Music History Periods
Steve Latham
If you had to divide Western Music History from, say the fall of the Roman
Empire to the present, into 12 and only 12 categories, what "dividing lines"
would you pick?
For example, the move from monophony to polyphony is a pretty obvious
choice, so I would probably begin like so:
1. Monophony (Chant)
2. Early Polyphony (Organum, Isorhythm, Imitative CP)
You can include pop styles like Jazz and Rock (or just "pop" which is what
I'd call today's popular music).
So you know:
11. Jazz
12 Pop
There are sort of 6 time periods usually:
Middle Ages
Renaissance
Baroque
Classical
Romantic
Contemporary
Which obviously could divide in two (like the early Baroque Monody of Opera
versus the later Polyphonic music of JS).
What would your 12 time period picks be?
TIA,
Steve
Dan McGarvey
news:AiXLh.3015$Sf2.738@trnddc01...
I guess my first question is, what's the motivation for 12 periods, as
opposed to what we normally think of in terms of musical development?
Now, please note that I don't have any hard and fast answers here; I'm just
exploring, but I do wish more musicologists were asking these questions...
My response is that I'm really not sure that these work, at least not in the
way you're suggesting. The whole 20th Century needs to be re-thought in
terms of how the various musics are categorized. The word "Contemporary" as
academic music historians typically have used it has become meaningless.
Don't you find it odd that music written a full century ago is called
"Contemporary?" James MacMillan is copntemporary. Alban Berg is not. So
then what is Berg? Expressionist? What are the parameters that define
Expressionism, then? Isn't the trend towards new stylistic developments in
the 20th C. thought of as reactions towards or against harmonic conventions
of the time (think of what Glass and Cage did)? Maybe it should be called
Reactionism.
I also see a problem with including popular styles in the timeline, not
because they don't matter, but mainly because popular styles existed way
back in the days of monophony and developed in their own invisible, parallel
timeline that gets largely ignored in the usual paradigm of academic
musicology. Think of your 12th Century troubadors that your music history
professors spent about seven minutes talking about in class. Because those
were mostly aural traditions, and remained so even into the 20th Century, we
seem to not have much of a paper trail to follow its development. (And I
also have a prejudiced suspicion that there's more than a modicum of
snobbery behind this tendency to ignore popular music idioms pre-20th C.)
Not to mention the significant influence of non-western musics on Western
popular music. And I haven't even begun to mention that jazz developed in
parallel to late Romanticism and Neoclassicism, while rock and roll and
similar musics were running in parallel to Expressionism, Serialism (a la
Carter et al), Minimalism and the like. And then, where and how does
electroacoustic music figure in? Does it branch off and begin its own
little timeline and develop independently?
And I'm going to stop there because this is starting to make my head
spin,but I think you see where I'm going with this. I really think that
music history simply isn't linear; it has far too many dimensions to be put
on such a chart.
So, am I way off here?
Dan
SleepyHead
1) Silly Answer
2007 - Now
476 - Fall of the Roman Empire
2007 - 476 = 1531
1531 / 12 = 127.5833 (recurring)
I'd divide it into 127-year periods!
2) Sensible Answer
The problem with dividing musical history into year-based periods is
that musical periods often overlap year-based periods. So while one
composer's busily re-inventing Western music another might still be
chugging along with older forms.
As a response to that we could try dividing up music by 'innovation',
but even then there'd have to be some kind of sub-classification as
not all innovations are of the same kind - formal innovations (e.g.
invention of the motet, sonata form), symbolic innovations (invention
and development of written music), then there are innovations like the
'invention' of rhythm @ Notre Dame that seem less like innovations and
more like laying the formal groundwork for the rest of Western music.
Given all that I'd say it's highly likely there are more than 12
musical innovations!
I think given all that I'd probably just take your original 6
classifications and split them in half, although Dan made an excellent
point about 'contemporary' music encompassing music which is getting
on a bit now.
Jerry Kohl
Before going any further along these lines, I suggest you read an
article now more than a half-century old, titled "Toward a Musical
Periodization of Music," by Henry Leland Clarke. It was published in
vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1956) of the Journal of the American
Musicological Society, pp. 25-30.
Clarke elegantly addresses most of the issues that have been raised so
far, particularly the matter of overlappings of style, which he
accompliches by proposing three phases (Experimental, Established, and
Elaborate) to each style period, the third phase of one coinciding
with the first phase of the next. Sadly, he failed to anticipate a
division into exactly twelve compartments (he has seven broad style
types, with the overlapping phases bringing the total number of
periods to fourteen), but perhaps his ideas could be modified to fit a
duodecimal conception of history.
I think you will find particularly interesting his characterization of
music from the time of Debussy forward to the middle of the 20th
century as "Neophonic", by which he meant that the composers of this
time were primarily interested in revisiting aspects of earlier
historical eras. This is familiar enough from the notion of the
Neoclassicism of Hindemith, Stravinsky & Co. (which Clarke terms "neo-
amphonic", where "amphonic" is a style between polyphony and
homophony, belonging primarily to the 17th century). However, Clarke
perspicaciously finds Debussy to be "neo-diaphonic" (diaphony,
according to Clarke's definition, is music in several parts which move
primarily by parallel motion, i.e., organum), and Schoenberg to be
"neo-polyphonic".
--
Jerry Kohl
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Steve Latham
"Dan McGarvey" <mcga...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message news:w-
>
> I guess my first question is, what's the motivation for 12 periods, as
> opposed to what we normally think of in terms of musical development?
Just an experiment.
>
> Now, please note that I don't have any hard and fast answers here; I'm
> just exploring, but I do wish more musicologists were asking these
> questions...
>
> My response is that I'm really not sure that these work, at least not in
> the way you're suggesting. The whole 20th Century needs to be re-thought
> in terms of how the various musics are categorized.
Absolutely.
The word "Contemporary" as
> academic music historians typically have used it has become meaningless.
> Don't you find it odd that music written a full century ago is called
> "Contemporary?"
Right - and Impressionism, Expressionism, or other such categories seem to
be more meaningful.
>
> I also see a problem with including popular styles in the timeline, not
> because they don't matter, but mainly because popular styles existed way
> back in the days of monophony and developed in their own invisible,
> parallel timeline that gets largely ignored in the usual paradigm of
> academic musicology.
Well put.
[snip]
>
> And I'm going to stop there because this is starting to make my head
> spin,but I think you see where I'm going with this. I really think that
> music history simply isn't linear; it has far too many dimensions to be
> put on such a chart.
>
Agreed, but if you HAD to, what would you pick?
Steve
Steve Latham
"SleepyHead" <simonh...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1174474784.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Could work for an arbitrary reason.
>
>
> 2) Sensible Answer
>
> The problem with dividing musical history into year-based periods is
> that musical periods often overlap year-based periods. So while one
> composer's busily re-inventing Western music another might still be
> chugging along with older forms.
>
> As a response to that we could try dividing up music by 'innovation',
> but even then there'd have to be some kind of sub-classification as
> not all innovations are of the same kind - formal innovations (e.g.
> invention of the motet, sonata form), symbolic innovations (invention
> and development of written music), then there are innovations like the
> 'invention' of rhythm @ Notre Dame that seem less like innovations and
> more like laying the formal groundwork for the rest of Western music.
> Given all that I'd say it's highly likely there are more than 12
> musical innovations!
>
Well, on some levels I think the "innovations" are more important than the
current 6 periods - so if you HAD to pick 12 major guide posts of music
(composition and theory, let's avoid things like instrumental innovations -
like the Piano has to be one of the most significant things, but for this
I'd be looking at something more like Equal Temperament as being a major
musical force).
Despite your and Dan's answer - think about the 7 wonders of the ancient
world. There are more, and some are lost, but they stuck with 7. I'm just
looking for a 12.
Steve
Steve Latham
"Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1174492938.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Clarke elegantly addresses most of the issues that have been raised so
far, particularly the matter of overlappings of style, which he
accompliches by proposing three phases (Experimental, Established, and
Elaborate) to each style period, the third phase of one coinciding
with the first phase of the next.
Interesting - I've actually viewed periods in this way for a long time. In
fact, it can also be seen in the personal evolutions of many composers'
styles.
The amount of overlap would probably be the most difficult thing to define.
I'll talk about the rest later, as it's really interesting stuff.
But if you HAD to pick 12 Jerry :-)
Steve
Tom K.
1. Antiquity (Tetrachord organization, etc.)
2. Modal (roughly from Pope Gregory - 2 subdivisions: monophonic &
polyphonic)
3. Tonal (3 subdivisions: Baroque, Classical & Romantic)
4. Post-tonal
Of course, this is for "Western" music only.
I realize that this is totally opposed to what you were looking for, but hey
it's usenet, isn't it?
Tom K.
Tom K.
>
> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1174492938.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Clarke elegantly addresses most of the issues that have been raised so
> far, particularly the matter of overlappings of style, which he
> accompliches by proposing three phases (Experimental, Established, and
> Elaborate) to each style period, the third phase of one coinciding
> with the first phase of the next.
>
> Interesting - I've actually viewed periods in this way for a long time. In
> fact, it can also be seen in the personal evolutions of many composers'
> styles.
>
> The amount of overlap would probably be the most difficult thing to
> define.
>
It always seemed to me that some of the most interesting music comes during
these overlaps.
Tom K.
SleepyHead
Sounds like an interesting article, but alas I'm neither a student nor
a member of a participating body for the online journal. I'll have to
see if the local library has a copy of this edition, but I ain't
holding my breath.
Jerry Kohl
The holdings for this title of Sheffield's central library do not go
back beyond 1965. I do not know what the policy of the Sheffield
University Libraries is toward the general public, but if they allow
you to use their in-house terminals, you can access this article
through the JSTOR service, to which they subscribe.
Jerry Kohl
> "Jerry Kohl" <jeromek...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Well, it is an interesting exercise to consider SleepyHead's equal-
number-of-years division. The time between the Official Fall of the
Roman Empire and 2007 divided by 12 actually is 127.58333333 years.
So, alternating 127- and 128-year periods, we get:
Year Proposed Period Name
1. 476-602 Late Antiquity
2. 603-730 Dark Ages
3. 731-857 Early Medieval
4. 858-185 Medieval
5. 986-1112 High Medieval
6. 1113-1240 12th-cent. Renaissance (Ars Antiqua)
7. 1241-1367 Ars Nova
8. 1368-1495 Early Renaissance
9. 1496-1622 High Renaissance (Prima prattica)
10. 1623-1750 Baroque (Seconda prattica)
11. 1751-1877 High Modern
12. 1878-2006 Postmodern Era
Periods 1-4 may collectively be referred to as the Age of Monophony,
5-8 (well, 5-9, really) as the Age of Polyphony, and the final group
as the Age of Harmony.
If nothing else, this shows how long the (traditional) Medieval period
really is (eight or even nine of these twelve "periods"), and how much
of it is completely unknown territory, from a musical point of view.
(I am speaking here as a performer who spent a good many years working
with the Medieval repertory.) For the first four of the twelve, there
is no surviving, written music until, at the very end, the earliest
chant manuscripts, with unheighted, staffless neumes. Even in the
fifth "era" artifacts are very thin on the ground, apart from chant
manuscripts; the troubador sources from this period, for example, are
devoid of music notation, containing only texts.
This also indicates how skewed toward the recent past our notion of
history really is--we don't view history linearly, as it was
experienced "on the ground", so to speak, by the people living through
it. It would be more realistic to divide these 1531 years
logarithmically, or by some constant proportion, yielding
progressively longer periods as our gaze recedes into history.
SleepyHead
Oooh! Who's been doing his research!
My partner works at t'other uni (Sheffield Hallam) so she might be
able to swing access to their library - I'll have to check with Sheff
Uni (not Hallam) & see what their policy is to 'outsiders'.
Thanks for the info.
Sleepy.
Jerry Kohl
> Steve, how about 4 large divisions based on pitch relations:
>
> 1. Antiquity (Tetrachord organization, etc.)
> 2. Modal (roughly from Pope Gregory - 2 subdivisions: monophonic &
> polyphonic)
Could you explain the difference between "tertachord organization,
etc." and "modal"?
Tom K.
On Mar 21, 3:45 pm, "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote:
> Steve, how about 4 large divisions based on pitch relations:
>
> 1. Antiquity (Tetrachord organization, etc.)
> 2. Modal (roughly from Pope Gregory - 2 subdivisions: monophonic &
> polyphonic)
Could you explain the difference between "tertachord organization,
etc." and "modal"?
--
Jerry Kohl
Ancient Greeks = Tetrachord combinations rather than scales - therefore not
modal. Plato & Aristotle's use of the term "mode" referred more to
emotional responses than a set of structured scales with centers. So I'm
using "modal" in the sense of "Gregorian" or "Church" modes.
If you prefer another term which doesn't have the ancient connotations, be
my guest.
Tom K.
Jerry Kohl
> "Jerry Kohl" <jeromek...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1174664269....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 3:45 pm, "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Steve, how about 4 large divisions based on pitch relations:
>
> > 1. Antiquity (Tetrachord organization, etc.)
> > 2. Modal (roughly from Pope Gregory - 2 subdivisions: monophonic &
> > polyphonic)
>
> Could you explain the difference between "tertachord organization,
> etc." and "modal"?
> --
> Jerry Kohl
>
> Ancient Greeks = Tetrachord combinations rather than scales - therefore not
> modal. Plato & Aristotle's use of the term "mode" referred more to
> emotional responses than a set of structured scales with centers. So I'm
> using "modal" in the sense of "Gregorian" or "Church" modes.
You see, my problem with this is that the church modes are also
organized by tetrachords--which is hardly surprising since church
modal theory is derived from the Greek system, via Boëthius. Further,
the Greek tetrachords are in fact compounded (conjunctly an
disjunctly) into larger systems (Greater Perfect and Lesser Perfect,
combined to form the Immutable System), and those systems in turn
produce scales (or "octave species") with particular tonal centers
(thirteen of them, according to Aristoxenos, though later theorists
added two more, and of course some of these were merely octave
duplications of others). Plato's discussion (in The Republic, amongst
other places) of the affective and ethical character of the modes
makes it plain that he finds the particular intervallic makup of
scales--not just of their component tetrachords--to be the vital
factor in determining their suitability for various conditions and
circumstances.
--
Jerry Kohl
"To aerostromatókhemá mou éinai gemáto khélia."
Tom K.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that. But the Greek combinations of diatonic and enharmonic
tetrachords bear little resemblance to the later church modes. It also
seems that Greek pitch centers were essentially established by repetition
where the melodic concept of a centric "final" (ultimately leading to
tonality) was a "church mode" innovation.
So if you wish to call the span from roughly 600 BC to 1600 AD the "modal"
period, I can't agree - you'll have to get official sanctioning from Steve!
Tom K.
Jerry Kohl
AFAIK, the Greeks never combined diatonic and enharmonic tetrachords.
In any case, the enharmonic genus appears to have passed out of use
fairly quickly (by about the fourth century BC), even though it
lingers in the theory treatises for centuries. The chromatic genus
also bears little or no relation to the church modes, but the diatonic
genus does not merely *resemble* the tetrachordal patterns of the
church modes, but is identical to them. The chief difference betwen
the ancient and medieval treatment of the tetrachords was the trivial
fact that the ancient Greeks regarded the form of tetrachord beginning
with the semitone as the archetype, whereas medieval theorists gave
this distinction to the mesocentric tetrachord (that is, the one with
the semitone in the middle).
> It also
> seems that Greek pitch centers were essentially established by repetition
Can you cite me a source on this? There are only a little over a dozen
surviving musical compositions, spread out over about six centuries of
history, and all but one or two of these are fragmentary, which makes
such a claim difficult to demonstrate in the actual musical repertory
(notwithstanding the very serious difficulties involving performance
of these melodies). I am aware of no theoretical source from the
period that discusses the method of establishing pitch centers. This
sounds to me as if you may be thinking of the pseudo-Aristotle
treatise's reference to the best melodies making frequent use of the
Mese, but this is an extremely vague and much disputed description.
> where the melodic concept of a centric "final" (ultimately leading to
> tonality) was a "church mode" innovation.
What is a "melodic concept" of centricity? Are you referring to the
Byzantine "okto echoi," and their analogues in the Western "psalm
tones"? The *term* "finalis", in the sense used by medieval theorists,
I am quite certain is not found in ancient Greek music theory, but one
interpretation of the above-mentioned passage from the pseudo-
Aristotle is that the term "mese" may have sometimes been used in this
sense. Even the term "mode" (Latin: "modus") is a relatively late
concoction--the earlier chant theorists use the Greek word "tonos"
instead, which is also the term used by the theorists of Antiquity.
> So if you wish to call the span from roughly 600 BC to 1600 AD the "modal"
> period, I can't agree - you'll have to get official sanctioning from Steve!
I'm not proposing calling anything anything. I'm just trying to work
out what it is you think so sharply distinguishes the musical system
of ancient Greek music (and music theory) from the chant of the
medieval Catholic church (and its theories).
--
Jerry Kohl
"Mea navicula pendens anguillarum plena est."
Tom K.
On Mar 23, 2:32 pm, "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote:
> "Jerry Kohl" <jeromek...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1174681748.2...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 23, 9:02 am, "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote:
> It also
> seems that Greek pitch centers were essentially established by repetition
Can you cite me a source on this? There are only a little over a dozen
surviving musical compositions, spread out over about six centuries of
history, and all but one or two of these are fragmentary, which makes
such a claim difficult to demonstrate in the actual musical repertory
(notwithstanding the very serious difficulties involving performance
of these melodies). I am aware of no theoretical source from the
period that discusses the method of establishing pitch centers. This
sounds to me as if you may be thinking of the pseudo-Aristotle
treatise's reference to the best melodies making frequent use of the
Mese, but this is an extremely vague and much disputed description.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm basing this on my recollection of hearing the recording of the (then)
extant fragments about 15 years ago. To my ears, centers were established
by repetition, not by systematic pitch goals. Perhaps you hear them
differently.
> where the melodic concept of a centric "final" (ultimately leading to
> tonality) was a "church mode" innovation.
What is a "melodic concept" of centricity?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using melodic pitch patterns to establish centers by cadence formulas, etc.
My point was that I don't hear this in the ancient Greek music but I do in
Gregorian chant.
Tom K.
Jerry Kohl
> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1174688020....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 23, 2:32 pm, "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote:
> > "Jerry Kohl" <jeromek...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1174681748.2...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 23, 9:02 am, "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > It also
> > seems that Greek pitch centers were essentially established by repetition
>
> Can you cite me a source on this? There are only a little over a dozen
> surviving musical compositions, spread out over about six centuries of
> history, and all but one or two of these are fragmentary, which makes
> such a claim difficult to demonstrate in the actual musical repertory
> (notwithstanding the very serious difficulties involving performance
> of these melodies). I am aware of no theoretical source from the
> period that discusses the method of establishing pitch centers. This
> sounds to me as if you may be thinking of the pseudo-Aristotle
> treatise's reference to the best melodies making frequent use of the
> Mese, but this is an extremely vague and much disputed description.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm basing this on my recollection of hearing the recording of the (then)
> extant fragments about 15 years ago.
"The" recording? You probably mean Gregorio Paniagua's recording (his
group is called the Atrium Musicae de Madrid) on Harmonia Mundi.
> To my ears, centers were established
> by repetition, not by systematic pitch goals. Perhaps you hear them
> differently.
Well, a host of problems surfaces with this. First of all, Paniagua's
interpretations are very eclectic as to style. One piece is
interpreted in the manner of Japanese court music, another after the
style of North Indian classical music, etc. There is nothing wrong
with this in principle, since we know nothing at all about performance
practice in ancient Greece, though we can be fairly certain it did not
remain constant over the six or seven centuries which the surviving
pieces cover (not to mention regional differences). But it is very
instructive to listen to a different interpretation, such as the one
recorded by Christodoulos Halaris on the Orata label. In most cases,
it is hard to believe they are performing the same piece!
A second problem is knowing what the "system" used to establish pitch
goals (if indeed there is one) might be foir each piece. Only two of
them are related (the Delphic Hymns), and only one of those is
substantially complete.
Another piece found on both recordings mentioned above is the "Hymn to
the Holy Trinity", discovered in 1918 amongst the Oxyrhynchus papyri,
and first published in 1922. It dates probably from the early 4th
century AD, and is regarded by some scholars as the earliest surviving
example of Christian chant. If this example also did not sound to you
as if it uses "modal" formulas, I would say it puts at least a small
spanner in the works. However, as with so many of the other examples,
it is a fragment, lacking its original beginning.
Another thing that you may have been unaware of at the time you heard
"the" recording (I certainly did not realize this when I first heard
it) is Paniagua's tongue-in-cheek humor with respect to some pieces. I
was outraged, for example, to discover Paniagua used a bass recorder
in some pieces (considering that the technology to build one only came
into existence in the early 16th century), but I hadn't taken into
consideration the fact that the pieces in question are the notorious
"First Pythian Ode" of Pindar and the "Poem Mor. 1", now almost
universally regarded as a fabrication by the 17th-century writer
Athanasius Kircher. The bass recorder is perfectly suitable for a 17th-
century composition!!
--
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
Steve Latham
"Tom K." <tko...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:S-idnbuusawRKJzb...@comcast.com...
Not necessarily opposed - I could further subdivide the groups into 3s to
get 12, though I'd have a hard time with Antiquity!
Steve
Steve Latham
Agreed.
Steve
Steve Latham
>
Well, it is an interesting exercise to consider SleepyHead's equal-
number-of-years division. The time between the Official Fall of the
Roman Empire and 2007 divided by 12 actually is 127.58333333 years.
So, alternating 127- and 128-year periods, we get:
Year Proposed Period Name
1. 476-602 Late Antiquity
2. 603-730 Dark Ages
3. 731-857 Early Medieval
4. 858-185 Medieval
5. 986-1112 High Medieval
6. 1113-1240 12th-cent. Renaissance (Ars Antiqua)
7. 1241-1367 Ars Nova
8. 1368-1495 Early Renaissance
9. 1496-1622 High Renaissance (Prima prattica)
10. 1623-1750 Baroque (Seconda prattica)
11. 1751-1877 High Modern
12. 1878-2006 Postmodern Era
Periods 1-4 may collectively be referred to as the Age of Monophony,
5-8 (well, 5-9, really) as the Age of Polyphony, and the final group
as the Age of Harmony.
[Steve]
I think this is what Tom was hitting on too, which is interesting.
[Jerry]
If nothing else, this shows how long the (traditional) Medieval period
really is (eight or even nine of these twelve "periods"), and how much
of it is completely unknown territory, from a musical point of view.
[Steve]
Absolutely - and that's kind of my reason for doing this. It seems we are so
focused on Classical/Romantic, or even more contemporary fields that we
forget how much time was in earlier periods. Of course, I see a general
acceleration in the classification of styles - for instance, Baroque and
Classical are each sort of 75 years or so, but in last century we sort of
see things in decades - 50s experimentalism, 60s minimalism. I'm always
waiting for everyone to stop naming every single little thing (post modern,
etc.) and come up with a collective name for, say the post-tonal era. I
guess though we don't really have enough hindsight to see how Debussy,
Babbitt, and Williams are connected???
(I am speaking here as a performer who spent a good many years working
with the Medieval repertory.) For the first four of the twelve, there
is no surviving, written music until, at the very end, the earliest
chant manuscripts, with unheighted, staffless neumes. Even in the
fifth "era" artifacts are very thin on the ground, apart from chant
manuscripts; the troubador sources from this period, for example, are
devoid of music notation, containing only texts.
Yeah, another problem.
This also indicates how skewed toward the recent past our notion of
history really is--we don't view history linearly, as it was
experienced "on the ground", so to speak, by the people living through
it. It would be more realistic to divide these 1531 years
logarithmically, or by some constant proportion, yielding
progressively longer periods as our gaze recedes into history.
Yes - that's kind of what I was saying above.
Steve
Steve Latham
> period, I can't agree - you'll have to get official sanctioning from
> Steve!
>
Sorry Jerry, I have to agree with Tom on this one. I too see a distinction
in implementation, if not in theory, which is enough distinction for me
(like using Alberti Bass rather than a C.F. in the Tenor as the
"accompaniment").
Steve.
fields
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.matthewfields.net
Music: Splendor in Sound
Steve Latham
"fields" <matt-send-spamme...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:VeENh.17763$G23....@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
> Now that you've decimated the religion of periods, on to the semicolons.
>
Had you said simply colons, I would have been more concerned about your
fetishes!
Steve
Jerry Kohl
> "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:U56dnTwSl7t_KJzb...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Steve Latham" <llat...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:0heMh.9802$8B1.4397@trnddc04...
>
> >> "Jerry Kohl" <jeromek...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:1174492938.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Clarke elegantly addresses most of the issues that have been raised so
> >> far, particularly the matter of overlappings of style, which he
> >> accompliches by proposing three phases (Experimental, Established, and
> >> Elaborate) to each style period, the third phase of one coinciding
> >> with the first phase of the next.
>
> >> Interesting - I've actually viewed periods in this way for a long time.
> >> In fact, it can also be seen in the personal evolutions of many
> >> composers' styles.
>
> >> The amount of overlap would probably be the most difficult thing to
> >> define.
>
> > It always seemed to me that some of the most interesting music comes
> > during these overlaps.
>
> > Tom K.
>
> Agreed.
If you have seen Clarke's article, you will know that in his taxonomy
virtually all of music history consists of those overlaps, so it is
hardly surprising that "some" of the most interesting music comes form
those segments of history!
Jerry Kohl
> "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message >
> > So if you wish to call the span from roughly 600 BC to 1600 AD the "modal"
> > period, I can't agree - you'll have to get official sanctioning from
> > Steve!
>
> Sorry Jerry, I have to agree with Tom on this one. I too see a distinction
> in implementation,
Does "implementation" mean your actual compositions? If so, would you
like to discuss the formulas in the Epitaph of Seikilos, which I
mentioned in part of my earlier post, snipped from the above
quotation?
> if not in theory,
As far as the theories of the period in question, do keep in mind that
they are almost exclusively concerned with the construction of scales.
They say nothing at all about composition (unless you count that
obscure reference in the pseudo-Aristotle to the "best melodies
emphasizing the Mese"), let alone *modal* construction--which is to
say, the melodic formulas used at the beginnings, endings, and middles
of pieces.
> which is enough distinction for me
> (like using Alberti Bass rather than a C.F. in the Tenor as the
> "accompaniment").
OK, so please give us some examples. Compare a few specific chants
from the Gregorian repertoire with some examples from the ancient
Greek corpus. I have already done so with the Seikilos Epitaph. I'd
say the ball is in your court.
Jeffrey Quick
"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> This also indicates how skewed toward the recent past our notion of
> history really is-
and is there something wrong with that?
>we don't view history linearly, as it was experienced "on the ground",
so to speak, by the people living through
> it.
Yet their time wasn't experienced linearly in the same way we do. They
didn't live as long, and they didn't have the same historical POV.
There's a big difference between the scale of science's history of the
earth, and that of Bishop Usher. Dating anything in the first millennium
is hard enough that trying to periodize it is difficult.
It would be more realistic to divide these 1531 years
> logarithmically, or by some constant proportion, yielding
> progressively longer periods as our gaze recedes into history.
>
> Yes - that's kind of what I was saying above.
>
> Steve
Off my head:
476-1100 Age of chant
1100-1340 Age of organum
1340-1420 Quintal counterpoint period
1420-1470 Tertian counterpoint period
1470-1600 Age of imitative counterpoint
1600-1750 Age of figured bass (should be broken in 2, maybe from Corelli
on, but that would give us 13)
1750-1800 classical period
1800-1860 Romanticism
1860-1910 Decadent Romanticism
1910-1950 Age of atonality
1950-1980 Age of neo-mannerism
1980- postmodernism
Exact starts and ends can be juggled at will.
Jerry Kohl
> In article <pHyNh.21903$FD1.194@trnddc05>,
>
> > This also indicates how skewed toward the recent past our notion of
> > history really is-
>
> and is there something wrong with that?
Did I say that there was? (This was my statement, rather than Steve's)
As I also said,
> >we don't view history linearly, as it was experienced "on the ground",
> > so to speak, by the people living through
> > it.
By which I meant our historical perspective is comparable to optical
perspective--the closer an object, the larger it seems.
> Yet their time wasn't experienced linearly in the same way we do.
Wasn't it? I'm not so sure, unless you want to split hairs about
*exactly* the same way.
> They didn't live as long,
On average, this may well be true, but what on earth has this to do
with experience of the events around you?
> and they didn't have the same historical POV.
Well, of course not. The average 14th-century European probably didn't
have a clue about the development of computer technology, or even
about the 100 Years' War, since they hadn't happened yet. On the other
hand, I'll bet they could tell you more about the Great Famine of
1315-1317, and the weather conditions associated with it, than all
your Great Books of Learning today can. This is precisely what I meant
about being "on the ground" giving a different perspective than
looking back from a remove of several centuries.
> There's a big difference between the scale of science's history of the
> earth, and that of Bishop Usher. Dating anything in the first millennium
> is hard enough that trying to periodize it is difficult.
Sure, no argument there. that's what I'm saying, too.
> It would be more realistic to divide these 1531 years
>
> > logarithmically, or by some constant proportion, yielding
> > progressively longer periods as our gaze recedes into history.
>
> > Yes - that's kind of what I was saying above.
>
> > Steve
>
> Off my head:
> 476-1100 Age of chant
> 1100-1340 Age of organum
I think Guillaume de Machaut would have been astonished to learn the
first 40 years of his life were spent in the musical context of
organum. You are at least a century late, here. In fact, 1100 is a bit
late for the beginnings of organum, too. Most authorities reckon it to
start no later than the early 11th century, if not even earlier. The
Musica enchiriadis (10th cent) describes improvised organum in
considerable detail.
Tom K.
Wasn't it Satie who wrote the "Semicolonoscopy in Eb"?
Tom K.
Jerry Kohl
"Le Demipointvirguleoscopie en mi-bémol"? Hmm. If it was written by
anyone at all, it would have to have been Satie, all right . . . ;-)
--
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
Samuel Vriezen
> Well, it is an interesting exercise to consider SleepyHead's equal-
> number-of-years division. The time between the Official Fall of the
> Roman Empire and 2007 divided by 12 actually is 127.58333333 years.
> So, alternating 127- and 128-year periods, we get:
>
> Year Proposed Period Name
> 1. 476-602 Late Antiquity
> 2. 603-730 Dark Ages
> 3. 731-857 Early Medieval
> 4. 858-185 Medieval
>
> 5. 986-1112 High Medieval
> 6. 1113-1240 12th-cent. Renaissance (Ars Antiqua)
> 7. 1241-1367 Ars Nova
> 8. 1368-1495 Early Renaissance
>
> 9. 1496-1622 High Renaissance (Prima prattica)
> 10. 1623-1750 Baroque (Seconda prattica)
> 11. 1751-1877 High Modern
> 12. 1878-2006 Postmodern Era
>
> Periods 1-4 may collectively be referred to as the Age of Monophony,
> 5-8 (well, 5-9, really) as the Age of Polyphony, and the final group
> as the Age of Harmony.
Jerry,
I think the major change is not between 9 and 10 but between 8 and 9 indeed.
This is the period where they really started getting enough of working on the
basis of cantus firmus writing and where imitative counterpoint broke through,
which led to a kind of textural thinking and thinking about voice relations very
much based on fifths, which is really what tonality comes out of.
I know, this view takes some fixing here and there - we need to reconcieve
tonality here and there - but it seems basically workable to me.
It's really very good, I think, to subdivide first and adjust the theory later!
Your understanding of harmony may only improve!
--
samuel
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/ - homepage, soundclips
http://blogger.xs4all.nl/sqv - weblog in Dutch
Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.
- Charles Bernstein
Samuel Vriezen
1. first couple of millenia
2. 11th century
3. 12th century
4. 13th century
5. 14th century
6. 15th century
7. 16th century
8. 17th century
9. 18th century
10. 19th century
11. 20th century
12. 21st century
This does still feel quite right for me, though one should be distrustful of the
extremely conventional aspect of it.
1. 1996
2. 1997
3. 1998
4. 1999
5. 2000
6. 2001
7. 2002
8. 2003
9. 2004
10. 2005
11. 2006
12. 2007
This, too, works very well for me. Here, the first five periods are collectively
known as the 'student works'-period.
Steve Latham
"Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Does "implementation" mean your actual compositions?
No, I mean the way Greeks implemented things versus the way Hildegard would
have. Stylistic diffeerences. We can also see a continuum from Palestrina to
Bach - they both may have used the same "scale" (Ionian/Major) but their
method of implementation is different, hence our distinguishing one as modal
and the other as tonal. But obviously, there well always be evolutionary
blurring, as in the historical periods we we discussing.
Steve
Steve Latham
"Jeffrey Quick" <j...@cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:jaq-F679B7.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu...
> In article <pHyNh.21903$FD1.194@trnddc05>,
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> This also indicates how skewed toward the recent past our notion of
>> history really is-
>
> and is there something wrong with that?
Well, one might consider such a view unfair.
>
>
>>we don't view history linearly, as it was experienced "on the ground",
> so to speak, by the people living through
>> it.
>
> Yet their time wasn't experienced linearly in the same way we do. They
> didn't live as long,
I don't think their life span has anything to do with it Jeff???
and they didn't have the same historical POV.
Now that is true. Since we have our POV, shouldn't it encompass things
equally though?
> There's a big difference between the scale of science's history of the
> earth, and that of Bishop Usher. Dating anything in the first millennium
> is hard enough that trying to periodize it is difficult.
Yes, but I'd say comparing Geologic time for instance to human generational
periods is different than comparing human generational periods from
1450-1500 and 1900-1950, wouldn't you agree?
>
> Off my head:
> 476-1100 Age of chant
> 1100-1340 Age of organum
> 1340-1420 Quintal counterpoint period
> 1420-1470 Tertian counterpoint period
> 1470-1600 Age of imitative counterpoint
> 1600-1750 Age of figured bass (should be broken in 2, maybe from Corelli
> on, but that would give us 13)
> 1750-1800 classical period
> 1800-1860 Romanticism
> 1860-1910 Decadent Romanticism
> 1910-1950 Age of atonality
> 1950-1980 Age of neo-mannerism
> 1980- postmodernism
I might trade the Corelli break for Decadent Romanticism, but then, that's
such a wonderful description!
Steve
Steve Latham
I thought it was in a darker key though???
Steve
Jerry Kohl
> "Jerry Kohl" <jeromek...@comcast.net> wrote in message
???? If you don't mean in actual musical compositions, where do you
find "stylistic differences"??? Where are these "things"
"implemented", if not in pieces of music? If I were evaluating
Palestrina and Bach, I couldn't think where I would look, apart from
their compositions, to make such judgements!
Jerry Kohl
I think you lost the Fall of the Roman Empire in there, somewhere ;-)
I've tried a few proportional schemes, in order to provide a "natural
perspective". Using a ratio of 1 : sqrt2 produced a slightly too-steep
curve, with period 12 lasting from 3:00am on 31 December 2006 until
midnight!
A somewhat gentler curve produces:
I. Medieval (modal)
1. 476-986 (510 years) Early Medieval
2. 987-1327 (340 years) High Medieval
3. 1328-1555 (227 years) Ars Nova/Renaissance
II. Modern (tonal)
4. 1556-1707 (151 years) Baroque
5. 1708-1809 (101 years) Classique
6. 1810-1882 (67 years) Romantic
III. Postmodern (eclectic)
7. 1883-1928 (45 years) Postromantic
8. 1929-1959 (30 years) Modernist (AntiRomantic)
9. 1960-1980 (20 years) "Far Out, Man"-tic
10. 1981-1994 (13 years) Postmodernistic
11. 1995-2004 (9 years) Post-postmodernistic
12. 2004-2010 (6 years) Post-post-postmodernistic
but I find the third and fourth periods are really awkward. Using a
Fibonacci progression,with the usual numbers multiplied by 2.5 (and
rounding up fractions plus a few of the largest values), gives a
somewhat more satisfactory result:
I. Medieval era, in 2 periods (948 years)
1. 476-1061 (586 years) Early Medieval (monody)
2. 1062-1423 (362 years) High Medieval (polyphony)
II. Modern era, in 3 periods (448 years)
3. 1424-1647 (224 years) Renaissance
4. 1648-1786 (139 years) Classique
5. 1787-1871 (85 years) Romantic
III. Postmodern era, in 7 periods (135 years)
6. 1872-1924 (53 years) Post-Romantic
7. 1925-1957 (33 years) Modernistic
8. 1958-1977 (20 years) Post-Modernistic
9. 1978-1990 (13 years) Simplicistic (Post-postmodernistic)
10. 1991-1998 (8 years) Deconstructionistic
11. 1999-2003 (5 years) Bricolagistic
12. 2004-2007 (3 years) Reconstructionistic
though period 3 is once again a bit awkward, since it runs to 1647.
What do you think?
Tom K.
My bad - it was Eb Minor!
Tom K.
Jerry Kohl
> "Steve Latham" <llat...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:XCaOh.13307$un.3918@trnddc03...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:wrqdna8O1I3r25Xb...@comcast.com...
>
> >> "Steve Latham" <llat...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>news:feGNh.21148$Ht2.17498@trnddc06...
>
> >>> "fields" <matt-send-spammers-to-jail-fie...@tds.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:VeENh.17763$G23....@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
> >>>> Now that you've decimated the religion of periods, on to the
> >>>> semicolons.
>
> >>> Had you said simply colons, I would have been more concerned about your
> >>> fetishes!
>
> >> Wasn't it Satie who wrote the "Semicolonoscopy in Eb"?
>
> > I thought it was in a darker key though???
>
> My bad - it was Eb Minor!
I thought that's what you get when you drop a piano down a Yorkshire
mineshaft ;-)
Samuel Vriezen
> though period 3 is once again a bit awkward, since it runs to 1647.
>
> What do you think?
I think these experimental approaches are very fruitful! This is the true way to
appraoch musicology in a scientific manner!
We should try some more daring things, such as the alternation of centuries-long
period with periods that last only one year or so and consist of only one really
important piece. Guillaume's "Mass" could be a period, as could Gruppen or
Nancarrow's study nr. 36.
We could experiment with paralel periods, since we were free to use jazz and
rock as 'periods' by the OP. Best would be a periodization then with 12 periods
that each run from 476 to 2007.
Maybe periods of negative duration for extremely conservative composers?
Jerry Kohl
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
> > though period 3 is once again a bit awkward, since it runs to 1647.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
>
> I think these experimental approaches are very fruitful! This is the true way to
> appraoch musicology in a scientific manner!
>
> We should try some more daring things, such as the alternation of centuries-long
> period with periods that last only one year or so and consist of only one really
> important piece. Guillaume's "Mass" could be a period, as could Gruppen or
> Nancarrow's study nr. 36.
>
> We could experiment with paralel periods, since we were free to use jazz and
> rock as 'periods' by the OP. Best would be a periodization then with 12 periods
> that each run from 476 to 2007.
Yes! I'm particularly interested to partition the period from the Fall
of the Roman Empire up to, say, the early Baroque according to what
was going on in jazz and rock at that time--especially in China,
Australia, and Lapland, which I think might have fascinating
parallels. Or perpendiculars. Or something.
> Maybe periods of negative duration for extremely conservative composers?
I like it! Can we get imaginary numbers into the equation, as well?
Maybe for acid rock composers?
--
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
Samuel Vriezen
I've often felt that you could talk about just about everything that is
important in music history by taking a few iconic figures, taking a few of their
works and their biography as focal points, and then gradually expanding out from
them to cover all of music history.
I thought of four composers that I felt seemed to exist as important junctures
which makes them good starting points to cover the century or couple of
centuries of what leads up to them as well as the century that follows. They
also represent changes of how you can think about what a composer is and does.
Then, my nominees are:
Machaut
Monteverdi
Beethoven
Cage
and I'd keep Bach as a kind of all-star multi-purpose focal point in the background.
Perhaps, then, we shouldn't think too much of 12 Periods, but perhaps it's more
fruitful to think of 12 Composers - or possibly, 12 Pieces - that, if you teach
or research them thoroughly, will really in the end show themselves to contain
the history of music in pocket format.
This way, you can do away with the whole irritating idea of dates where periods
magically turn into the next period.
Samuel
Steve Latham
"Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
???? If you don't mean in actual musical compositions, where do you
find "stylistic differences"??? Where are these "things"
"implemented", if not in pieces of music? If I were evaluating
Palestrina and Bach, I couldn't think where I would look, apart from
their compositions, to make such judgements!
Just glancing at the Epitaph of Sieklos, and the transcription I have, many
melodic fragments do things like outline an A major triad and end on G. THe
G is not present until that point, so it makes for an interesting "A Major"
sound with a sudden "Mixolydian Cadence".
While we might call this the Mixolydian Mode, I don't see any real
resemblance to the Chant repertory from a few centuries later. Maybe I'm
just dense but these short melodic fragments don't seem to have much to do
with the Reciting tone repetition in many chants, as well as the melodic
contours and so forth. My transcription also shows rhythmic stresses and
short and long syllables, with assumed theses, which also seem to have less
to do with Chant in general.
I'm sure there are evolutionary traits that morph over time, but the two
things have more differences than similarities from what I can see.
Steve
Steve Latham
"Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
What do you think?
Too much time on your hands :-)
Steve
Steve Latham
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:460a4d2b$0$321$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> Machaut
> Monteverdi
> Beethoven
> Cage
I think those are perfectly logical choices, despite any satire that may be
going on.
>
> and I'd keep Bach as a kind of all-star multi-purpose focal point in the
> background.
Nope, he doesn't deserve it.
Steve
Samuel Vriezen
There's never too much time for history!
Jerry Kohl
> "Jerry Kohl" <jeromek...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> ???? If you don't mean in actual musical compositions, where do you
> find "stylistic differences"??? Where are these "things"
> "implemented", if not in pieces of music? If I were evaluating
> Palestrina and Bach, I couldn't think where I would look, apart from
> their compositions, to make such judgements!
>
> Just glancing at the Epitaph of Sieklos, and the transcription I have, many
> melodic fragments do things like outline an A major triad and end on G. THe
> G is not present until that point, so it makes for an interesting "A Major"
> sound with a sudden "Mixolydian Cadence".
I would have said Hypomixolydian, but of course there is no reason to
suppose that the Epitaph of Seikilos would have modal behavior
*identical* to any medieval chant. The issue originally raised had to
do with whether melodic formulae were present, and you seem to be
agreeing with me, that there are such formulae in the Epitaph.
> While we might call this the Mixolydian Mode, I don't see any real
> resemblance to the Chant repertory from a few centuries later.
I think you are looking for isomorphisms, and calling them
resemblances.
> Maybe I'm
> just dense but these short melodic fragments don't seem to have much to do
> with the Reciting tone repetition in many chants,
I would agree with you there. However, I would also point out that
many chants do not have reciting-tone repetitions (which are in any
case much more characteristic of Psalm Tones). A good example of chant
without any reciting-tone repetition to speak of is the "Salve,
Regina, mater misericordiae", which you can consult here <http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_Chant#Chants_of_the_Office>
> as well as the melodic
> contours and so forth.
I have already pointed out the opening leap of a fifth in the Epitaph
is found in many chants in the Dorian mode (First Tone). The falling
third at the ends of lines 2-4 of the Epitaph is not so very common,
but is also found in some chants. However, I feel constrained to point
out that there is a difference of opinion about the ending of the
Seikilos Epitaph. I am not looking at a transcription but rather
listening to those two different recordings I mentioned earlier on
this thread. The Atrium Musicae (Paniagua) version adds one more tone
below the falling third at the end of the last line, so that the
cadence has a distinct lower-dominant sound; the other recording ends
on the lower sixth scale degree (that would be F# in your "A-major"
transcription), which makes quite a different, though still
inconclusive ending. Differences such as these throw considerable
doubt over the interpretation of individual melodies.
> My transcription also shows rhythmic stresses and
> short and long syllables, with assumed theses, which also seem to have less
> to do with Chant in general.
The chant tradition (as we have received it today) does not include
metrical rhythms of the sort found in ancient Greek *poetry*, which is
the basis for the rhythmic interpretation of most of the 16 or so
surviving melodies. There is a type of rhythmic notation discussed in
at least one of the ancient theory treatises, and I believe it is also
found in one of the artifact compositions, but my memory is a bit
fuzzy on this.
On the other hand, you should take a look at the section on chant
performance in Guido d'Arezzo's Micrologus, translated in Hucbald,
Guido, and John on Music: Three Medieval Treatises, translated by
Warren Babb (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), as well as the
same author's Regule Rithmice, Prologus in Antiphonarium, and Epistola
ad Michahelem, edited and translated by Dolores Pesce (Ottawa:
Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1999). Guido, writing in the early 11th
century, describes in some detail a scheme for rhythmicising chant
using long and short units (he is not absoulutely clear about their
relation, but it is probably a 2:1 ratio, though it is also possible
it is not a pulse-based system). There is also considerable evidence
from later periods that chant was subjected to rhythmic shaping that
is at variance with the Solesmes reform which, after all, began only
in the middle of the 19th century.
> I'm sure there are evolutionary traits that morph over time,
And if your ideas about chant are derived from the Liber Usualis, you
are comparing early 20th century chant with Greek music from two
millenia earlier, which is a lot of time for things to "morph".
Jerry Kohl
> "Jerry Kohl" <jeromek...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> What do you think?
>
> Too much time on your hands :-)
First you insist I comply with your request for a system, then you
reproach me for spending too much time and thought on it. If you
wanted a careless, sloppy job, you should have said so in the first
place. ;-)
Steve Latham
> Steve Latham wrote:
>> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>>
>> Too much time on your hands :-)
>
>
> There's never too much time for history!
>
Or rather, is there not enough time for history!
Steve
Steve Latham
"Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message [
[snip]
I would have said Hypomixolydian, but of course there is no reason to
suppose that the Epitaph of Seikilos would have modal behavior
*identical* to any medieval chant. The issue originally raised had to
do with whether melodic formulae were present, and you seem to be
agreeing with me, that there are such formulae in the Epitaph.
Maybe I musinderstood that part of it - I missed "meldoci formula". My mind
was stuck on the less-than-"identical" modal behavior.
> While we might call this the Mixolydian Mode, I don't see any real
> resemblance to the Chant repertory from a few centuries later.
I think you are looking for isomorphisms, and calling them
resemblances.
Oh, no, another Hans! Run away, run away :-)
I have already pointed out the opening leap of a fifth in the Epitaph
is found in many chants in the Dorian mode (First Tone). The falling
third at the ends of lines 2-4 of the Epitaph is not so very common,
but is also found in some chants.
Well, there are a lot of similar melodic fragments in all styles of music.
One could easily harmonize the first fragment I have in a Blues setting!
However, I feel constrained to point
out that there is a difference of opinion about the ending of the
Seikilos Epitaph. I am not looking at a transcription but rather
listening to those two different recordings I mentioned earlier on
this thread. The Atrium Musicae (Paniagua) version adds one more tone
below the falling third at the end of the last line, so that the
cadence has a distinct lower-dominant sound; the other recording ends
on the lower sixth scale degree (that would be F# in your "A-major"
transcription), which makes quite a different, though still
inconclusive ending. Differences such as these throw considerable
doubt over the interpretation of individual melodies.
I wonder how they decided - I wonder if the notation is roughly diatonic,
but they're feeling that notation is representation of "our" pitches, where
theirs would have been "tuned" differently???
> My transcription also shows rhythmic stresses and
> short and long syllables, with assumed theses, which also seem to have
> less
> to do with Chant in general.
The chant tradition (as we have received it today) does not include
metrical rhythms of the sort found in ancient Greek *poetry*, which is
the basis for the rhythmic interpretation of most of the 16 or so
surviving melodies.
And IIRC, I think the idea that the poetic meter should apply to melodies is
loosely based on circumstantial evidence of performance within plays. What
do you know about this?
There is a type of rhythmic notation discussed in
at least one of the ancient theory treatises, and I believe it is also
found in one of the artifact compositions, but my memory is a bit
fuzzy on this.
On the other hand, you should take a look at the section on chant
performance in Guido d'Arezzo's Micrologus, translated in Hucbald,
Guido, and John on Music: Three Medieval Treatises, translated by
Warren Babb (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), as well as the
same author's Regule Rithmice, Prologus in Antiphonarium, and Epistola
ad Michahelem, edited and translated by Dolores Pesce (Ottawa:
Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1999). Guido, writing in the early 11th
century, describes in some detail a scheme for rhythmicising chant
using long and short units (he is not absoulutely clear about their
relation, but it is probably a 2:1 ratio, though it is also possible
it is not a pulse-based system). There is also considerable evidence
from later periods that chant was subjected to rhythmic shaping that
is at variance with the Solesmes reform which, after all, began only
in the middle of the 19th century.
I have to imagine there were rhythmic "things" happening. It just seems to
unlikely for humans to make music with a such a lack of values - I think
it's more the notation's inability to (or their lack of necessity to)
provide details.
> I'm sure there are evolutionary traits that morph over time,
And if your ideas about chant are derived from the Liber Usualis, you
are comparing early 20th century chant with Greek music from two
millenia earlier, which is a lot of time for things to "morph".
Understood. But I'm looking at things which IIRC are from earlier sources
and are "authentic" in that regard. It's very interesting how all of these
things morph around.
Steve
Steve Latham
On Mar 28, 3:48 pm, "Steve Latham" <llat...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Jerry Kohl" <jeromek...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> What do you think?
>
> Too much time on your hands :-)
First you insist I comply with your request for a system, then you
reproach me for spending too much time and thought on it. If you
wanted a careless, sloppy job, you should have said so in the first
place. ;-)
Well, sometimes "off the cuff" solutions can be as useful as well-thought
out ones. :-)