question about religious polyphonic vocal music
meeso
I read once that in the practice of the church polyphonic vocal music
(late medieval & Renaissance), the higher parts (Soprano & Alto) in a
composition were performed by young boys. how frequent was that ? & why
exactly ? was it the norm & the participation of females has evolved
after it ?
Is there any modern performances of these compositions that included boys
as the performers of the higher parts ?
I have seen so many works in the visual arts of that time that portrays
young boys who seem to be taking a great sensuous pleasure in their
singing :)
thanks a lot
Maysara
Todd Michel McComb
meeso <maysa...@yahoo.com.hk> wrote:
>I read once that in the practice of the church polyphonic vocal
>music (late medieval & Renaissance), the higher parts (Soprano &
>Alto) in a composition were performed by young boys. how frequent
>was that ?
That was indeed the standard (although boys were often needed only
on the highest part). Women were not to participate in church
services. The primary exception to this was in all-female institutions,
where women sang all the parts.
>Is there any modern performances of these compositions that included
>boys as the performers of the higher parts ?
Hundreds.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Sybrand Bakker
McComb) wrote:
>That was indeed the standard (although boys were often needed only
>on the highest part). Women were not to participate in church
>services. The primary exception to this was in all-female institutions,
>where women sang all the parts.
Just to add somewhat:
Telemann seems to have been the first to employ a female soloist in
church music, in Hamburg in 1728. To make sure this went smoothly the
woman was singing behind a curtain.
Regards
Sybrand Bakker
Karen Mercedes
> I read once that in the practice of the church polyphonic vocal music
> (late medieval & Renaissance), the higher parts (Soprano & Alto) in a
> composition were performed by young boys. how frequent was that ? & why
> exactly ? was it the norm & the participation of females has evolved
> after it ?
It was the tradition of the Catholic Church, originally, that excluded
women from singing in churches and cathedrals. There was scriptural
justification for this prohibition (just as there is scriptural
justification for a male-only priesthood), and the essentially
misogynistic Church was quick to use it: "Let your women keep silence in
the churches," (I Corinthians 14:34), and "Let the woman learn in silence
with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over men, but to be in silence." (I Timothy 2:11-12).
In Mediaeval polyphony, the use of trebles for the high-voiced parts of
choral music was adequate. However, as 16th century contrapuntal polyphony
grew more complex, it came to exceed the abilities of most boy singers.
For a time, Spain became the source for falsetto singing adult males - it
was Spanish falsettists who held a monopoly in the Sistine Chapel choir
for a time. There were rumours that some of these "falsettists" were, in
fact, castrati. The first documented castrati were admitted to the Sistine
Chapel choir in 1599 - and castrati continued to sing there until the
early 20th century, when the "last castrato", Alessandro Moreschi, was
director of the Sistine Chapel choir.
From what I can tell, there were similar anti-female singer restrictions
in the Orthodox Church - at least it would appear so, from the fact that
early Russian church polyphony, which didn't really get started until the
late 17th Century, was based on a choir of men and boys.
It is interesting to observe how the male-only restriction - and the
various practical solutions to the problem - affected the nature of the
choral writing. J.S. Bach's numerous Cantatas and other church works were
strongly influenced by the fact that Bach himself had control over the
selection and training of the boys in his chapel choir, and it is likely
that the boys used as soloists in particular were, by modern standards,
hardly boys at all - puberty, and the "breaking" of the male voice appears
to have occurred a few years later in Bach's time, at age 16 or 17, so
that Bach had had a good 8-10 years to train the trebles who eventually
became his soloists: musically and technically, they were fully mature and
able to handle the demands of his music in ways that today's trebles,
whose voices "break" as early as age 13, and who often do not benefit from
10 years' painstaking training through their childhoods, cannot possibly.
Interestingly, the male-only choral tradition persisted beyond the
Counter-Reformation, even in some Protestant denominations in Europe,
most notably in the Anglican churches and cathedrals of England, where
male-only choirs are still predominant.
The male-only choral tradition does not seem to have crossed the Atlantic,
however. Even the Anglican/Episcopal churches of the New World seem to
have used mixed choirs from Colonial times.
The introduction of female voices to replace boys and castrati was really
the result of the rise of the popularity of Opera. Women soloists were
used in opera from the beginning of its history, and Opera soon overtook
sacred music as the driver and shaper of vocal music practice. Though the
Catholic Church continued to fight against the encroachment of women into
the sacred vocal music realm until well into the late Romantic period, in
other traditions (the Anglican excluded), mixed choirs began to emerge
starting in the late Baroque. Not surprisingly, given the overwhelming
influence of Operatic performance practice, it is female soloists who
made the first inroads into sacred music performance; getting females into
church/cathedral choirs took rather longer.
It should also be noted that some major sacred choral works were never
intended for performance in church or cathedral, and without this venue
restriction, the composers never had to worry about the "appropriateness"
of using female rather than treble voices. Aside from works like
Beethoven's Mass in C, Berlioz's Requiem, Brahms's Deutsche Requiem, there
was a great deal of sacred-themed choral music for girls written by
Vivaldi and Purcell, but not intended for church performance.
>
> Is there any modern performances of these compositions that included boys
> as the performers of the higher parts ?
>
> I have seen so many works in the visual arts of that time that portrays
> young boys who seem to be taking a great sensuous pleasure in their
> singing :)
>
> thanks a lot
> Maysara
>
Karen Mercedes
http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html
________________________________
One must be something if one
wishes to put on appearances.
- Ludwig von Beethoven
Karen Mercedes
> Just to add somewhat:
> Telemann seems to have been the first to employ a female soloist in
> church music, in Hamburg in 1728. To make sure this went smoothly the
> woman was singing behind a curtain.
J.S. Bach got in trouble with the Consistory at Arnstadt 22 years earlier
for allowing a "stranger maiden" (his cousin Maria Barbara, to whom he
was later married) to sing in the choir of the Neue Kirche there. And,
interestingly, this anti-female prohibition was imposed by a Lutheran
church - and thus clearly not limited to the Roman Catholics.
meeso
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:26:23 +0000, Karen Mercedes wrote:
> The introduction of female voices to replace boys and castrati was
> really the result of the rise of the popularity of Opera. Women soloists
> were used in opera from the beginning of its history, and Opera soon
> overtook sacred music as the driver and shaper of vocal music practice.
there is a very important arguments here:
>"The introduction of female voices to replace boys and castrati was
>really the result of the rise of the popularity of Opera."
Which means that there was no females' participation ever (or in a very
rare occasions) in church sacred music "before" the rise of the Opera. I
don't know for sure but it seems that there is some error in that
argument. Composers of sacred music, have been always interested in
secular music as well (& maybe that's why as I'm studying the theory of
their music, I find lot's of essential similarities between what's sacred & what's
secular & please correct me if I'm wrong). & female
was there, very influential in secular music, & that was quite a long time
before the opera. so, those composers wrote music for them, imagined their
voices, & gave them a dominant role (since it is very obvious to observe
that the soprano "or what's more higher" was the most important
melodically). & I simply doubt that Chansons or Madrigals were less
popular than Opera.
Thanks to you again
Maysara
Todd Michel McComb
meeso <maysa...@yahoo.com.hk> wrote:
>Which means that there was no females' participation ever (or in
>a very rare occasions) in church sacred music "before" the rise of
>the Opera. I don't know for sure but it seems that there is some
>error in that argument.
There is no error. Sybrand has cited the beginning of the "successful"
use of women in mixed sacred ensembles, something which did not
occur until the 1700s. As I also told you, in all-female enclaves,
there was indeed all-female sacred singing.
There was a prohibition against women participating in the church;
earlier composers were not able to flaunt it, whether they may have
wanted to do so or not.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Dr. Gordon J. Callon
> There was a prohibition against women participating in the church;
> earlier composers were not able to flaunt it, whether they may have
> wanted to do so or not.
Even as late as 1708 in Rome, this problem arose in the performance of Handel's
Italian oratorio La Resurrezione, composed for Marchese Francesco Ruspoli and
performed in Ruspoli's palace, a secular context.
In the first performance, the role of Mary Magdalene was sung by a female
soprano, the remarkable Margherita Durastanti (who later sang in London for
Handel). The Pope took great offence at this and reprimanded Ruspoli for
allowing a female to sing in a sacred work. As a consequence, in the second
performance, the role of Mary Magdalene was sung by the castrato "Filippo" (a
male singer, of course). In addition, the role of Mary Cleophas was sung by a
castrato (at both performances).
By the way, the director of the orchestra was Corelli; it was apparently the
largest orchestra ever used up until then in Rome for an oratorio: 22 or 23
violins, 4 violas, 6 violoni ['celli, or bass viols], 1 bass viol, 6 double
basses [an exceptional number of strings for this period], 4 oboes (who also
played flute and recorder), 2 trumpets, and probably bassoon [possibly played
by
trombone?].
See:
Burrows, "Handel's oratorio performances," in The Cambridge Companion to
Handel, ed. Burrows (1997), 262-263;
Hogwood, Handel (1988), 39-41;
Robbins Landon, Handel and His World (1984), 55-57;
Dean, The New Grove Handel (1982), 8.
GJC
John Howell
>
>Which means that there was no females' participation ever (or in a very
>rare occasions) in church sacred music "before" the rise of the Opera. I
>don't know for sure but it seems that there is some error in that
>secular music as well (& maybe that's why as I'm studying the theory of
>their music, I find lot's of essential similarities between what's sacred
>& what's
>secular & please correct me if I'm wrong).
Not wrong, of course, but your original post (the subject line of which
persists!) was asking specifically about religious music. And the answers
you've received have been quite accurate.
>& female
>was there, very influential in secular music, & that was quite a long time
>before the opera. so, those composers wrote music for them, imagined their
>voices,
Composers did not write music in the abstract. They composed music for
which there was an immediate need and an immediate market. Virtually
always they knew the performers for whom they wrote, and wrote to those
performers' skills and capabilities. When they wrote music for church,
they did not write for female voices. When they wrote secular music for
entertainment they may very well have written for specific female singers.
We know that was the case at Ferrara in the late 16th century, and there's
no reason it couldn't have been true earlier.
>& gave them a dominant role (since it is very obvious to observe
>that the soprano "or what's more higher" was the most important
>melodically).
Sorry, but that's a modern style characteristic. The highest part was
often NOT the "most important melodically." Depends on the time, the
place, and the particular style.
>& I simply doubt that Chansons or Madrigals were less
>popular than Opera.
The problem there is that Chansons or Madrigals predated the rise and
importance of opera. Madrigals were a 16th century development, which
extended into the first quarter of the 17th century. Opera was developing
from about 1600 on, influenced those late madrigals very strongly, and
eclipsed them in musical importance by the end of the 17th century. So you
can't directly compare them.
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
John Howell
>(late medieval & Renaissance), the higher parts (Soprano & Alto) in a
>composition were performed by young boys. how frequent was that ? & why
>exactly ? was it the norm & the participation of females has evolved
>after it ?
There were a variety of performance practices. In many cases men sang the
upper part as well as the lower parts. Such compositions tend to have a
more compact texture, but some men have always had the ability to sing in
the treble range. Chanticleer employs three of them. And remember that
the words Alto or Altus mean "high."
In other cases boys indeed sang the treble part, but probably never the
alto. These compositions tend to have a more open texture, with the treble
part often soaring above the other parts including the alto, and using
presicely the range in which boys' voices can float easily. Their voices
changed later than they do today.
The use of castrati was later, limited, and never sanctioned by the church,
although there were some singing in churches long before they became opera
stars.
In the Roman Catholic tradition and other denominations, women were never
permitted to participate in church choirs. This is based on a single
sentence in (I think) I Corinthians, which says "Women should keep silence
in church." Of course that sentence is in the middle of a paragraph that
discusses speaking in tongues! Go figure.
>
>Is there any modern performances of these compositions that included boys
>as the performers of the higher parts ?
Well, for starters every single performance or recording by the chapel
choristers of Oxford or Cambridge. The best known chapel is King's College.
meeso
> Not wrong, of course, but your original post (the subject line of which
> persists!) was asking specifically about religious music.
>
no, opera is a secular music - I needed to refer to secular music in the
pre-Baroque period in response to Karen's argument.
Karen wrote:
>The introduction of female voices to replace boys and castrati was really
>the result of the rise of the popularity of Opera.
there is my problem, there was an equivalent to opera in Renaissance, in
lots of forms, & you couldn't convince me yet that opera was practically
more popular than those forms of secular vocal music that came before it.
& since Karen's argument was built on the connection between "the
introduction of female voices....." & the "popularity" of opera. I think
that the same connection could have been built before the existence of the
opera itself with other "popular" forms back there. thus mentioning secular
music remains on topic.
> And the answers you've received have been quite accurate.
or Todd Michel's
> There is no error, .............(in Karen's argument)
these are replies to what I believe not to what I consider. I thought
that Karen's argument contained some error & that it might be not very
accurate & I have specified why I think so, the thing that you haven't
done in your replies. & that's why I still have the same believe about
Karen's argument. unless anybody specify how exactly opera was more
popular than the many forms that preceded it, & what is the relation
between its popularity & >"The introduction of female voices to replace
boys and castrati".
thus the question remains unanswered for me :)
>>& gave them a dominant role (since it is very obvious to observe that
>>the soprano "or what's more higher" was the most important melodically).
>Sorry, but that's a modern style characteristic. The highest part was
>often NOT the "most important melodically." Depends on the time, the
>place, and the particular style.
yes, I have to reconsider about what I said. but how do you think it goes
at least with what's so called "High Renaissance" composers, like Josquin
Desprez, Palestrina, Orlando Lasso..... ??
Thanks a lot
Maysara
Todd Michel McComb
>introduction of female voices....." & the "popularity" of opera. I
>think that the same connection could have been built before the
>existence of the opera itself with other "popular" forms back there.
As John alluded, female voices became very specifically popular in
Italy in the secular music of the 1500s, with the "ladies of Ferrara"
and such. This popularity pre-dated opera, but was also part of
the same impetus which gave rise to opera. So it was basically a
cumulative process, and one cannot necessarily say that opera per
se did it. However, opera was a conspicuous part of the overall
process.
>>The highest part was often NOT the "most important melodically."
>how do you think it goes at least with what's so called "High
>Renaissance" composers, like Josquin Desprez, Palestrina, Orlando
>Lasso..... ??
This music was built around the ideal of equal importance of all
voices. That idea only starts to break down in some of the more
soloistic works of Lassus.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Pan
wrote:
[snip]
>there is my problem, there was an equivalent to opera in Renaissance
[snip]
There was? What was it?
Michael
Noel Stoutenburg
In response to the question
> >I read once that in the practice of the church polyphonic vocal music
> >Is there any modern performances of these compositions that included boys
> >as the performers of the higher parts ?
John Howell recommended
> Well, for starters every single performance or recording by the chapel
> choristers of Oxford or Cambridge. The best known chapel is King's College.
to which list could be added the choirs of Canterbury and St. Paul's Cathedral
(London), and many of the other British Cathedral foundations, where a choir of
men and boys is the norm, rather than the exception.
By the same token, most of the sacred repertoire written by English Composers
has assumed a choir of men and boys, which statement I make keeping in mind that
the Oratorios of Handel were not, in their day, considered "sacred" music,
despite the use of Biblical texts or themes.
ns
meeso
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 01:09:51 +0200, "meeso" <maysa...@yahoo.com.hk>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>there is my problem, there was an equivalent to opera in Renaissance
> [snip]
>
> There was?
yes
the equivalence I meant is in the "popularity" not in the "nature of music
& how is it introduced"
> What was it?
Madrigals & Chansons.
Maysara
Pan
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:48:44 +0000, Pan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 01:09:51 +0200, "meeso" <maysa...@yahoo.com.hk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>there is my problem, there was an equivalent to opera in Renaissance
>> [snip]
>>
>> There was?
>
>yes
>the equivalence I meant is in the "popularity" not in the "nature of music
>& how is it introduced"
[snip]
Oh.
Michael
John Howell
>
>>>& gave them a dominant role (since it is very obvious to observe that
>>>the soprano "or what's more higher" was the most important melodically).
>
>>Sorry, but that's a modern style characteristic. The highest part was
>>often NOT the "most important melodically." Depends on the time, the
>>place, and the particular style.
>
Maysara:
>yes, I have to reconsider about what I said. but how do you think it goes
>at least with what's so called "High Renaissance" composers, like Josquin
>Desprez, Palestrina, Orlando Lasso..... ??
>
Me again:
The style of Josquin--the Franco-Flemish style or whatever you care to call
it--was based on equality of the voices. All voices participated in the
"melody" or cantus firmus, and participated equally in the imitative
texture within each point of imitation. Sections set as duets were duets
of equal voices. Later composers like Palestrina and Lasso inherited that
style and used it while also developing their own personal interpretations
of it. So in that repertoire the highest voice was highest among equals,
not an accompanied melody.
I can't speak to Karen's comments because I no longer have them before me.
Margo Schulter
> Sorry, but that's a modern style characteristic. The highest part was
> often NOT the "most important melodically." Depends on the time, the
> place, and the particular style.
This reminds me, for example, of Zarlino's comment in 1558, quoting a
poem about the usual roles of the four voices often found in musical
textures: the highest part "captures the ear," but it is the tenor
which is "guide of the modes."
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
Margo Schulter
> yes, I have to reconsider about what I said. but how do you think it goes
> at least with what's so called "High Renaissance" composers, like Josquin
> Desprez, Palestrina, Orlando Lasso..... ??
>
> Thanks a lot
> Maysara
Hello, there, and this is an interesting question. To what others have
written, I would add that equality of the parts is a value in some
styles, but with differences depending on genre and style.
For example, early in the century, some Italian frottola settings do
seem to invite an interpretation as basically accompanied songs, and
Castiglione praises the art of "singing with the viola a mano"
(meaning a plucked instrument such as the lute or vihuela) as calling
for special skill, because we hear only a single vocal line, with any
errors especially noticeable.
In 1565, the Spanish writer Tomas de Santa Maria describes an art of
_fantasia_ (composition or improvisation for polyphonic instruments
such as keyboard or vihuela) in which a four-voice texture is the
norm, with the two outer voices considered the principal ones, and the
two inner voices "filling in" the space between these voices and
adding more consonances. For Santa Maria, the highest part seems the
most important: it, for example, moves by steps through an octave or
other scale passage, while the other voices progress accordingly.
Such styles might be of special interest to this thread, because it
has been suggested that composers such as Maddalena de Casulana may
have learned their craft in good part as performers singing and
accompanying themselves on the lute. I would emphasize that Casulana
published madrigals include pieces more in line with the "equal
voices" technique of counterpoint and contrasting duet textures, etc.,
as well as some which seem more like declamatory melody with
accompanying lines. Many of these compositions date from the 1560's,
and constitute the first printed madrigals known to be composed by a
woman.
There is a lute song from a notebook of Isabella de' Medici which
might be an original composition or arrangement by this contemporary
of Casulana, and also illustrates a style of accompanied song.
In the area of sacred music, women in monastic communities might take
part in elaborate performances -- as with the convent of San Vito at
Ferrara with which the composer Vittoria Aleotti was associated.
Shifting eras, the music collection of Las Huelgas in Spain from the
13th century might also illustrate the kind of music performed by such
a community. For the medieval repertory, at least, one factor to be
considered is the use of free transpositions to fit the convenience of
the singers: a piece in the same notation could be used by a community
of women or men.
meeso
thanks for all the input.
Maysara