Any musica ficta experts? (Tallis O nata lux)
David Wake
score here which I'll use for reference:
http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/images/2/2f/Tallis.pdf
I'm interested in some of the musica ficta practices that seem to have
become traditional in this piece. I'd really appreciate the advice of
anyone with expertise in this area.
The first place is on the Discantus (second line down), measure 1,
second note on the word "lux". Here is the text of the source:
G G G F E-flat* D
O na- ta lux
The E-flat is changed to an E-natural in every edition I know. The
change must be due to musica ficta. But what is the justification for
this change?
By comparison the Discantus has a similar note-pattern one bar later in
the second half of measure 2:
C B-flat* B-flat* A A G
Je- su re- demp- tor sae-
No one has suggested changing the B-flats to B-naturals here, yet the
pattern of intervals is identical to the one on "O na- ta lux"
The second place I'm interested in is in measure 4. The Discantus and
Tenor (4th down) parts goes as follows:
D E-natural F* G [DISCANTUS]
di- gna- re cle-
G G F* D [TENOR]
Why isn't there a ficta change on "re" from F-natural to F-sharp, at
least in the Discantus? I've never heard one performed, or seen one
in a printed edition, yet I would expect to see such a change based on
the note paterns. There is a similar false relation written into the
music in measure 11 on "pro per- di- tis".
Thanks for your help!
David
John Howell
>I'm interested in Tallis's motet "O nata lux de lumine". There's a
>score here which I'll use for reference:
>
>http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/images/2/2f/Tallis.pdf
>
>I'm interested in some of the musica ficta practices that seem to have
>become traditional in this piece. I'd really appreciate the advice of
>anyone with expertise in this area.
First, David, I just have to say that this is one absolutely gorgeous
piece of music, and well worth studying and performing!
>The first place is on the Discantus (second line down), measure 1,
>second note on the word "lux". Here is the text of the source:
>
>G G G F E-flat* D
>O na- ta lux
>
>The E-flat is changed to an E-natural in every edition I know. The
>change must be due to musica ficta. But what is the justification for
>this change?
I'm guessing here, but it's entirely possible that this has nothing
to do with musica ficta at all. The 2-flat key signature is more
than likely a modern editor's idea, to regularize the "g minor" with
modern practice. The original was very likely to have had a key
signature of ONE flat, indicating Dorian Mode once transposed (that
is, transposed up a 4th with the final on G). Therefore in the
original (and remember that I'm guessing here), the Eb in the bass in
measure 0 would have been written as an accidental, but no accidental
was in the Discantus in bar 1 (or bar 2, for that matter). The Eb in
the Superius in bar 0, on the other hand, WOULD be a matter of
applying the rule of ficta because it is "una nota super la" in the
hexachord in which the Superius starts, while the E natural in
measure 2 is natural because (a) there was no Eb in the key
signature, and (b) the passage is no longer "una nota super la."
I trust that's thoroughly confusing!
>
>By comparison the Discantus has a similar note-pattern one bar later in
>the second half of measure 2:
>
>C B-flat* B-flat* A A G
>Je- su re- demp- tor sae-
>
>No one has suggested changing the B-flats to B-naturals here, yet the
>pattern of intervals is identical to the one on "O na- ta lux"
No, it is not identical, because the notes solmize differently. In
order to analyze this music in a meaningful way, you have to be able
to solmize every part using hexachordal analysis, and you have to be
able to find the two-voice cadences that might trigger a raised
leading tone. Using modern theory for analysis simply doesn't work,
or at least doesn't give any useful information, which is the same
thing.
>The second place I'm interested in is in measure 4. The Discantus and
>Tenor (4th down) parts goes as follows:
>
>
>D E-natural F* G [DISCANTUS]
>
>di- gna- re cle-
>
>G G F* D [TENOR]
Very observant, and an excellent question! The Discantus DOES form a
passing 2-voice cadence with the Contratenor on the downbeat of
measure 5 (two parts approaching a unison or octave by stepwise
motion), and it would be possible to raise the F to F# because of
this, BUT the F natural in the Tenor forbids it, so Tallis did not
consider this to be a cadence of sufficient importance to emphasize
it with a ficta alteration.
>Why isn't there a ficta change on "re" from F-natural to F-sharp, at
>least in the Discantus? I've never heard one performed, or seen one
>in a printed edition, yet I would expect to see such a change based on
>the note paterns.
First, the F natural is not "re," but "fa" in that hexachord, and if
it WERE raised it would be "mi" and still not "re." Sorry, but
that's where you need the hexachordal analysis.
>There is a similar false relation written into the
>music in measure 11 on "pro per- di- tis".
Yes, that's one of those absolutely gorgeous English clashes that
happen when a "mi" and a "fa" sound simultaneously, often an octave
apart. The C in the Discantus is raised because it forms a 2-voice
cadence with the Contratenor D on the downbeat of measure 12, but
raising the C in the tenor would require a leap of an augmented 2nd,
which was pretty much nonexistent in this time and place, while the
"mi contra fa" was very much accepted as part of the English "flavor."
I was first exposed to all this in a summer workshop at Stanford many
years ago, with Putnam Aldrich and Lyle Nordstrom. I believe that
George Houle has published a study of different versions of a
particular chanson in which he goes through the analytical tools that
are needed for late medieval and renaissance music. Others might
know of other sources for those wishing to learn this stuff.
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
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
Pete Monsta
John....@vt.edu wrote...
Er, no, I'm afraid not. Tallis *does* use a staff signature of two flats
in all parts except the superius (which has one flat with all four Es
carrying accidentals). Also I would be hesitant in stating that the "una
nota super la" was a rule as far as British music is concerned. How do
we know that it was? If I remember rightly, it stems from Aaron, but I
don't think it crops up in any British source. In fact, I am not aware
that there is any contemporary guidance about how musica ficta was
applied in Tudor music: such matters have to be divined from the music
itself. at any rate, by 1575 when Tallis published this piece musica
ficta was dying out, though there are plenty of instances in his
contributions to the 1575 Cantioned Sacrae where it seems to be
required.
However the E flat in bar 1 is not one of them. There is no reason on
earth to change this to an E natural. Greening, whose edition has been
plundered here, is simply wrong. I would imagine he reasoned that,
because the chord is D minor and because in the scale of D minor the E
is natural, therefore the discantus E needs altering accordingly. How
very tonal! Given the staff signature of two flats, we are dealing with
a mutated hexachordal structure with "ut" located on the B flat below
middle C. The opening of the discantus fits within this hexachord: la la
la sol fa mi. Why would you complicate things by singing the E as "mi"?
> >By comparison the Discantus has a similar note-pattern one bar later in
> >the second half of measure 2:
> >
> >C B-flat* B-flat* A A G
> >Je- su re- demp- tor sae-
> >
> >No one has suggested changing the B-flats to B-naturals here, yet the
> >pattern of intervals is identical to the one on "O na- ta lux"
>
> No, it is not identical, because the notes solmize differently. In
> order to analyze this music in a meaningful way, you have to be able
> to solmize every part using hexachordal analysis, and you have to be
> able to find the two-voice cadences that might trigger a raised
> leading tone. Using modern theory for analysis simply doesn't work,
> or at least doesn't give any useful information, which is the same
> thing.
Absolutely.
> >The second place I'm interested in is in measure 4. The Discantus and
> >Tenor (4th down) parts goes as follows:
> >
> >
> >D E-natural F* G [DISCANTUS]
> >
> >di- gna- re cle-
> >
> >G G F* D [TENOR]
>
> Very observant, and an excellent question! The Discantus DOES form a
> passing 2-voice cadence with the Contratenor on the downbeat of
> measure 5 (two parts approaching a unison or octave by stepwise
> motion), and it would be possible to raise the F to F# because of
> this, BUT the F natural in the Tenor forbids it, so Tallis did not
> consider this to be a cadence of sufficient importance to emphasize
> it with a ficta alteration.
I may be on shaky ground here since I claim no great knowledge of
continental Renaissance theorists, but is this definition of a passing
cadence a sixteenth-century one?
To Morley (who spent much effort expounding early Tudor techniques and
styles, while promoting a more modern way forward) a cadence was not a
harmonic progression but a melodic one consisting of the solmisation
pattern "sol fa sol" (or aural equivalent) or "fa mi fa". The passage
cited above does not fit such a description.
It is in any case an open question to what extent cadences should be
sharpened in English music. Most scholars take it for granted, but on
what grounds? Morley states that all cadences are by nature sharp (thus
"fa mi fa"), but he was a moderniser writing in 1597; back in the mid
century things were probably not so clear-cut. In any case the
assumption that this has anything to do with musica ficta is erroneous.
Morley does not even mention the term.
> >Why isn't there a ficta change on "re" from F-natural to F-sharp, at
> >least in the Discantus? I've never heard one performed, or seen one
> >in a printed edition, yet I would expect to see such a change based on
> >the note paterns.
>
> First, the F natural is not "re," but "fa" in that hexachord, and if
> it WERE raised it would be "mi" and still not "re." Sorry, but
> that's where you need the hexachordal analysis.
I think David was meant "-re" as in the last syllable of "dignare", not
the hexachord syllable.
I agree with you. The discantus E in this bar must be solmised as "mi"
since it carries the "mi" sign. This would automatically make the
following F a "fa" (i.e. F natural). If Tallis had wanted it sung as
another "mi" (i.e. a whole tone above the preceding E natural)we could
reasonably have expected him to have signed it explicitly as such - two
consecutive "mi" syllables are not that unusual; look no further than
the contratenor in bar 10.
> >There is a similar false relation written into the
> >music in measure 11 on "pro per- di- tis".
>
> Yes, that's one of those absolutely gorgeous English clashes that
> happen when a "mi" and a "fa" sound simultaneously, often an octave
> apart. The C in the Discantus is raised because it forms a 2-voice
> cadence with the Contratenor D on the downbeat of measure 12,
But, again, aren't you projecting thirteenth- or fourteenth-century
theory forward into the sixteenth century?
> but raising the C in the tenor would require a leap of an augmented 2nd,
> which was pretty much nonexistent in this time and place,
I could find you one or two explicit examples. There's one in Thomas
Knight's "Christus resurgens" for a start (C sharp to B flat). I'm
fairly sure there's another somewhere in John Baldwin's "Commonplace
Book" though I'd have to hunt for it.
Margo Schulter
> In article <mailman.22.1175710...@wu-wien.ac.at>,
> John....@vt.edu wrote...
>> Very observant, and an excellent question! The Discantus DOES form a
>> passing 2-voice cadence with the Contratenor on the downbeat of
>> measure 5 (two parts approaching a unison or octave by stepwise
>> motion), and it would be possible to raise the F to F# because of
>> this, BUT the F natural in the Tenor forbids it, so Tallis did not
>> consider this to be a cadence of sufficient importance to emphasize
>> it with a ficta alteration.
>
> I may be on shaky ground here since I claim no great knowledge of
> continental Renaissance theorists, but is this definition of a passing
> cadence a sixteenth-century one?
>
> To Morley (who spent much effort expounding early Tudor techniques and
> styles, while promoting a more modern way forward) a cadence was not a
> harmonic progression but a melodic one consisting of the solmisation
> pattern "sol fa sol" (or aural equivalent) or "fa mi fa". The passage
> cited above does not fit such a description.
Hello, there, and thanks to all in this thread for a fascinating discussion.
While indeed to Morley a "cadence" is indeed primarily a melodic phenomenon,
preferably including the element of "binding" or syncopation, a more vertically
oriented definition had had a long history by 1597. Thus around 1325, Jacobus
of Liege in his _Speculum musicae_ defines _cadentia_ as a progression in which
a more tense or less concordant interval aptly resolves to a more consonant one.
In the very different musical context of the 16th century, Zarlino takes a similar
approach: a cadence is in its basic form a phenomenon involving two voices, in which
a less concordant interval (in this context specifically an imperfect concord)
resolves to a perfect one by stepwise contrary motion (e.g. m3-1, M6-8). For Zarlino,
as for Morley, a suspension dissonance makes the cadence more pleasing.
Following Richard Crocker, for example, I might refer to a two-voice concept of a
basic cadence as a "discantic" concept -- a concept fitting a style where two-voice
intervals are the basic "elements" of composition which may be superimposed combined
to form a range of multi-voice sonorities or cadences.
> It is in any case an open question to what extent cadences should be
> sharpened in English music. Most scholars take it for granted, but on
> what grounds? Morley states that all cadences are by nature sharp (thus
> "fa mi fa"), but he was a moderniser writing in 1597; back in the mid
> century things were probably not so clear-cut. In any case the
> assumption that this has anything to do with musica ficta is erroneous.
> Morley does not even mention the term.
Two points here: the question of the sharpening, and the difference definitions of
_musica ficta_ that we may be using.
First, Morley's "a flat cadence is against nature" rule (a fairly close paraphrase)
might or might not be innovative in an English context, but seems synonymous with the
principle of closest approach as championed by writers such as Zarlino (1558) and also
Tomas de Santa Maria (1565). While the principle of closest approach, or approaching a
stable or perfect concord by stepwise contrary motion from the "nearest" appropriate
interval (e.g. m3-1, M3-5, M6-8 -- and in a 14th-century practice sometimes also m7-5
or M2-4, 13th-century progressions still used by people like Machaut), seems first
attested in the early 1300's, Zarlino holds that it is categorical, and Tomas de Santa
Maria likewise considers it "the fault of the tone" to have a cadence where a suspended
eleventh resolves to a minor tenth and then moves up a tone to complete the resolution.
Maybe I would say that Morley is following a middle-to-late 16th-century current of thought
seeking to regularize music -- in contrast to earlier writers who consider the principle
of closest approach more discretionary. Thus we have practices like the "German custom"
documented in some tablatures (e.g. arrangements of Josquin) where many of the "expected"
accidentals do not occur, with some interesting contemporary remarks on this aspect of
German musicmaking.
As for _musica ficta_, I take it you are speaking of _unwritten_ alterations, certainly
one common modern definition. From another viewpoint, if we take _musica ficta_ simply
to mean the use of "invented" notes outside the _musica recta_ gamut, then one might
say that by the late 16th century some English composers are tending to write out all
the _musica ficta_ they want applied. I realize that both definitions are common, and
simply wanted to note this common variety of usages.
>> Yes, that's one of those absolutely gorgeous English clashes that
>> happen when a "mi" and a "fa" sound simultaneously, often an octave apart.
>> The C in the Discantus is raised because it forms a 2-voice cadence with
>> the Contratenor D on the downbeat of measure 12,
> But, again, aren't you projecting thirteenth-
> or fourteenth-century theory forward into
> the sixteenth century?
This is a question that can often apply to these discussions, especially when a
medievalist like me <grin> gets involved in analyzing 16th-century music. From
many discussions of Franco-Flemish music here, for example, I'd say that the
medieval concepts are still relevant, although the stylistic context has, of
course, changed. "Progressing to the nearest consonance," for example, is a
late medieval theme highlighted not only in Zarlino but in Agazzari as something
essential for a continuo player to know.
When and where to apply medieval concepts in Renaissance music is, of course, a
complicated and maybe partly subjective question -- although when they are
mentioned in 16th-century sources, it might become a bit less controversial
to consider them relevant, however (re)interpreted. Also, Renaissance theorists
who express ideas strikingly parallel to those of medieval theorists might not
necessarily be engaging in deliberate or even unrecognized borrowing -- similar
ideas might independently occur to people in different eras.
Anyway, your question is a reminder that a medievalist may be just as at much
at risk of an anachronistic analysis as people who apply 18th-century harmonic
concepts. Possibly the anachronism might have the appeal of being a bit more
novel <grin>.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
msch...@calweb.com
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: Margo Schulter <msch...@web1.calweb.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.early
> Date: 06 Apr 2007 19:52:28 GMT
> Subject: Re: Any musica ficta experts? (Tallis O nata lux)
> Renaissance theorists
> who express ideas strikingly parallel to those of medieval theorists might not
> necessarily be engaging in deliberate or even unrecognized borrowing --
> similar
> ideas might independently occur to people in different eras.
>
> Anyway, your question is a reminder that a medievalist may be just as at much
> at risk of an anachronistic analysis as people who apply 18th-century harmonic
> concepts. Possibly the anachronism might have the appeal of being a bit more
> novel <grin>.
>
> Most appreciatively,
>
I dig you mama ;-)
and it was just the excuse I needed to say hi (hi Margo)
Love
Roger
P.S. that may seem like an Out Of Place Artifact, but it's not an illusion
<grin>, and it is sincere (timeless too, imagine).
Pete Monsta
comments on this topic.
Alas, I have only just caught up with them via Google Groups since the
posts never reached my server - a constant irritation that makes usenet
virtually unusable for me. (I suppose I should bite the bullet and
register via Google.)
Margo Schulter
Please let me in turn thank you, Pete, most warmly for bringing a viewpoint
of open and edifying inquiry to this dialogue.
Asking basic questions and identifying sometimes tacit or almost unquestioned
assumptions is a most valuable technique, and yet more so when, as with your
posts, it is coupled with much factual background and musical perspective.
Today, as these discussions reflect, it is no longer assumed (as in some
prominent scholarship of 40-50 years ago, so) that certain rules are
"invariable" so that accidentals would "unquestionably" have been applied.
Often it's a kind of probabilistic decision -- I might do it differently
each time, as some tablaturists did when repeating a passage.
Thus while Zarlino's, "Even farmers naturally sing a major sixth before an
octave" is an interesting piece of 16th-century musical sociology, it is
necessarily an observator which applies to singers or intabulators of Josquin
in various parts of Europe.
We're involved in a fascinating process of researching the sources, performing
the music -- and reaching conclusions for our own performances intended to be
"not inconsistent with" the sources, but very possibly in this "quantum" world
of inflectional possibilities not necessarily identical either to what a
given chorister or lutenist may have done 400-500 years ago, nor to our own
last performance.
Most appreciatively,
Margo