on a G lute, f minor is a fairly easy key and E major clumsy and almost never used, though they have the same number of accidentals) and then transposed into some more remote key to show that it's possible to do it, even if hurts your hands and sounds bad. I've been a lute player for 27 years and a listener longer than that, and never heard anyone actually perform them, though a few other Vicenzo Galilei pieces in conventional modes make an occasional appearance (no one ever accused Vicenzo of being a great composer). So I would class those works, unlike, say, the foreign-key excursions of John Wilson, as theoretical exercises.
> P.S. I'm unfamiliar with the expression "remove your tongue from your > cheek".
Something said with "tongue in cheek" is not meant to be taken seriously, probably referring to the facial expression created by sticking tongue in your cheek, perhaps to suppress laughter. Sticking your tongue in your cheek tends to make you wink.
Can I just apologise for so spectacular missing the point of Pedro's "tongue in cheek" post? That's what comes of reading a thread in a hurry before having had my first coffee of the day... Mea culpa!
My point is that experimenting options is always more fertile than making decisions. But when it comes to decide, we must take the most meaningful option for us, and that's personal, of course. Our opinions reflect our lives (and vice-versa); this is true both for Downland, Galillei or each one of us. Historical information is, for me at least, the boundaries for this research.
Pedro
P.S. I didn't take the expressions "tongue in cheek" seriously, I just never had hear it before and got curious.
In article <mailman.364.1247500486.84820.early...@wu-wien.ac.at>, "Margaret Hasselman" <mhass...@vt.edu> wrote:
> By no coincidence, much of the chosen repertoire was from the Renaissance. > In medieval music, where thirds were considered unstable and needing a > resolution to a fifth, a less "sweet" tuning would be appropriate. > Likewise, in music clearly conceived for equal temperament, one would tune > accordingly. The choice is ESSENTIAL for keyboard tuning, of course, but > needs to be considered by singers (and other instrumentalists) as well. > Just think: is the interval stable or unstable?
In article <h3g2ms$304...@agricola.medieval.org>, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> It's certainly my belief that singers did sing the wide thirds. My > aural intuition is the same. A lot of medieval music sounds > absolutely absurd to me in any other tuning; I can't even listen > to it.
> Linear concerns and keeping the same notes sung at the same pitch > throughout a piece are very important to this music. I've heard > e.g. a Dufay mass sung with singers adjusting notes to have pure > vertical thirds in the middle of phrases, and it just sounds > ridiculous, making a total jumble of the musical logic. But then > that's to my ears.
Much of renaissance polyphony uses triads as stable consonances. But performances may run into the comma-shift problem, first written about by Benedetti (published in 1585): that if a vocal ensemble tries to sing all chords pure, then, depending on the transitions between chords, the ensemble may end up one or more (syntonic) commas away from where it started.
Ross Duffin has an article about this issue in Music Theory Online (http://mto.societymusictheory.org/issues/mto.06.12.3/mto.06.12.3.duffin_ frames.html). His thesis is that there are different ways to choose how to do the transitions, and there are often (usually?) ways that make musical sense, sound very good, and end up where they started.
Here's the abstract: "Just intonation has a reputation as a chimerical, theoretical system that simply cannot work in practice. This is based on the assessment of most modern authorities and supported by misgivings expressed during the Renaissance when the practice was supposedly at its height. Looming large among such misgivings are tuning puzzles printed by the 16th-century mathematician, Giovanni Battista Benedetti. However, Renaissance music theorists are so unanimous in advocating the simple acoustical ratios of Just intonation that it seems clear that some reconciliation must have occurred between the theory and practice of it. This article explores the basic theory of Just intonation as well as problematic passages used to deny its practicability, and proposes solutions that attempt to satisfy both the theory and the ear. Ultimately, a resource is offered to help modern performers approach this valuable art."
The article has many sound clips, showing the problem, and what Duffin considers bad and good ways to get around it. Obviously, his preferred solutions are subjective. And my ears aren't good enough to hear many of his distinctions. But I would be curious if Todd still finds Duffin's solutions (or the included Hilliard Ensemble clip) ridiculous and a jumble.
-- Neal Plotkin my first name dot my last name at nyu dot edu
In article <me-8618AD.15101221072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>, Neal Plotkin <m...@private.invalid> wrote:
>I would be curious if Todd still finds Duffin's solutions (or the >included Hilliard Ensemble clip) ridiculous and a jumble.
I certainly do have to note that your post spoke exclusively about Renaissance music, while I was discussing medieval. Admittedly, I didn't help matters by naming an example on the border between the two.
That said, I do think the approach that Rogers Covey-Crump outlines (and the ensemble uses) in the Hilliard Live recording of Dufay's Missa Se la face ay pale works well, but this is some of Dufay's later music. I am guessing this is the source of the clip, but do not really know.
That approach is/was a matter of choosing strategic note values based on the piece, and not of retuning every chord. The latter is something that occasionally seems to be implied here, and which I think is a really bad idea. Luckily, ensembles hardly ever subject medieval music to this kind of treatment.
In article <h455th$q2...@agricola.medieval.org>, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> In article <me-8618AD.15101221072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>, > Neal Plotkin <m...@private.invalid> wrote: > >I would be curious if Todd still finds Duffin's solutions (or the > >included Hilliard Ensemble clip) ridiculous and a jumble.
> I certainly do have to note that your post spoke exclusively about > Renaissance music, while I was discussing medieval. Admittedly, I > didn't help matters by naming an example on the border between the > two.
True, in both senses.... Although I think the actual distinction is between music that uses triads as stable consonances (renaissance-like) and music that doesn't (medieval-like). For the latter, Pythagorean tuning is best.
> That said, I do think the approach that Rogers Covey-Crump outlines > (and the ensemble uses) in the Hilliard Live recording of Dufay's > Missa Se la face ay pale works well, but this is some of Dufay's > later music. I am guessing this is the source of the clip, but do > not really know.
Duffin's cite for the clip in the article is: Hilliard Ensemble (Thomas Tallis: Lamentations of Jeremiah, ECM 1341 833 308-2 (1987).
> That approach is/was a matter of choosing strategic note values > based on the piece, and not of retuning every chord. The latter > is something that occasionally seems to be implied here, and which > I think is a really bad idea. Luckily, ensembles hardly ever subject > medieval music to this kind of treatment.
I agree. Retuning every chord may put the chords in tune, but it ruins the transitions between chords. Duffin's goals are to have the chords in tune, the transitions sound good, and the piece end where it began.
Duffin gave a class on his methods last week at summer early music camp in Madison, WI. He also gave a public lecture based on the article. I attended the lecture, but didn't take the class.
-- Neal Plotkin my first name dot my last name at nyu dot edu
In article <me-126613.19402821072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>, Neal Plotkin <m...@private.invalid> wrote:
>I think the actual distinction is between music that uses triads >as stable consonances (renaissance-like) and music that doesn't >(medieval-like).
I agree, although pinpointing this kind of thing can be difficult over a few decades. Composers of the Josquin generation do final cadences on open fifths, but do internal cadences in ways that sound rather stable with thirds. If I were to briefly describe e.g. Dufay in this regard, I'd say that he uses a lot of thirds, often in ways that seem rather consonance-like, but there isn't a real stability there.
>Duffin's cite for the clip in the article is: Hilliard Ensemble >(Thomas Tallis: Lamentations of Jeremiah, ECM 1341 833 308-2 (1987).
Ah. I don't know what was said exactly, but I certainly agree that the structural nature of the thirds in this piece are rather different from Dufay, let alone earlier music.
>Duffin's goals are to have the chords in tune, the transitions >sound good, and the piece end where it began.
It sounds like Duffin and I are mainly on the same page. Thanks for bringing this up.
