About a passage in Bukofzer
Alain Naigeon
I have the French version, and on page 18 I read
what follows (my translation, sorry) :
<quotation>
It's obvious that the treatment of dissonnance during
the Renaissance was seriously limiting the harmonic
rhythm (that is, the number of harmonic changes by
unit of time). When this rhythm was rapidly changing,
the Renaissance composer could hardly write a
dissonnance ; that's why dissonnances are unfrequent
in ternary sections. In baroque music, the treatment of
dissonnance allows a fast harmonic rhythm : that's even
the essential technique of the expressive style in the
recitative.
<quotation>
Reading that, my first thought was about the first
recitatives of "La musica" in Monteverdi's Orfeo.
(published at cpdl)
The bass has very long notes on a few notes !
I'd hardly imagine such a situation in franco-flemish
polyphony (excepted, perhaps, in extraodinary challenges
like pieces with a huge number of voices).
Thus the situation seems to be exactly the opposite !
Must we conclude that these Monteverdi's recitatives
aren't baroque ? :-(
Well, one may always argue that this is an exception.
However, isn't it a little strange, since Monteverdi has
precisely been one of the greatest composers having
promoted the birth of the baroque style ?
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
John Howell
>I think this book "Baroque music" is well known,
>I have the French version, and on page 18 I read
>what follows (my translation, sorry) :
Hi, Alain. I have long considered Bukofzer the
least accurate and least usable of that
generation of textbooks from Norton, and would
never have used it myself. This is a very good
example of why.
><quotation>
>It's obvious that the treatment of dissonnance during
>the Renaissance was seriously limiting the harmonic
>rhythm (that is, the number of harmonic changes by
>unit of time). When this rhythm was rapidly changing,
>the Renaissance composer could hardly write a
>dissonnance ; that's why dissonnances are unfrequent
>in ternary sections. In baroque music, the treatment of
>dissonnance allows a fast harmonic rhythm : that's even
>the essential technique of the expressive style in the
>recitative.
><quotation>
There are so many a priori assumptions in that
paragraph I can hardly list them, let alone deal
with them. As a statement of cause and effect I
find it totally unconvincing. And he ignores the
fact that even between two contemporaries, Handel
tended to use a much slower harmonic rhythm that
did Bach. His generalization doesn't even BEGIN
to describe the situation in the high baroque!
>
>Reading that, my first thought was about the first
>recitatives of "La musica" in Monteverdi's Orfeo.
>(published at cpdl)
>The bass has very long notes on a few notes !
>I'd hardly imagine such a situation in franco-flemish
>polyphony (excepted, perhaps, in extraodinary challenges
>like pieces with a huge number of voices).
>Thus the situation seems to be exactly the opposite !
>Must we conclude that these Monteverdi's recitatives
>aren't baroque ? :-(
Depends entirely on how to choose to define
"baroque"! Monteverdi was in at the beginning of
a century and a half of "baroque" development,
but that doesn't mean that he wrote in the same
way as composers 3 or 4 generations later. What
was "baroque" about his writing was (a) the use
of basso continuo accompaniment in the first
place (since he continued to publish madrigals
without b.c. for a while after 1607), (b) his use
of dissonance, already firmly established in
earlier madrigals, which was completely
innovative for the time (and severely criticized
because of that), and (c) his use of the new
style of expressive monody, specifically using
rather slow harmonic rhythm so as not to get in
the singer's way (and of course those "very long
notes" would have been broken up by the chordal
continuo). His monody (or recitativo, if you
want to use a later term) is not that of Bach or
Handel, or even that of Schütz, although Schütz
did return to Venice to study with him for a
time. His last opera ("Poppea") is closer to
later practice than his first opera ("L'Orfeo"),
but after all they were written about 36 years
apart during which musical style was rapidly
developing and changing!
>
>Well, one may always argue that this is an exception.
>However, isn't it a little strange, since Monteverdi has
>precisely been one of the greatest composers having
>promoted the birth of the baroque style ?
Again, remember that there was the early baroque
(in which composers had all been trained in the
Franco-Flemish polyphony of the high renaissance,
as Monteverdi was in Cremona), the middle baroque
(when the new ideas were gradually taking hold
with composers like Schütz, Corelli, and a whole
collection of church organists and opera
composers, not to mention Lully!), and the high
baroque, the domain of Bach, Handel, Telemann,
Vivaldi and Rameau. No, one should not expect
even innovative music in the early 1600s to sound
just like music of the mid-1700s. Like many
composers whose lifetimes form a bridge between
style periods, we can easily find both late
renaissance and early baroque style in
Monteverdi's music. I would expect nothing less.
What attracted attention, of course, was the new
and unexpected innovations, which some people
loved but others hated.
>
>--
>
>Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
> midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
>http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
>Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
> http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>earlym-l mailing list
>earl...@wu-wien.ac.at
>https://lists.wu-wien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/earlym-l
--
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....@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.
Alain Naigeon
mailman.188.122523...@wu-wien.ac.at...
> At 12:04 AM +0100 10/29/08, Alain Naigeon wrote:
>>I think this book "Baroque music" is well known,
>>I have the French version, and on page 18 I read
>>what follows (my translation, sorry) :
>
> Hi, Alain. I have long considered Bukofzer the least accurate and least
> usable of that generation of textbooks from Norton, and would never have
> used it myself. This is a very good example of why.
Hi John,
I didn't know that this book had such a reputation,
since AFAIK it's rather famous - I had bought it a
long time ago.
>><quotation>
>>It's obvious that the treatment of dissonnance during
>>the Renaissance was seriously limiting the harmonic
>>rhythm (that is, the number of harmonic changes by
>>unit of time). When this rhythm was rapidly changing,
>>the Renaissance composer could hardly write a
>>dissonnance ; that's why dissonnances are unfrequent
>>in ternary sections. In baroque music, the treatment of
>>dissonnance allows a fast harmonic rhythm : that's even
>>the essential technique of the expressive style in the
>>recitative.
>><quotation>
>
> There are so many a priori assumptions in that paragraph I can hardly list
> them, let alone deal with them. As a statement of cause and effect I find
> it totally unconvincing. And he ignores the fact that even between two
> contemporaries, Handel tended to use a much slower harmonic rhythm that
> did Bach. His generalization doesn't even BEGIN to describe the situation
> in the high baroque!
To be fair, I'll nevertheless recall that I found this
passage at the very beginning of the book - it has
perhaps to be taken as a quick summarization of
the following chapters. But it is, at least, much too
schematic.
>>Reading that, my first thought was about the first
>>recitatives of "La musica" in Monteverdi's Orfeo.
>>(published at cpdl)
>>The bass has very long notes on a few notes !
>>I'd hardly imagine such a situation in franco-flemish
>>polyphony (excepted, perhaps, in extraodinary challenges
>>like pieces with a huge number of voices).
>>Thus the situation seems to be exactly the opposite !
>>Must we conclude that these Monteverdi's recitatives
>>aren't baroque ? :-(
>
> Depends entirely on how to choose to define "baroque"!
[...]
My question was essentially a rethoric one, I was
disagreeing with the quoted paragraph, while considering
myself Monteverdi as baroque in this Orfeo. But as usual,
you add much information in your answer !
> Monteverdi was in at the beginning of a century and a half of "baroque"
> development, but that doesn't mean that he wrote in the same way as
> composers 3 or 4 generations later. What was "baroque" about his writing
> was (a) the use of basso continuo accompaniment in the first place (since
> he continued to publish madrigals without b.c. for a while after 1607),
> (b) his use of dissonance, already firmly established in earlier
> madrigals, which was completely innovative for the time (and severely
> criticized because of that), and (c) his use of the new style of
> expressive monody, specifically using rather slow harmonic rhythm so as
> not to get in the singer's way (and of course those "very long notes"
> would have been broken up by the chordal continuo).
"so as not to get in the singer's way"
this is quite interesting !
His monody (or recitativo, if you
> want to use a later term) is not that of Bach or Handel, or even that of
> Schütz, although Schütz did return to Venice to study with him for a time.
> His last opera ("Poppea") is closer to later practice than his first opera
> ("L'Orfeo"), but after all they were written about 36 years apart during
> which musical style was rapidly developing and changing!
>
>>
>>Well, one may always argue that this is an exception.
>>However, isn't it a little strange, since Monteverdi has
>>precisely been one of the greatest composers having
>>promoted the birth of the baroque style ?
>
> Again, remember that there was the early baroque (in which composers had
> all been trained in the Franco-Flemish polyphony of the high renaissance,
> as Monteverdi was in Cremona), the middle baroque (when the new ideas were
> gradually taking hold with composers like Schütz, Corelli, and a whole
> collection of church organists and opera composers, not to mention
> Lully!), and the high baroque, the domain of Bach, Handel, Telemann,
> Vivaldi and Rameau. No, one should not expect even innovative music in
> the early 1600s to sound just like music of the mid-1700s. Like many
> composers whose lifetimes form a bridge between style periods, we can
> easily find both late renaissance and early baroque style in Monteverdi's
> music. I would expect nothing less.
Indeed you're right, more than a hundred years shouldn't
be underestimated. About mixture of styles, I remember
an opera by Francesca Caccini, really baroque, but many
cadences were still in the style of Renaissance (syncopated
dissonances).
BTW, what would be your advice(s) for books about the
Baroque, or even more precisely, for an analysis about
why and how it appeared - I still can't get why the basso
continuo allowed more dissonances; the story is often told
like that, but the reason isn't quite obvious to me (I mean
the internal, musical, scientific reason) !
sybr...@hccnet.nl
wrote:
>BTW, what would be your advice(s) for books about the
>Baroque, or even more precisely, for an analysis about
>why and how it appeared - I still can't get why the basso
>continuo allowed more dissonances; the story is often told
>like that, but the reason isn't quite obvious to me (I mean
>the internal, musical, scientific reason) !
There is no scientific reason, IMO.
Basso continuo was already invented before monody started, there are
sacred concerti by , if I recall correctly, Lodovico Grossi da Viadana
with basso continuo. Basso continuo is nothing more and nothing less
than a chordal steno. Compare also the madrigals of John Download
which were printed to be sung by four singers, and as a piece for solo
singer and lute.
Please also keep in mind no composer of that era, called his own music
'Baroque', this label was invented at a much later stage.
Monteverdi talks about Prima Prattica and Seconda Prattica and Stilo
Antiquo vs. Stilo Moderno are also common terms.
The real innovation are unprepared dissonance and monody. But as I am
trying to explain, monody was already 'in the air'.
Conceptually, it is much more important to acknowledge music started
to deal with individual singers, as opposed to a choir.
This was more or less the inevitable result of the Superius becoming
more and more important at the cost of the Tenor, a development which
started already in the Parisian Chanson, by Claudin de Sermisy and
contemporaries.
Norton has been replacing most volumes in their music history series,
Bukofzer has been supplanted by a recent book of John Walter Hill.
I haven't read this yet.
--
Sybrand Bakker
Alain Naigeon
356rg49sbfvtj1ck9...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 23:18:50 +0100, "Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr>
> wrote:
>
>>BTW, what would be your advice(s) for books about the
>>Baroque, or even more precisely, for an analysis about
>>why and how it appeared - I still can't get why the basso
>>continuo allowed more dissonances; the story is often told
>>like that, but the reason isn't quite obvious to me (I mean
>>the internal, musical, scientific reason) !
>
> There is no scientific reason, IMO.
> Basso continuo was already invented before monody started, there are
> sacred concerti by , if I recall correctly, Lodovico Grossi da Viadana
> with basso continuo. Basso continuo is nothing more and nothing less
> than a chordal steno. Compare also the madrigals of John Download
> which were printed to be sung by four singers, and as a piece for solo
> singer and lute.
Hi Sybrand, you might be right - I mean you certainly are ;-)
You see, I was refering to statements according to which
baroque style of superius and basso continuo were linked
by a rational necessity. If you're not sharing this view, fine,
then people sharing it are welcome to answer !
> Please also keep in mind no composer of that era, called his own music
> 'Baroque', this label was invented at a much later stage.
> Monteverdi talks about Prima Prattica and Seconda Prattica and Stilo
> Antiquo vs. Stilo Moderno are also common terms.
> The real innovation are unprepared dissonance and monody. But as I am
> trying to explain, monody was already 'in the air'.
Yes, my point was about those who say that unprepared dissonnance
was made possible by basso continuo. I can't see the reason, though
I see it seems historically true (for instance, some medieval passages
certainly were considered dissonant by Renaissance composers, but
1) not sure medieval considered them as such 2) thus, these were not
dissonnances introduced on purpose to illustrate a dramatic feeling.
> Conceptually, it is much more important to acknowledge music started
> to deal with individual singers, as opposed to a choir.
Indeed one may then ask why these first pieces didn't "need" basso continuo.
> This was more or less the inevitable result of the Superius becoming
> more and more important at the cost of the Tenor, a development which
> started already in the Parisian Chanson, by Claudin de Sermisy and
> contemporaries.
>
>
> Norton has been replacing most volumes in their music history series,
> Bukofzer has been supplanted by a recent book of John Walter Hill.
> I haven't read this yet.
Thanks for this reference, one reader has found it quite good at amazon.
sybr...@hccnet.nl
wrote:
>If you're not sharing this view, fine,
>then people sharing it are welcome to answer !
>
You are in favor of censoring opinions you don't want to read?
Bah!
--
Sybrand Bakker
Alain Naigeon
That's not at all what I meant !
Some people share this view.
I have doubts about their opinion, thus I was expecting they
would try to argue in order to convince me.
You've told that, roughly speaking, you don't share their views.
This was quite interesting, and I'm feeling less lonely ! What
I meant, thus, is that *they* have to bring a proof of this
opinion, rather than you - since you don't support it.
(by "they" I don't have any person in mind, but I have read this
opinion so many times ; some statements are repeated so often
that we forget to question them).
Sig Rosen
series of unprepared dissonances can be much earlier seen-as was pointed out
by the late Harold Brown in his 1975 notes to Fayrfax:
Missa Tecum Principium[Agnus](satbb).
SIR
Sig Rosen
dramatic? I'm not understanding.
Alain Naigeon
mailman.197.122604...@wu-wien.ac.at...
> Why not consider earlier[non-b.c] unprepared dissonances both purposeful
> and
> dramatic? I'm not understanding.
Certainly they might have been, but IMHO not within the same
framework as the one argued by camerata pioneers, that is
music beeing the servant of the text.
I'm not telling truth, I'm just searching it. And I could acknowledge
your remark and nevertheless stay with my question : if medieval
music and baroque music both liked unprepared dissonances, why
are they so different, and why is it often argued that the baroque
was needing basso continuo to be able to do so, when we see that
medieval music didn't need it? Obviously a deeper analysis would
be welcome.
Sig Rosen
weaning vocal music off the hexachord/modal fix in the litugical performance
setting didn't have the instrumentalists/patrons demanding the latest
'hi-fi' instruments to entice/seduce/expand the ear. When a Vicentino
needed something to play his work it had to be created. Virtuoso singers
also need a breath sometimes. A world-view exploring/embracing dissonance-
at least for the receptive elites-as such was also part of the zeit-geist.
Perhaps this is more about commerce than theory? [Sorry for the shallow
analysis]
SIR
On 11/7/08 9:54 AM, "Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> wrote: needed
sybr...@hccnet.nl
wrote:
>I'm not telling truth, I'm just searching it. And I could acknowledge
>your remark and nevertheless stay with my question : if medieval
>music and baroque music both liked unprepared dissonances, why
>are they so different
Medieval music isn't about *chords* and harmony.
Medieval music is punctus contra punctum: note against note, one
melody against another.
So a typical three part piece may have a consonant tenor and
contratenor altus AND a consonant tenor and contratenor bassus, and
yet be discordant.
Apart from that: In this era the fourth was a consonant.
David Fallows argues in his Dufay biography that triads were invented
in England, and spread to Europe during amongst others the Council of
Konstanz. Please note Gioseffo Zarlino is the first to define the term
triad in his Institutione Armoniche.
Long before monody you had chordal Italian folk music, and the
Parisian chanson is also primarily chordal.
Even the music of Roland de Lassus is way more chordal than the music
of Josquin.
One could also question your notion of unprepared dissonance.
This makes clear you believe in the terror of the barline.
If you sing from mensural notation, there is no barline, there is no
regular stress, there is just *text*.
Only late renaissance, which came subject to the terror of the
barline, could discuss prepared and unprepared dissonance.
Previous generations probably just didn't care at all.
--
Sybrand Bakker
Alain Naigeon
> Perhaps earlier genius harmonic experimenters from Ramos de Pareja[1482]+
> weaning vocal music off the hexachord/modal fix in the litugical
> performance
> setting didn't have the instrumentalists/patrons demanding the latest
> 'hi-fi' instruments to entice/seduce/expand the ear. When a Vicentino
> needed something to play his work it had to be created.
I'd like being Vincentino and having someone building a special instrument
for me : being not a guitar (or lute) player, I just realize I've here and
there
written "chords" that are impossible to play :-)
Alain Naigeon
nb79h4dad621kprfj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:54:59 +0100, "Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm not telling truth, I'm just searching it. And I could acknowledge
>>your remark and nevertheless stay with my question : if medieval
>>music and baroque music both liked unprepared dissonances, why
>>are they so different
> Medieval music isn't about *chords* and harmony.
> Medieval music is punctus contra punctum: note against note, one
> melody against another.
> So a typical three part piece may have a consonant tenor and
> contratenor altus AND a consonant tenor and contratenor bassus, and
> yet be discordant.
> Apart from that: In this era the fourth was a consonant.
Yes! Steve Latham, in rec.music.theory, has posted a link to an interesting
document about the history of the fourth.
> David Fallows argues in his Dufay biography that triads were invented
> in England, and spread to Europe during amongst others the Council of
> Konstanz. Please note Gioseffo Zarlino is the first to define the term
> triad in his Institutione Armoniche.
> Long before monody you had chordal Italian folk music, and the
> Parisian chanson is also primarily chordal.
> Even the music of Roland de Lassus is way more chordal than the music
> of Josquin.
I'd like we would (or I would) know more about temperament
prefered by these English composers or by Lassus (about Zarlino's
views, we do know much, of course).
>
> One could also question your notion of unprepared dissonance.
> This makes clear you believe in the terror of the barline.
> If you sing from mensural notation, there is no barline, there is no
> regular stress, there is just *text*.
> Only late renaissance, which came subject to the terror of the
> barline, could discuss prepared and unprepared dissonance.
> Previous generations probably just didn't care at all.
Well, I was just refering to suspensions, for which it is asked that
the first part of the tied note is a consonnance.
But I don't know when this rule was first given and observed in
real music.
Alain Naigeon
491af43f$0$28670$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
> <sybr...@hccnet.nl> a écrit dans le message de news:
> Yes! Steve Latham, in rec.music.theory, has posted a link to an
> interesting
> document about the history of the fourth.
I have forgotten to copy the link :
http://home.uchicago.edu/~yeary/papers/yeary-fourth.pdf
Sig Rosen
that his ..[Vincentino's] work was not famously attacked. Could you arrange
your 'impossible chords' for voices?
We found Vincentino difficult, but not more so than Gesualdo to sing, and
very text expressive. We do not think he needed b.c.-Instruments could enjoy
doubling/substuting lower voices. I think later monody needing virtuoso solo
singers also needed b.c. For harmonic/dramatic contrast- and giving time for
them to breathe and change positions for their facial and changes of body
positions.
Improvising was obviously needed as these conditions were different for
different singers & venues. Should it be different now?
sybr...@hccnet.nl
wrote:
>"Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
>491af43f$0$28670$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
>> <sybr...@hccnet.nl> a écrit dans le message de news:
>
>> Yes! Steve Latham, in rec.music.theory, has posted a link to an
>> interesting
>> document about the history of the fourth.
>
>I have forgotten to copy the link :
>http://home.uchicago.edu/~yeary/papers/yeary-fourth.pdf
I only today stumbled upon your post and this document.
I only read it 'diagonally', but it is a very interesting read.
It seems more or less to confirm my ideas.
Do you by any chance have access to the complete 4 part settings of
the Genevan psalter by Claude Goudimel, of 1568?
In this collection the 'cantus firmus' switches between superius and
tenor. I have always felt very uneasy about any of this settings with
the cf in the tenor. It means you can't hear the cf, and when you use
this in a church service, you will find the communion can't follow
you.
--
Sybrand Bakker
Alain Naigeon
Hi Sybrand,
Alas... it would have been amazing if I had had access to more
documentation than yourself! I'm sorry, I can't help you on this point :-(
I'm also grateful to Steve Latham for this link. Besides the historical
point of view about which I've learnt much, I have perhaps a problem
with pages 16 and 17.
I'm not sure to get this "upside down" concept about the fourth, which
would be the only interval having this property (I guess the 3:2 ratio
given for the fourth in the middle of page 17 is a reference to this idea,
more than a typo ?!)
And just above on the same page, we read this:
<quote>
only two dyads suggest a strong root: C-E (major third) suggests C
as its root, and C-F (fourth) suggests F as its root.
<quote>
Now my first idea is to remark that the roots given in these two cases
are just the difference tones:
C-E : 5/4 - 1 = 1/4 that is C 2 ocatves lower, as is well known.
C-F : 4/3 - 1 = 1/3 that is octave + fifth lower than C, which is an F.
Ok, but then I'm not sure it's correct to say "only two dyads", since
C-Eb : 6/5 - 1 = 1/5 that is two octaves and a major third lower
than C = an Ab, not at all a surprising root for a C-Eb interval !
OTH, I would be surprised if the first two roots had no relationship
with difference tones. If I'm true, it follows inevitably that the third
one has to be taken in account, too
Just throwing this bottle, waiting for someone finding it on a beach ;-)
Alain Naigeon
> than C = an Ab, not at all a surprising root for a C-Eb interval !
BTW, it suggests that a C-Eb-Ab sixth chord would be more
consonant than the C-Eb-G :-)
John Howell
>I'm not sure to get this "upside down" concept about the fourth, which
>would be the only interval having this property (I guess the 3:2 ratio
>given for the fourth in the middle of page 17 is a reference to this idea,
>more than a typo ?!)
I think I know what this means, and if so it is a common medieval
statement, but I haven't accessed and read the reference yet.
>
>And just above on the same page, we read this:
><quote>
>only two dyads suggest a strong root: C-E (major third) suggests C
>as its root, and C-F (fourth) suggests F as its root.
><quote>
>
>Now my first idea is to remark that the roots given in these two cases
>are just the difference tones:
>C-E : 5/4 - 1 = 1/4 that is C 2 ocatves lower, as is well known.
>C-F : 4/3 - 1 = 1/3 that is octave + fifth lower than C, which is an F.
That is really a very brilliant deduction, and I believe an
absolutely true one. (Although in the case of the major 3rd it is
only true if the frequency ration is indeed 5:4, and not if the third
is tempered in any way.)
But I'm very surprised that the perfect 5th is omitted, if indeed it
is, since once again the difference tone of a 3:2 perfect 5th is one
octave below the lower note of the 5th, and is therefore an even
stronger root than the two cases cited.
>
>Ok, but then I'm not sure it's correct to say "only two dyads", since
>C-Eb : 6/5 - 1 = 1/5 that is two octaves and a major third lower
>than C = an Ab, not at all a surprising root for a C-Eb interval !
Paul Hindemith goes into this in great detail in the opening portion
of his book, "The Craft of Musical Composition," which in fact is his
explication of the music theory supporting the Newclassical approach
to relative consonance and dissonance, in reply to the serialists'
claim that there IS no difference between consonance and dissonance.
(I oversimplify, obviously!)
John
Alain Naigeon
mailman.210.122711...@wu-wien.ac.at...
> At 3:53 PM +0100 11/19/08, Alain Naigeon wrote:
>>C-Eb : 6/5 - 1 = 1/5 that is two octaves and a major third lower
>>than C = an Ab, not at all a surprising root for a C-Eb interval !
>
> Paul Hindemith goes into this in great detail in the opening portion of
> his book, "The Craft of Musical Composition," which in fact is his
> explication of the music theory supporting the Newclassical approach to
> relative consonance and dissonance, in reply to the serialists' claim that
> there IS no difference between consonance and dissonance. (I oversimplify,
> obviously!)
Thanks for this information ! I've found this title (two books) at amazon,
and they aren't that expensive (15.71+14.25 dollars). But I haven't read
yet all books that I've got ;-)
Margaret Hasselman
serialists. FWIW, I wrote an undergraduate thesis on the subject of
Schoenberg's early piano music, in which I was able to show that Hindemith's
theory (of a hierarchy of consonances and their implied roots) can be
applied very well to Schoenberg's earliest works (op. 11), but less well as
he moved on. By Op.25 the approach becomes pretty much meaningless. Which
is hardly surprising, but it does serve to document some of what was
happening.
Cheers to all -
Margaret Hasselman
John wrote:
.Paul Hindemith goes into this in great detail in the opening portion of his
book, "The Craft of Musical Composition," which in fact is his explication
of the music theory supporting the Newclassical approach to relative
consonance and dissonance, in reply to the serialists' claim that there IS
no difference between consonance and dissonance.
(I oversimplify, obviously!).
Margo Schulter
> "Sig Rosen" <sigr...@earthlink.net> a ?crit dans le message de news:
>> Why not consider earlier[non-b.c] unprepared dissonances both purposeful
>> and
>> dramatic? I'm not understanding.
Hello, Alain and all. My apologies for seeing this thread at such a
late date, but I do have a few comments and a link to offer as to the
medieval issues raised, where my perspective may be somewhat different
that what has been said so far.
First of all, I would stress that the development of expressive
and unconventional dissonance in the later 16th century -- a different
world, of course, than the 13th-14th century reality I shall address
below -- occurred along with, but not necessarily in, styles involving
what might be viewed as similar to the later continuo. Tomas de Santa
Maria, in a tract published in 1565, addresses these styles where
the bass and superius are the main voices, with the middle voices
simply adding concords and "filling in the space." Yet my study so
far of his book reveals no extraordinary dissonances.
Around the same epoch, also that of Rore, for example, Nicola
Vicentino _does_ discuss the utility of changing modes and using
in principle _any_ melodic or vertical interval that might best
express the feeling of the words, precisely the _Seconda prattica_
stance. Yet his innovations seem more, of course, in the direction
and chromatic and even enharmonic (meantone diesis or "fifthtone")
progressions vertically maintaining mostly the usual consonances.
During the 1590's, composers such as Monteverdi and less
dramatically Marenzio, for example, developed new dissonances
in the context of the madrigal rather than continuo or
quasi-continuo, as did Gesualdo also. Monteverdi, as has been
mentioned, had already published his Fourth and Fifth Books
of Madrigals (1603 and 1605, with some of the music in
manuscript already a target of Artusi's dialogue in 1600) when
he entered the field of continuo and monody with _L'Orfeo_ and
the _Scherzi Musicali_ in 1607, if I'm correct. We might also
count a few madrigals in Book V requiring an obligatory
continuo -- but still, I very agree that it is the earlier
books (starting with Book III in 1592) that develop the themes
of new dissonances coupled with expressive declamation and
the use of the resources of traditional ensemble counterpoint.
> Certainly they might have been, but IMHO not within the same
> framework as the one argued by camerata pioneers, that is
> music beeing the servant of the text.
Of course, as has been observed, the "musical being the servant
of the text" is a tenet of Vicentino in 1555, and implicitly of
forces such as the Italian frottola around 1500 and the kind of
"recitation to the viola" (viola actually meaning a vihuela or
the like) esteemed by Castiglione as the highest art, since it
throws into relief the perfections (or imperfections) of the
solo singer. Thus the Camerata, while indeed a significant
movement, was a new manifestation of some rather common musical
currents.
> I'm not telling truth, I'm just searching it. And I could acknowledge
> your remark and nevertheless stay with my question : if medieval
> music and baroque music both liked unprepared dissonances, why
> are they so different, and why is it often argued that the baroque
> was needing basso continuo to be able to do so, when we see that
> medieval music didn't need it? Obviously a deeper analysis would
> be welcome.
Please let me reply here with a view somewhat different than those
expressed so far in this thread, but hopefully with the praiseworthy
humility you have shown in raising these questions. I speak mainly
on the basis of my response to medieval music over the last 40 years
and a bit more, although I can marshall some good period sources
and quotes to agree with my interpretation <grin>.
First, I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that the period
around 1600, which I might join Maria Rika Maniates and others in
styling "Manneristic" (say 1540-1640 or so, or Rore to Monteverdi),
needed continuo to use unprepared or unconventional dissonances for
that period, since it is done in madrigals, and also in keyboard
pieces where continuo is not an issue. Where is the obligatory
continuo, for example, Monteverdi's Book IV of 1603, or some of
Marenzio's madrigals (let alone Gesualdo's) which use unprepared
sevenths and the like?
However, that minor point aside, I would say that applying 16th-century
concepts to 13th-14th century music is a mistake. They are different
arts, based on different stable consonances as well different continua
of consonance/dissonance.
A basic point is that in 13th-century and some 14th-century styles,
intervals such as major seconds (9:8), minor sevenths (16:9), and
major ninths (9:4) are regarded as having some degree of
"compatibility" or even "concord" -- while in the 16th century they
are regarded simply as dissonances, so that their unexpected treatment
becomes a highly expressive figure of musical "rhetoric" in expressing
a text, as well as a source of novel and compelling progressions also
useful in instrumental music.
Also, the basic unit of concord in the 13th-14th centuries is the
complete trine (2:3:4), the _trina harnoniae perfectio_ of Johannes
de Grocheio around 1300; by the time of Zarlino in 1558, it has
become the _harmonia perfetta_ of what Johannes Lippius (1610, 1612)
will call the triad.
Concisely: in a 13th-14th century style, the stable trine contrasts
with many varied unstable combinations, which musicians _were_ quite
capable of describing in terms of three or four voices sounding
simultaneously, and of favoring or disapproving on this basis. Thus
Jacobus of Liege expresses his liking for the often-favored sonority
from Perotin to Machaut of "the major ninth split into two fifths,"
e.g. F-C-G, finding it relatively concordant although, of course,
unstable on account of the outer major ninth. Jacobus in fact
offers a list of "partitions," or ways in which an outer interval
(here a major ninth, for Jacobus actually an "intermediate concord")
can be "split" by one or more middle voices to form a three-voice
sonority.
This, is of course, a way of approaching three or four voices radically
different than tertian or triadic harmony -- but not less logical, nor
necessarily less concerned with overall ensemble concentus or concord
in the progression of stable and aptly unstable sonorities.
Rather than write about my hypothesis, much owing to people ranging
from Yasser to Crocker, with Sarah Fuller greatly contributing to the
recent literature, in more detail here, I might offer links to these
articles:
<http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/13c.html>
<http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/pyth.html>
What is quite correct to say for 13th-14th century music, as also
for much 20th-century music, is that a variety of simple two-voice
intervals are building blocks for stable and unstable combinations.
But this does not mean that combinations with three or more voices
are haphazard, only that they do not fit 16th-century rules.
Interestingly, to develop some parallels you have raised, the minor
seventh for example as an outer interval may resolve by stepwise
contrary motion to a fifth in either conventional 13th-14th style,
or in Monteverdi's style around 1600:
F E F E F#
D E D C# B C# D
G A G A D
13th-14th century Monteverdi
In either or these styles, unlike that of classic 16th-century
counterpoint, a bold minor seventh is acceptable -- for Perotin
or Machaut because it is a part of current style (although by
the early or mid-14th century disliked by some "moderns"), and
for Monteverdi as a deliberate expressive departure from the
more nuanced and restrained counterpoint of the _Ars perfecta_
extolled by Zarlino.
The part-writing and harmony, however, are different -- as we
might expect given the interval of three centuries, give or
take, between the two idioms. For Perotin or Machaut, a natural
goal of the seventh sonority G-D-F is the stable fifth A-E,
with the minor seventh G-F contracting to a fifth and the upper
minor third D-F to a unison, both _cadentiae_ or purposeful
resolutions from a more tense to a more blending or stable
interval catalogued by Jacobus of Liege around 1325. These
two resolutions together bring us to a richly euphonious and
stable fifth A-E, which might be said to deputize for a complete
trine A-E-A with the octave and upper 4:3 fourth also present.
In Monteverdi's progression, the outer minor seventh likewise
contracts to a fifth -- but here the fifth of a suspension
sonority, with the fourth resolving to a major third, and
this major third between the bass and middle voices then
resolving in turn to an octave. Here I have the upper voice
conclude at the major tenth -- the richest and most satisfying
concord of Zarlino's complete _harmonia perfetta_ which would
also call for the fifth or 12th above the bass.
Thus the two progressions share common elements (the bold use
the minor seventh, and its purposeful resolution by stepwise
contrary motion), but in different worlds of medieval trinic
and Manneristic tertian harmony. The fourth, incidentally,
is a concord ranking "with but after the fifth" in a
13th-century style; rather more cautiously treated by sometimes
still accorded a certain liberty in Machaut; and, in practice,
treated when above the bass as if it were a kind a dissonance
in tertian counterpoint like that of the Renaissance for the
most part, so that a 4-3 resolution becomes a standard
suspension.
In my view, the unique quality of 16th-century counterpoint,
in contrast to either of these examples, is the interest
in a "homogenous tertian" texture, with mostly a smooth
flow of tertian concords and sonorities, subtly punctuated
by the nuance of the suspension dissonance. Either 13th-14th
or "modern" early 17th-century technique involves progressions
with a higher degree of contrast.
Monteverdi declared that he did not "compose at haphazard,"
and it is curious that Artusi in his dialogue of 1600 had
a proponent of Monteverdi's innovations, which Artusi
viewed rather as deplorable "imperfections of modern music,"
argue that all the voices did not need to concord with each
other as long a voice forming a dissonance with one part
concorded with all the others.
In fact, this rule as a _limitation_ of dissonance may be
found in various sources ranging from Franco of Cologne
around 1260 to Zarlino and Morley, as well as 17th-century
sources such as Bernhard on the new or "theatrical" style
exemplified by Monteverdi. In each epoch, we should focus
on the vertical and melodic tastes shaping the choice
and progression of sonorities.
With many thanks,
Margo Schulter
msch...@calweb.com
Alain Naigeon
news: 4983465f$0$2817$d36...@news.calweb.com...
> Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
>> "Sig Rosen" <sigr...@earthlink.net> a ?crit dans le message de news:
>> mailman.197.122604...@wu-wien.ac.at...
>>> Why not consider earlier[non-b.c] unprepared dissonances both purposeful
>>> and
>>> dramatic? I'm not understanding.
>
> and unconventional dissonance in the later 16th century -- a different
> world, of course, than the 13th-14th century reality I shall address
> below -- occurred along with, but not necessarily in, styles involving
> what might be viewed as similar to the later continuo. Tomas de Santa
> Maria, in a tract published in 1565, addresses these styles where
> the bass and superius are the main voices, with the middle voices
> simply adding concords and "filling in the space." Yet my study so
> far of his book reveals no extraordinary dissonances.
> During the 1590's, composers such as Monteverdi and less
> dramatically Marenzio, for example, developed new dissonances
> in the context of the madrigal rather than continuo or
> quasi-continuo, as did Gesualdo also.
Thus, or the books I've read were too schematic, or I haven't
read them thoroughly enough!
>> Certainly they might have been, but IMHO not within the same
>> framework as the one argued by camerata pioneers, that is
>> music beeing the servant of the text.
>
> Of course, as has been observed, the "musical being the servant
> of the text" is a tenet of Vicentino in 1555, and implicitly of
> forces such as the Italian frottola around 1500 and the kind of
> "recitation to the viola" (viola actually meaning a vihuela or
> the like) esteemed by Castiglione as the highest art, since it
> throws into relief the perfections (or imperfections) of the
> solo singer. Thus the Camerata, while indeed a significant
> movement, was a new manifestation of some rather common musical
> currents.
I'm not at all clear with an accurate definition of frottola. I had the
impression it was a rather "popular" music, more vertical than
franco-flemish counterpoint, a sort of counterpoint of the first
kind ?!
I have a book of facsimiles, an "Italian manuscript of frottole",
1502, publised by Minkoff (Res Vm7 676 of the national libray
in Paris). The introduction says it was studied by Nannie Bridgman
who published about it.
The strange thing is that it contains, according to me, at least three types
of pieces. There is "classical" secular counterpoint (Tous biens, La Mora,
...) ;
there are religious pieces (for instance two "Et exultavit"), and there are
indeed more vertical pieces, those, I suppose, called "frottole" (pieces by
Marcus Cara, and also Trombocino, whose name is mentionned on top
of folio - rather small!). I haven't made statistics about the number of
pieces in each of these three kinds.
While having a look at this book after reading your message, I discovered
a strange thing about Isaac's La Mora (his named isn't mentionned, but
this piece is not an unica!). I have a modern edition, in which they explain
that the meaning of this title is rather mysterious. I suppose that they
were
accessing a different source, since in this one I can read "La Mora, or
La Muora - Dona gentile or zentile", which might mean "Kind woman"
(I'm not at all fluent in Italian :-( ). Here I should have a look at
"Dame zentil" , a well known Ars subtilior piece, the theme of which
I'm just not remembering while writing.
>> I'm not telling truth, I'm just searching it. And I could acknowledge
>> your remark and nevertheless stay with my question : if medieval
>> music and baroque music both liked unprepared dissonances, why
>> are they so different, and why is it often argued that the baroque
>> was needing basso continuo to be able to do so, when we see that
>> medieval music didn't need it? Obviously a deeper analysis would
>> be welcome.
>
> Please let me reply here with a view somewhat different than those
> expressed so far in this thread, but hopefully with the praiseworthy
> humility you have shown in raising these questions. I speak mainly
> on the basis of my response to medieval music over the last 40 years
> and a bit more, although I can marshall some good period sources
> and quotes to agree with my interpretation <grin>.
>
> First, I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that the period
> around 1600, which I might join Maria Rika Maniates and others in
> styling "Manneristic" (say 1540-1640 or so, or Rore to Monteverdi),
> needed continuo to use unprepared or unconventional dissonances for
> that period, since it is done in madrigals, and also in keyboard
> pieces where continuo is not an issue. Where is the obligatory
> continuo, for example, Monteverdi's Book IV of 1603, or some of
> Marenzio's madrigals (let alone Gesualdo's) which use unprepared
> sevenths and the like?
Fine, I like this answer :-)
> However, that minor point aside, I would say that applying 16th-century
> concepts to 13th-14th century music is a mistake. They are different
> arts, based on different stable consonances as well different continua
> of consonance/dissonance.
[ here an interesting and detailed comparison between 13-14th century
and Renaissance "harmonies" and voice leading - I'm afraid I'm not
allowed to add an 's' after leading :-) ]
> In my view, the unique quality of 16th-century counterpoint,
> in contrast to either of these examples, is the interest
> in a "homogenous tertian" texture, with mostly a smooth
> flow of tertian concords and sonorities, subtly punctuated
> by the nuance of the suspension dissonance. Either 13th-14th
> or "modern" early 17th-century technique involves progressions
> with a higher degree of contrast.
Books often gave me the impression they consider the beginning
of baroque as a sort of revolution. But sometimes I was feeling the
opposite, that is : franco-flemish period might have been an
exception, a sort of (wonderful) parenthesis.
Margo Schulter
>> During the 1590's, composers such as Monteverdi and less
>> dramatically Marenzio, for example, developed new dissonances
>> in the context of the madrigal rather than continuo or
>> quasi-continuo, as did Gesualdo also.
> [...]
> Thus, or the books I've read were too schematic, or I haven't
> read them thoroughly enough!
Greetings, Alain, and it is my great pleasure to join with
you in this discourse.
What I suspect that is that the Camerata, while indeed a
fascinating artistic movement which _did_ indeed play an
important role in shaping developments around 1580-1600,
has in much historical writing distracted somewhat from
the evolution of the ensemble madrigal itself, which from
the beginning presented a fascinating mixture of complex
polyphony and simple declamatory textures. Indeed one can
see this in some of the madrigals of Verdelot, for example,
from the 1530's; or of Maddalena Casulana in the 1560's.
The "schematic" problem, as has been well observed in this
thread, indeed applies to Bukofzer's "Renaissance vs. Baroque"
contrasts, if this is the same book on the Baroque era that
I remember looking at some 40 years ago.
For example, an interest in the bass is hardly unique to
the period starting around 1600, although, of course, the
technique of continuo does indeed throw it into special
relief.
We find that Tomas de Santa Maria, writing in the 1550's
but only published in 1565 because of a paper shortage,
considers for the purposes of technique of _fantasia_
(more or less free improvisation or composition on a
polyphonic instrument of some sort) that the bass and
superius are the principal parts. He presents some
examples of how the bass may progress in setting scale
passages in the highest voice, often alternating motion
by step and motion by leap.
Zarlino likewise compares the bass as the foundation of
the texture to the element of earth, saying that the bass
moves somewhat more slowly and disjunctly than the other
parts; this teaching is also the basis for some mixed
feelings about the use of bass divisions in Bardi, as
I recall.
Vicentino teaches that the bass determines the mode of a
piece, and suggests that the characteristic motion of
often directly leaping by fifths or fourths, or else
outlining these intervals, may be taken as defining
the fifths or fourths forming a specific mode. He also
speaks of the characteristic cadential motion of each
voice in a four-voice close, using the term "bass
cadence," for example, to mean a motion of a fifth
down or fourth up.
These are mid-16th century views.
Of course, there has already been a lot of discussion on
the shortcomings of an oversimplified "Renaissance vs.
Baroque" dichotomy (which Bukofzer, it should be said
in fairness to this notable historian and musicologist,
certainly didn't invent singlehandedly!).
> I'm not at all clear with an accurate definition of frottola. I had the
> impression it was a rather "popular" music, more vertical than
> franco-flemish counterpoint, a sort of counterpoint of the first
> kind ?!
Yes, the frottola proper around 1500 generally has simple textures,
mostly note-against-note with a few suspensions and the like. Some
of the Italian carnival songs of this same epoch are similar, and
also the Spanish villancico.
> I have a book of facsimiles, an "Italian manuscript of frottole",
> 1502, publised by Minkoff (Res Vm7 676 of the national libray
> in Paris). The introduction says it was studied by Nannie Bridgman
> who published about it.
Yes, a great scholar and editor! I have a collection of 15th-century
music with French texts edited by Eugenie Droz, and wonder if
she may have been involved in some publications with Nanie Bridgman.
> The strange thing is that it contains, according to me, at least three types
> of pieces. There is "classical" secular counterpoint (Tous biens, La Mora,
> ...) ;
> there are religious pieces (for instance two "Et exultavit"), and there are
> indeed more vertical pieces, those, I suppose, called "frottole" (pieces by
> Marcus Cara, and also Trombocino, whose name is mentionned on top
> of folio - rather small!). I haven't made statistics about the number of
> pieces in each of these three kinds.
One might say that the Italian madrigal, starting a generation or so
later, somehow encompasses all of these traditions. Your concept of
frottole proper as more or less note or note pieces much agrees with
mine.
Looking at some similar Spanish pieces around 1500, I noticed that
the teachings of Santa Maria might easily be applied to these pieces.
The voices, moving mostly note-against-note (in what some have termed
a "homorhythmic" or "familiar" style), form certain common _differencias_
as Santa Maria terms them -- not the "variations" which this Spanish
term may also signify, but in essence four-voice sonorities in which
the middle voices make "differences" of the consonances in dividing
the interval between the outer voices. For example, these differences
are very common, with the number below the sonority showing the
interval between the outer voices:
F4 F4 A4 C5
C4 D4 F4 G4
A3 A3 D4 E4
F3 D3 D3 C3
8 10 12 15
It is an interesting question of whether some people around 1500 were
already conceiving the compositional process for these pieces somewhat
as Santa Maria presents it in the 1550's. Of course, this is only a
sample of the differencias, with others involving, for example, a
sixth or 13th above the bass. It is, at any rate, an attractive model
for some kinds of vocal as well as instrumental music involving a
more note-against-note style.
> While having a look at this book after reading your message, I discovered
> a strange thing about Isaac's La Mora (his named isn't mentionned, but
> this piece is not an unica!). I have a modern edition, in which they explain
> that the meaning of this title is rather mysterious. I suppose that they
> were
> accessing a different source, since in this one I can read "La Mora, or
> La Muora - Dona gentile or zentile", which might mean "Kind woman"
> (I'm not at all fluent in Italian :-( ).
Interestingly, in Yiddish, the well-known name "Yente" or "Yenta" seems
to come from this same Italian root -- perhaps meaning "gentle" and also
"well-bred" or "courteous" (as in the English "gentry" or "of gentle
birth"). Then, however, because of a fictional character, this name
took on implications of one who is a "busybody" or gossip. Still later,
however, "yente" or "yenta" again became a pleasant name which might
apply to any older Jewish woman -- although not without some element
of the less complementary meaning, so that whether it is favorable
or otherwise may depend on the context! My mother and I often apply
it to ourselves.
> Here I should have a look at
> "Dame zentil" , a well known Ars subtilior piece, the theme of which
> I'm just not remembering while writing.
This is indeed a complex piece which I seem to recall recording around
1981-1983, playing one melodic line at a time. The style, it seems to
me, is quite different from La Mora. Then, I recall that a late
14th-century birdsong virelai had its words set again by Jannequin(?),
with both settings delightful, but definitely reflecting their own
eras maybe about 150 years apart. The text may open _Or sus_.
>> However, that minor point aside, I would say that applying 16th-century
>> concepts to 13th-14th century music is a mistake. They are different
>> arts, based on different stable consonances as well different continua
>> of consonance/dissonance.
>
> [ here an interesting and detailed comparison between 13-14th century
> and Renaissance "harmonies" and voice leading - I'm afraid I'm not
> allowed to add an 's' after leading :-) ]
That is an interesting point, possibly leading to the important
qualification that to speak of only one "voice leading" technique
for each era might be an oversimplification! For example, the
voice-leading of Machaut is not identical to that of Landini.
It is fascinating that one of the books I read many years ago
on medieval music drew a parallel between Machaut and Bach,
and between Landini and Handel. While, of course, parallels
are rarely exact, I do consider Machaut-Landini and Bach-Handel
alike examples of the profound and delightfully incommensurate
forms that musical genius may take in various eras.
>> In my view, the unique quality of 16th-century counterpoint,
>> in contrast to either of these examples, is the interest
>> in a "homogenous tertian" texture, with mostly a smooth
>> flow of tertian concords and sonorities, subtly punctuated
>> by the nuance of the suspension dissonance. Either 13th-14th
>> or "modern" early 17th-century technique involves progressions
>> with a higher degree of contrast.
>
> Books often gave me the impression they consider the beginning
> of baroque as a sort of revolution. But sometimes I was feeling the
> opposite, that is : franco-flemish period might have been an
> exception, a sort of (wonderful) parenthesis.
Here I would agree that the Franco-Flemish style does stand out,
with possibly some complications for historical analysis of a
kind that Todd often delights in raising.
The earlier Franco-Flemish style of Ockeghem has a rhythmic
intricacy and melodic development that might look back to
earlier medieval as well as newer "Renaissance" developments.
However, I would say that by around 1520, we do have the
emergence of a style which seems increasingly to seek a
kind of smooth and "homogenous" vertical effect -- whether
in contrapuntally intricate or note-against-note passages.
This style seems to me expressed in sacred polyphony and
also in the French chanson of the Jannequin/Sermisy era
and the emerging Italian madrigal.
We are in agreement that this style -- with a kinship,
of course, to the earlier Franco-Flemish tradition as
well -- is a kind of "(wonderful) parenthesis," as you
have put it, to previous and subsequent styles based on
a bolder contrast between stable and unstable sonorities.
Another interesting point relating to what we have
been discussing is that during this wonderful era
of smooth tertian harmony or sonority, as we might
call it, there is an interest both in contrapuntal
intricacy _and_ in note-against-note declamation or
clarity of text.
Around 1560, for example, we have the concerns of
the Council of Trent about the "intelligibility"
of a sacred text, a concern favoring simpler
polyphonic textures (especially for longer texts);
and also the note-against-note Psalm settings of
Goudimel (albeit for use in private homes rather
than in the Calvanist churches, where monophonic
singing was often preferred). In a liturgical
setting, some of Lasso's pieces and also the
four-voice falsobordone technique beautifully
favored in Spain, for example, highlight this
side of the movement.
At any rate, the "wonderful parenthesis" approach
has great appeal for me -- thank you for this
memorable bon mot, which I hope often to quote
with full credit and much gratitude!
With many thanks,
Margo
Alain Naigeon
> Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>> During the 1590's, composers such as Monteverdi and less
>>> dramatically Marenzio, for example, developed new dissonances
>>> in the context of the madrigal rather than continuo or
>>> quasi-continuo, as did Gesualdo also.
>> [...]
>> Thus, or the books I've read were too schematic, or I haven't
>> read them thoroughly enough!
>
> Greetings, Alain, and it is my great pleasure to join with
> you in this discourse.
>
> What I suspect that is that the Camerata, while indeed a
> fascinating artistic movement which _did_ indeed play an
> important role in shaping developments around 1580-1600,
> has in much historical writing distracted somewhat from
> the evolution of the ensemble madrigal itself, which from
> the beginning presented a fascinating mixture of complex
> polyphony and simple declamatory textures. Indeed one can
> see this in some of the madrigals of Verdelot, for example,
> from the 1530's; or of Maddalena Casulana in the 1560's.
>
> The "schematic" problem, as has been well observed in this
> thread, indeed applies to Bukofzer's "Renaissance vs. Baroque"
> contrasts, if this is the same book on the Baroque era that
> I remember looking at some 40 years ago.
Of course I should admit that Bukofzer is only partly responsible
for my too simple views , I just took my chance to ask a question
that I've been living with for years ;-)
Yes, the question of the bass line is really complex.
Sometimes it tells a story, it can be melodic (with
imitations sometimes) like in the Franco-flemish
school. Or it can be harmonic, for instance in the
mature baroque period.
And sometimes also, it just gives a beautiful basement
to what happens above ("Dal mio permesso amato").
But baroque nearly tonal progressions can insert
imitations or melodic motives between the harmonic
steps acting as milestones, and these motives have
their own style, different from what is found during the
Renaissance.
And, conversely, I remember having seen examples where
much earlier authors have been able to anchor their melodic
motives in the bass on very meaningfull "harmonic" steps.
Of course the challenge is often to achieve melodic and
harmonic meaning, and the bass is the very place were this
need might become obvious !
>> Here I should have a look at
>> "Dame zentil" , a well known Ars subtilior piece, the theme of which
>> I'm just not remembering while writing.
>
> This is indeed a complex piece which I seem to recall recording around
> 1981-1983, playing one melodic line at a time.
OMG, I know how it can be difficult even for rather simple pieces,
but I can't imagine playing this one!! My experience is that it's much
more difficult than playing with real persons with whom you are in
interaction, hearing and seeing them.
Thanks for the relationship Yente <-> Gentile !
> Another interesting point relating to what we have
> been discussing is that during this wonderful era
> of smooth tertian harmony or sonority, as we might
> call it, there is an interest both in contrapuntal
> intricacy _and_ in note-against-note declamation or
> clarity of text.
>
> Around 1560, for example, we have the concerns of
> the Council of Trent about the "intelligibility"
> of a sacred text, a concern favoring simpler
> polyphonic textures (especially for longer texts);
Yes ! And even before this period... I remember a concert
2 years ago or so; we listened to the Machaut mass.
The Credo was much more vertical, IIRC, than the Kyrie
with its very simple and short text memorized by everyone.
Thank you very much one more time, Margo.