modulation

[Michael Muskett]

From across the pond 

I have heard that in the opinion of some cognocenti that the hurdy-gurdy/vielle is not a true musical instrument because its music can not modulate.

Modulation means the ability to change from one key to another by the use of a system of chord changes. The G/C tuning of a vielle allows of playing in only two keys, C major and its tonic minor, (c minor). But if an F sharp is introduced we can make a cadence in the dominant, G, although we can not remain in that key because it would clash with the drones.

The drones, however, are so harmonically rich that they constantly support the melody whatever the note and this is fully satisfying without the need to modulate. The music must, of course, be composed with this in mind as is the case with all other instruments, for all have both limitations and  special qualities. In fact the art of orchestration is a study in itself and goes alongside composition.

Modulation was developed only by the mid 17th century and the vielle is not the only instrument of history whose music does not modulate. For instance the principal domestic keyboard instrument from the early 16^th century to the mid 17^th was the virginal. There is much beautiful music for this quiet instrument created by composers such as Wm Byrd, Orlando Gibbons, Giles Farnaby, and we must not close our ears to this wealth of music from former times, for we would be the poorer by doing so.

Going further back there is also plainsong, ultimately the foundation of our present Western system. And then there has been illiterate folk music since the beginning of time.

If we are to understand the music of past ages, whether for study or pleasure we must disregard all that has followed, for our preconceptions will otherwise get in the way of its performance and enjoyment.

 

(P.S. Just a thought. How can we stop reporters from using the word orchestrated when they simply mean organized, but seem afraid to say so?) 

[Arle Lommel]

Hi Michael,

I'm curious who would actually say such an ignorant thing (“that the hurdy-gurdy/vielle is not a true musical instrument because its music can not modulate”). Any such person who would make such a statement surely cannot be called a cognoscente. As you note, modulation (outside a limited range of keys) only become common late on in Western music (and the development largely corresponds to the development of equal temperament, without which arbitrary modulation is hardly possible).

However, I am not sure that we can actually “disregard all that has followed, for our preconceptions will otherwise get in the way of its performance and enjoyment”. If, like the late Victorians, we hold that change is evolution toward an ideal endpoint, then we will fail to appreciate earlier music, forever seeing it as a “primitive” waypoint, at most quaintly charming, but I think one can derive great enjoyment from comparing musics from different times and places.

I can no more disregard my knowledge of Bach when listening to Tallis than I can read a treatise on medieval concepts physics while somehow forgetting what I know of Newtonian physics. But that is not to say that I cannot appreciate Tallis or medieval physics greatly. And in the case of Tallis I probably enjoy it all the more for knowing where polyphonic music would arrive with Bach and seeing how Tallis anticipated what later composers did or the ways in which his work is (re)interpreted in striking ways today. (Surely no-one would argue that Kronos Quartet’s Spem in Alium, done in ten layered takes, represents period performance or interpretation, yet I find it a compelling interpretation of Tallis.)

Similarly, I find the samba-infused interpretations of Medieval and Renaissance music by the Brazilian group Anima to breathe wonderful life into their repertoire in a way that a purist stance that closes off all later development cannot do, simply because I have no way of listening to period music with period ears.

It's a thought-provoking question, and you have touched on a debate that will never be resolved one way or the other. I do like to hear a passionate defense in the discussion though, so thank you.

Best,

Arle

[Alden Hackmann]

My short answer is that the definition of "true musical instrument as needing to modulate" seems arbitrary and elitist.  I'll let that pass, and move on: 

Until we adopted equal temperament, NO instrument was capable of modulating to all keys.  In just temperament, or any non-equal temperament, some keys are better than others.  The HG as a drone instrument is ideal for a just temperament: all of the notes should be in perfect harmony with the drone.  If we tune the HG in equal temperament, all of the notes are a little off from the drone. It's just the way the universe works.  

The difficulty with just temperament is that not every key sounds good, but some keys sound fabulous.

The difficulty with equal temperament is that every key sound equally good, but no key sounds fabulous.

Given this choice, I choose some keys sound fabulous.  We can modulate when we're in just temperament, just not to every key.  Even in equal temperament, the drones limit us, and that's fine.  

Alden

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "hurdygurdy" group.
To post to this group, send email to hurdy...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
hurdygurdy+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/hurdygurdy

The rules of posting, courtesy, and other list information may be found at http://hurdygurdy.com/mailinglist/index.htm.  To reduce spam, posts from new subscribers are held pending approval by the webmaster.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hurdygurdy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hurdygurdy+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ernic Kamerich]

I agree fully with Michael, Arle and  Alden, but allow me to remark that it is quite the opposite: the ultimate truth is that the hurdy gurdy is the most perfect instrument. As a player of several other instruments such as bassoon, curtal, several flutes, harpischord, etc. I can say so unbiased.

The hurdy gurdy is perfect as it can play melody, accompaniment (bourdons) and rhythm at its own, without compromising the pureness of intervals. When playing bassoon or curtal and other melody instruments, I do so as a member of a consort or an orchestra. When playing harpsichord or other keyboard instruments, I could tune to a pure harmonic scale, but these instruments are made for playing harmony, and even when playing only in one key this causes intervals that are very unpure, so I must use a temperament. Bourdon instruments are free from this problem and the bourdon empowers the melody, in my opinion better than a harmonic accompaniment can do. Moreover, a hurdy gurdy may have the buzz string as an extra facility. The real king of instruments!

Ernic

[Felicia Dale]

Wow. What a limiting and western-centric view point. William (my husband) says, “Tell that to Ravi Shankar.” 

:D

I also feel the gurdy/vielle is the perfect instrument but then I’m horribly biased in its favor as it’s been a life-changing experience in every way for me. Even when I want to throw the damn thing across the room I still feel this way. Played with or without chanters, drones or trompette, it’s the most flexible of instruments I play and the most satisfying, too. And given its limitations I think that’s really saying something.

Some people just have too much time on their hands and like to create division where there should be unity. It’s not the instrument you play it’s how you play it- and how you move your self and your audience with your music. 

Interesting discussion. 

Felicia.