Composers of Gothic period?
al...@rev.net
mention it, going directly from Medieval to Renaissance.
Is the Gothic period musically distinct? What years would it have
spanned? Who are the most prominent composers?
--Spud DuBoise <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/music>
Jeff Lee
>
> Some sources have identified a Gothic period of music. Others don't
> mention it, going directly from Medieval to Renaissance.
>
Marilyn Manson?
--
Jeff Lee ________ shi...@gate.net _______ http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/
"The only thing that helps me maintain my slender grip on reality
is the friendship I share with my collection of singing potatoes."
Todd Michel McComb
>Some sources have identified a Gothic period of music. Others don't
>mention it, going directly from Medieval to Renaissance.
Basically, a "Gothic period" would be identified with the earlier
part of what is generally called the Medieval era in music. To
understand this, it is first important to note that medieval music
"starts" in the 12th century. Obviously, this is a very simplistic
statement, and not strictly speaking true, but that is the point
at which we begin to have a sizeable number of manuscript sources
with written and performable notation. It is also the point at
which 2-voice polyphony begins to take a leading role in artistic
development. It is where most "medieval music" surveys start,
usually with some references to earlier chant.
Historically, it is also the period of "Carolingian Renaissance"
and a blossoming of culture & society in general, centered in
France. This is the Gothic era, climaxing in the early 13th century
with the great musical works of the Notre Dame school by Perotin.
From there, one moves onto the later medieval era, and various
changes to musical style. See the FAQ for more discussion of other
styles and for a more detailed history of developments.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
John Howell
>mention it, going directly from Medieval to Renaissance.
>
>Is the Gothic period musically distinct? What years would it have
>spanned? Who are the most prominent composers?
>
Yes, and some non-music historians call the 14th and 15th centuries "early
modern," possibly based on life after the devastating 14th century plagues.
We use the Stolba book in our Survey of Music class. She defines gothic as
Gothic: 1160-1320
Early Gothic: 1160-1250
Late Gothic: 1250-1320
In architectural terms, the Early Gothic covers the time of construction of
the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. In musical terms it covers the
assumed tenure of Leonin and Perotin at Notre Dame, the culmination of
2-part organum conposition, the introduction of 3-part and 4-part organum,
and the development of conductus, plus the development of the rhythmic
modes that this repertoire apparently required. It also covers the highest
point of secular troubadour composition, which ended with the Albegensian
crusade.
The Late Gothic covers the rise and development of the Parisian polytextual
motet, the invention and development of mensural notation, and the secular
music of the late trouveres, including Adam de la Halle. Other composers
were Franco of Cologne, Petrus de Cruce, and the early work of Phillipe de
Vitry.
The terminal date of 1320 is probably based on the declaration of a new
"Ars nova" style in or around that year. This was a very distinct break in
their minds, so yes, I would say that these periods are both musically
distinct and incredibly productive.
John
John & Susie Howell (mailto:John....@vt.edu)
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
Kate Brown
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote
>Basically, a "Gothic period" would be identified with the earlier
>part of what is generally called the Medieval era in music. To
>understand this, it is first important to note that medieval music
>"starts" in the 12th century.
<snip>
>Historically, it is also the period of "Carolingian Renaissance"
>and a blossoming of culture & society in general, centered in
>France. This is the Gothic era, climaxing in the early 13th century
>with the great musical works of the Notre Dame school by Perotin.
I may well be wrong here, Todd does really know nearly everything... ;-)
but I thought the Carolingian Renaissance was the ninth-century one,
with all the erudite Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks, like Alcuin at the
court of Charlemagne, disseminating knowledge back from the fringes of
the erstwhile Roman Empire. There must have been music, but I don't
think we have any of it, do we?
The period you mean is often just called the Twelfth Century
Renaissance, I believe - certainly centred on Paris and its university,
but with many influences through the rest of Europe - think of
Hildegard. 'Gothic' is a pejorative term invented in the seventeenth
century (Evelyn and Dryden were the first to use it in English) to
describe pre-Renaissance architecture with pointed arches, which was
thought barbarous in comparison with the classical rounded arch. Oddly
enough, the Carolingians rejoiced in the round arch of 'romanesque'
architecture, which disappeared as the pointed 'gothic' arch became
popular.
sorry to be such a pedant...
--
Kate B
London
Todd Michel McComb
Kate Brown <amfip...@cockaigne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I thought the Carolingian Renaissance was the ninth-century one,
>with all the erudite Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks, like Alcuin at
>the court of Charlemagne, disseminating knowledge back from the
>fringes of the erstwhile Roman Empire.
Yes, I think you are correct, although I am fairly sure I have seen
the 12th century referred to in this way, although probably not
for good reason (since the Carolingians are really not a significant
factor).
>There must have been music, but I don't think we have any of it,
>do we?
We do have chant manuscripts. In fact, the 9th century is precisely
the origin of our earliest polyphony, although it is staffless.
There are some interesting tropes from this period.
>The period you mean is often just called the Twelfth Century
>Renaissance, I believe ...
Yes, that is probably better. It could use a fun name though. :-)
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>Of course, Charles Homer Haskins, _The Renaissance of the 12th
>Century_ (a first or early edition dating to 1927), is a classic
>source for the "12th-century Renaissance" concept, which I would
>say is equally meritorious
Perhaps you misunderstood my remark. I didn't mean to suggest that
the "12th century Renaissance" wasn't tangible, but that calling it
"Carolingian" was probably not a very good idea.
You're remembering that I don't like the connotations of the term
"Renaissance" and of course I really don't, but I've entirely
ignored that issue here.
>I suspect that in your original post you may have intended to say
>that the Gothic is synonymous with the _late_ medieval period (say
>1150-1420).
Well, I guess some other posters have suggested that the term
"Gothic" might be used nearly interchangeably with "medieval" and
that seems to be the way you've used it, but I would not personally
apply the term to the Ars Nova at all. Once we start getting well
past Perotin, I don't think "Gothic" at all.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
piper <piper...@interport.net> wrote:
>I think it's fair to say that there is generally a much bigger
>change in style between Romanesque and Gothic painting/sculpture
>than between Gothic, International Gothic, and Renaissance styles
>in the visual arts. Do you see any analogies in music?
Well, sure, there are probably any number of analogies which can
be brought out... there is obviously some correlation between
different artforms as they are reflections of some aspect of society,
but I'm not really one to draw any correspondences too firmly. I
like to leave things fluid, let "eras" have overlapping dates or
multiple names, and generally wait for a specific instance to
inspire a more specific set of connections. That's just sort of
my "philosophy" on eras in art.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
M. Schulter
: The terminal date of 1320 is probably based on the declaration of a new
: "Ars nova" style in or around that year. This was a very distinct break in
: their minds, so yes, I would say that these periods are both musically
: distinct and incredibly productive.
Hello, there, and it's interesting to see how there can be a variety of
views here.
I would say that Early Gothic pretty much coincides with the Ars Antiqua,
maybe beginning arbitrarily with Leonin, although for me "Ars Antiqua"
especially suggests the musical "13th century," the period featuring
writing for three or four voices from Perotin to Petrus de Cruce.
The Late Gothic is pretty much the same for me as the Ars Nova, beginning
around 1300 and including the more "modern" pieces in the _Roman de
Fauvel_, the works of Machaut and Landini and their contemporaries, and
the Ars Subtilior around 1370-1410. In terms of theory, the treatises of
Johannes de Muris and Philippe de Vitry (c. 1320), and also the
defense of 13th-century style by Jacobus of Liege (c. 1325?) mark the
recognition of an Ars Antiqua vs. Ars Nova contrast, while around
1408-1425, the works of Prosdocimus of Beldemandis sum up some of the
musical values of the preceding century.
For me, Dunstable and Dufay represent a kind of Gothic-Renaissance
transition, although I tend to follow tradition by calling Dunstable very
late Gothic and Dufay early Renaissance. Maybe 1420 is about as good a
demarcation line as any.
This scheme isn't too different than that often used in the visual arts,
where late 12th-13th century is "High Gothic," 14th century "late Gothic,"
and the early 15th century marks a transition toward the Renaissance.
Again, this is just another possible scheme.
Most respectfully,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
M. Schulter
: In article <+MR7jWAe...@cockaigne.demon.co.uk>,
: Kate Brown <amfip...@cockaigne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >I thought the Carolingian Renaissance was the ninth-century one,
: >with all the erudite Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks, like Alcuin at
: >the court of Charlemagne, disseminating knowledge back from the
: >fringes of the erstwhile Roman Empire.
: Yes, I think you are correct, although I am fairly sure I have seen
: the 12th century referred to in this way, although probably not
: for good reason (since the Carolingians are really not a significant
: factor).
Hello, there, and I would say that _both_ the Carolingian and 12th-century
Renaissances (if a plural is appropriate for this word) have a strong and
felicitous basis in historical tradition.
As at least one poet around the time of Charlemagne declared, Modoin,
Bishop of Auxerre, declared, the Roman traditions were being reborn
(_renascitur_):
rursus in antiquos mutataque saecula mores
aurea Roma iterum renovata renascitur orbe
This means basically that the changing ages again return to ancient ways,
golden Rome reborn and the world renewed (Brian Tierney gives a verse
translation in an excerpt edited from a work by Christopher Dawson, _The
Making of Europe_.
Of course, Charles Homer Haskins, _The Renaissance of the 12th Century_
(a first or early edition dating to 1927), is a classic source for the
"12th-century Renaissance" concept, which I would say is equally
meritorious; a reading of John of Salisbury's defense of the liberal arts
(and of Aristotle) suffices, at least for me, to show how apt the term is.
: >There must have been music, but I don't think we have any of it,
: >do we?
: We do have chant manuscripts. In fact, the 9th century is precisely
: the origin of our earliest polyphony, although it is staffless.
: There are some interesting tropes from this period.
To restate what might be a "pet exchange" here, I might add that this
century also marks the first clear theoretical descriptions of polyphony
(the _Musica Enchiriadis_ and _Schola [or Scolia] Enchiriadis_, which
include brief examples with definite pitch notation.
: >The period you mean is often just called the Twelfth Century
: >Renaissance, I believe ...
: Yes, that is probably better. It could use a fun name though. :-)
One additional comment: I suspect that in your original post you may have
intended to say that the Gothic is synonymous with the _late_ medieval
period (say 1150-1420). Just what to call the early medieval era, 500-800,
I'm not sure; I might guess that the Carolingian isn't too far from the
start of the Romanesque, with which I'd associate the development of
polyphony up to around the time of Leonin. Again, I realize that the
question of a "Romanesque-Gothic" transition can get tricky, given the
variety of polyphony around the mid-12th century.
Anyway, I enjoy this thread, especially the opportunity to note _two_
well-recognized "medieval Renaissances."
piper
McComb) wrote:
[snip]
>Well, I guess some other posters have suggested that the term
>"Gothic" might be used nearly interchangeably with "medieval" and
>that seems to be the way you've used it, but I would not personally
>apply the term to the Ars Nova at all. Once we start getting well
>past Perotin, I don't think "Gothic" at all.
In visual art, the style preceding what's called the Renaissance is
known as the International Gothic Style, a later development of the
plain-old Gothic Style. Romanesque art precedes Gothic art. Really, in
painting and sculpture, the Romaneque style in painting and sculpture
is the "ars antiqua" which does not attempt to portray its sacred
subjects realistically, in order to emphasize the contrast between
sacred beings and the normal human beings here on Earth. I think it's
fair to say that there is generally a much bigger change in style
between Romanesque and Gothic painting/sculpture than between Gothic,
International Gothic, and Renaissance styles in the visual arts.
Gothic painters like Giotto and Simone Martini made Jesus and the
Virgin look more like people one might see in daily life, and painted
drapery and landscape with an illusion of three-dimensionality that
was purposefully lacking in the flat Romanesque style.
Do you see any analogies in music?
It's interesting to note that Giotto was a contemporary of Landini,
and I am pretty sure that _Ars Nova_ was written during Giotto's
lifetime (though, of course, in France).
Michael
To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only! If you send a commercial solicitation, I will boycott the product.
M. Schulter
: M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
: >Of course, Charles Homer Haskins, _The Renaissance of the 12th
: >Century_ (a first or early edition dating to 1927), is a classic
: >source for the "12th-century Renaissance" concept, which I would
: >say is equally meritorious
: Perhaps you misunderstood my remark. I didn't mean to suggest that
: the "12th century Renaissance" wasn't tangible, but that calling it
: "Carolingian" was probably not a very good idea.
Hello, and we're agreed! Thank you for straightening out my
incomprehension, and for giving me an impetus to read Hoskins, who has
interesting things to say about the Carolingian and 12th-century
Renaissances (if we choose to use this term at all).
: You're remembering that I don't like the connotations of the term
: "Renaissance" and of course I really don't, but I've entirely
: ignored that issue here.
That's a very legitimate issue, and maybe there can be an alliance between
those of who object to the term on principle, and those of us who assert
that there were at least two "medieval Renaissances" (Carolingian and
12th-century).
: Well, I guess some other posters have suggested that the term
: "Gothic" might be used nearly interchangeably with "medieval" and
: that seems to be the way you've used it, but I would not personally
: apply the term to the Ars Nova at all. Once we start getting well
: past Perotin, I don't think "Gothic" at all.
First, please let me express regret for any misinterpretations or unclear
statements on my part, and thank you especially for the invitation to make
my concept of Gothic clearer. To me, it means in a musical context
basically "late medieval," in contrast both to "early medieval" (c.
500-1150) and "Renaissance" (starting around 1420, although as we've
discussed the Dufay era has lots of interesting issues).
The question of the Ars Nova invites lots of debate, maybe like the
question of the era around 1540-1650: do we speak of "late Gothic" or
something else, "late Renaissance and early Baroque" or "Manneristic"?
At their best, debates of this kind bring to light lots of useful
observations and enrich the discipline for everyone, regardless of which
"side" a given person happens to choose.
If "medieval" in music runs roughly from Boethius to and possibly through
the early Dufay (say 500-1420), then I would say that even a shorter
Gothic (say 1150-1300, if we equate it with Ars Antiqua as opposed to Ars
Nova) would be part of the rather "late medieval" period. Here I'm
assuming that Gothic is in contrast to the earlier medieval centuries,
whether called Carolingian, Romanesque, etc.
In another post, I respond to Piper's remarks on what I would call the
"late Gothic" in music, i.e. the Ars Nova.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
M. Schulter
: In visual art, the style preceding what's called the Renaissance is
: known as the International Gothic Style, a later development of the
: plain-old Gothic Style.
Musically, likewise, I would say that the 14th-century Ars Nova may be
seen as a later phase of the Gothic Era, with two cardinal aspects. The
first aspect is the stable trine (outer octave, fifth, and fourth) as the
complete unit of three-voice harmony in writing a3 and a4. The second
aspect is the alternation of stable trines (complete or incomplete) with
unstable sonorities of various kinds.
This basic sense of the "Gothic" in music can encompass styles from
Perotin through the Ars subtilior, and suggests a transition to a
"Renaissance" style (or whatever we choose to call the next era) sometime
around 1420-1450, with Dufay and Binchois and the "English countenance"
with its increasingly pervasive emphasis on thirds in the texture.
At least if we prudent focus on _keyboard_ tunings, the Gothic becomes
basically synonymous with Pythagorean tunings, and the Renaissance with a
transition to meantone tunings. Vocal intonation, of course, is a much
more complex and fluid phenomenon.
Here it is interesting that there are lots of variations: thus Landini's
harmony is somewhat more restrained in its contrasts than Machaut's, for
example. Also, in music as in art, it is possible to see 13th-century
practice as "classic Gothic" and 14th-century practice as "late Gothic."
Indeed, Willi Apel made this point as early as 1950 when he compared the
harmonic technique of the 13th century to the 18th, and the 14th century
to the 19th.
Note here that while Gothic means to me especially "music of the
multi-voice era from Perotin-Solage," say, it seems reasonable to include
Leonin also.
: sacred beings and the normal human beings here on Earth. I think it's
: fair to say that there is generally a much bigger change in style
: between Romanesque and Gothic painting/sculpture than between Gothic,
: International Gothic, and Renaissance styles in the visual arts.
Musically, I'd say it might be a bit different. The shift in the early to
middle 15th century from trinic to early tertian harmony is a radical
shift, especially when coupled with the more and more restricted treatment
of seconds and sevenths. One way of viewing it is a shift from a
heterogenous harmonic texture to what may be the most homogenous texture
in the history of Western European music.
If I had to express this change by a visual metaphor, I would say that
Gothic harmony has bright and contrasting colors, maybe like a
stained-glass window (for me the quintessence of the visual Gothic); the
Renaissance is more "pastel" in its equally delightful way.
It's tempting to get into more specific and maybe rather ludicrous
analogies, like the development of systematic perspective techniques
around the mid-15th century (if I'm right as someone barely literate at
best in art history) and the systematic avoidance of parallel fifths
around the same time.
There _is_, curiously, a way in which Ockeghem "sound like" van Eyck to
me, but that could be largely the force of historical association.
: Gothic painters like Giotto and Simone Martini made Jesus and the
: Virgin look more like people one might see in daily life, and painted
: drapery and landscape with an illusion of three-dimensionality that
: was purposefully lacking in the flat Romanesque style.
: Do you see any analogies in music?
Of course, one might say that the development of three-voice and
four-voice polyphony around 1200 (Perotin and his contemporaries) added a
radically new dimension to music, and indeed I _would_ say so. Previously,
for example, a fifth, a fourth, and a major second each had its own
character (the first two richly concordant, the last somewhat but not
intensely discordant). Now all three intervals could be sounded at once
(e.g. g-c'-d') to create a new sound, an active but relatively concordant
blend. SImilarly, two or more directed two-voice progressions could unite
to define a "three-dimensional" cadence.
Maybe the "closest approach" principle which became a regular aspect of
practice and theory by around 1300 (m3-1, M3-5, M6-8, etc., with resulting
ascending or descending leading-tones) could also be seen as a significant
development increasing the "directionality" of cadences, and also somewhat
curtailing the charming fluidity of much 13th-century writing.
: It's interesting to note that Giotto was a contemporary of Landini,
: and I am pretty sure that _Ars Nova_ was written during Giotto's
: lifetime (though, of course, in France).
Well, I recall that Giotto was a rough contemporary of Dante (1265-1321),
and depicted an apparition of Halley's Comet around 1300; _Ars Nova_ dates
to somewhere around 1320 (any comments from 14th-century specialists?),
the _Lucidarium_ of Marchettus of Padua to 1318, and the _Roman de Fauvel_
(a sort of early Ars Nova music, including motets by de Vitry) to around
1316.
Todd Michel McComb
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>First, please let me express regret for any misinterpretations or
>unclear statements on my part, and thank you especially for the
>invitation to make my concept of Gothic clearer.
I suppose I should have stated explicitly that I wasn't viewing
the words "Gothic" and "medieval" (or even "late medieval") as
interchangeable. This is also a philosophical point... if I have
more than one word, I like to have more than one meaning.
>If "medieval" in music runs roughly from Boethius to and possibly
>through the early Dufay (say 500-1420), then I would say that even
>a shorter Gothic (say 1150-1300, if we equate it with Ars Antiqua
>as opposed to Ars Nova) would be part of the rather "late medieval"
>period.
That is sensible, yes. What I had hoped to remark upon at the
beginning of my first post is that from a "medieval music" perspective,
sources before the 12th century are almost prehistoric. Maybe that
is a silly remark, but I think for someone unclear on the various
happenings, understanding the significance of the 12th century is
important. I should also note that I don't see the date or decade
of 1150 as a meaningful boundary, if one is to give specific numbers
(which I tend not to do)... the earliest St. Martial polyphphony
manuscript is dated to 1096-1100, for instance, so I don't see any
reason not to just say 1100.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
M. Schulter
: I suppose I should have stated explicitly that I wasn't viewing
: the words "Gothic" and "medieval" (or even "late medieval") as
: interchangeable. This is also a philosophical point... if I have
: more than one word, I like to have more than one meaning.
That's a very fair point, and if I were trying to articulate a possible
distinction from my point of view, it might be rather academic, maybe:
"Gothic is a style of music (or more generally of art) associated with the
later medieval period of time."
Really, to make a confession, what I may be doing here is trying to make a
reasonable musical case for what I've learned as a rather unexamined
tradition: Munrow's _Music of the Gothic Era_, for example, goes from
Leonin to _Ars subtilior_ motets.
One problem with "traditions" is that they can impede newer views which
are at least as valid. For example, the _New Oxford History of Music_
(both the original edition from around the 1950's, and the new one) draw a
line between "Medieval music up to 1300" and "Ars Nova and Renaissance"
(1300-1540). Their "Age of Humanism" (something like 1540-1630) is very
close to the "Manneristic Era" as defined by Maria Maniates and others,
more or less synonymous with the _seconda prattica_ of the Monteverdi
brothers.
Out of curiosity, while we both seem to agree that Perotin is "Gothic,"
and you clearly would place the Ars Nova in a category of its own within a
"late medieval" framework, I wonder if you would place the end of the
Gothic at around 1300 (Ars Antiqua/Ars Nova transition), or at some other
place?
: >If "medieval" in music runs roughly from Boethius to and possibly
: >through the early Dufay (say 500-1420), then I would say that even
: >a shorter Gothic (say 1150-1300, if we equate it with Ars Antiqua
: >as opposed to Ars Nova) would be part of the rather "late medieval"
: >period.
: That is sensible, yes. What I had hoped to remark upon at the
: beginning of my first post is that from a "medieval music" perspective,
: sources before the 12th century are almost prehistoric. Maybe that
: is a silly remark, but I think for someone unclear on the various
: happenings, understanding the significance of the 12th century is
: important.
In terms of notation, especially in practical sources as opposed to a few
treatises on polyphony (_Enchiriadis_ manuals, Guido, etc.), I really see
your point.
Maybe a different way to put this is that we have a shift around 1200 from
mostly improvised polyphony to a larger role for composition -- despite
the availability of a few practical sources before 1100 (e.g. Winchester,
Chartres), and the continued popularity of _discantus supra librum_ and
like extempore practices in later medieval and indeed 15th-early
17th century times (there, at least I avoided the "R" word).
: I should also note that I don't see the date or decade
: of 1150 as a meaningful boundary, if one is to give specific numbers
: (which I tend not to do)... the earliest St. Martial polyphphony
: manuscript is dated to 1096-1100, for instance, so I don't see any
: reason not to just say 1100.
This is a very important point, one I really skirted in my earlier posts.
From a larger viewpoint, around 1100 is a really attractive place because
it coincides with the early "12th-century flowering" of culture (a safe
term?), e.g. Abelard and Heloise. Maybe I've been laboring under the
"Notre Dame syndrome" <grin> that Leonin marks a special point of
divergence -- something that you've nicely questioned elsewhere, given the
variety of polyphonic traditions in this epoch. Also, as discussed
elsewhere, roughly 1100 marks the early trobador movement; and the growth
of vernacular literature is surely one important aspect of the cultural
flowering under discussion.
Thus while I find it easy to define a "musical 13th century" as
Perotin-Petrus de Cruce, and a "musical 14th century" as maybe Philippe de
Vitry-Ciconia, the 12th-century question is really an open one, and the
traditional association of "Leonin-Perotin, put them in the same period"
may be more of a conditioned reflex than a uniquely valid judgment.
Todd Michel McComb
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>Out of curiosity, while we both seem to agree that Perotin is
>"Gothic," and you clearly would place the Ars Nova in a category
>of its own within a "late medieval" framework, I wonder if you
>would place the end of the Gothic at around 1300 (Ars Antiqua/Ars
>Nova transition), or at some other place?
If forced, I would probably create some sort of "transitional"
period in the 1300s to accommodate the polytextual motet.
>This is a very important point, one I really skirted in my earlier
>posts. From a larger viewpoint, around 1100 is a really attractive
>place because it coincides with the early "12th-century flowering"
>of culture (a safe term?), e.g. Abelard and Heloise.
Well, if you're asking, I think that "flowering" is still a loaded
term. Some things changed. They changed in ways which made it
easier for us today to know what sort of music was being performed,
so that's certainly fortuitous.
And I agree that c.1100 is a good date for more than one reason.
>Thus while I find it easy to define a "musical 13th century" as
>Perotin-Petrus de Cruce, and a "musical 14th century" as maybe
>Philippe de Vitry-Ciconia, the 12th-century question is really an
>open one, and the traditional association of "Leonin-Perotin, put
>them in the same period" may be more of a conditioned reflex than
>a uniquely valid judgment.
Well, I don't see much merit to dividing Leonin & Perotin in
different periods, although probably more (to allude to another
sub-thread) than dividing Machaut & Landini, who used identical
technical resources and wrote on the same topics. Perotin is
obviously a continuation of the work of Leonin, as well as someone
who indicated some new directions. Maybe the answer, although I
wonder how much it matters, is that the "musical 12th century" was
simply a few decades longer than the others.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
piper <piper...@interport.net> wrote:
>Based on the somewhat limited listening I've done to the music of
>Leonin and Perotin, I think that the work of those two can be at
>least as contrasting as late Beethoven and middle-period Haydn.
It really doesn't even begin to get that clear. It's largely
accepted that Perotin revised some of Leonin's works, and there
have been several recent suggestions that distinguishing who wrote
what in the core Notre Dame repertory is such a tangled matter that
it might be unresolveable.
Nothing is attributed directly to Leonin, although certain assumptions
are made in that direction. There are 3-voice works in this
repertory, and of course Perotin wrote the two large 4-voice works
(along with some outliers of possible attribution). Although one
can look at the move to 4 voices as a significant step, it doesn't
really play out directly, as it is in the clausulae of Perotin's
work that the next generations found inspiration for compositions
in different style. Of course, this wasn't done by Perotin himself.
The relationship between the number of polyphonic voices and the
number of people singing it is far from clear, so it would be hard
to make arguments on the acoustic, I imagine. It's often said that
the building of Notre Dame Cathedral inspired Leonin to begin his
work, which was of course completed by Perotin. This was functional
repertory, and it took that long to complete, for its full intended
function, perhaps analogously to the cathedral itself.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>as opposed to the following 13th-century focus first on the
>conductus and motet
I really enjoy the conductus from the early 12th century, pre-Perotin,
although _Beata Viscera_ is one of my all-time favorites. I think
that characterizing the 13th century as emphasizing the conductus
is rather dubious. I associate the conductus primarily with the
early 12th century when it was *new* and perhaps more exciting.
>Incidentally, just when Perotin (and/or other contemporaries)
>started writing for three and voices may be a moot question,
>although a document from 1198 describing works for such numbers
>of voices indicates that it was a late 12th-century development.
In many ways, this is more than incidental, since it's such a
tangible thing. I've seen the entire chronology of 2-, 3- and then
4- voice works called into question, and I think it's a legitimate
question as to whether the "Gothic" composers continued composing
organum duplum alongside organum quadruplum. I don't mean to imply
that you are dismissing the question, but I tend to feel that many
of the assumptions in this direction may not necessarily be correct.
Sources are scarce, after all.
Also, do you really think organum quadruplum a la Perotin is really
comparable to the motets of Montpellier? I think they are rather
different, to put it mildly. It's hard to see the 13th century as
very uniform, IMO.
>Again, your viewpoint seems at least as persuasive as mine.
Hmm, I am not sure. I feel more rambling than persuasive. My state
of mind when writing these posts is almost entirely distracted, FWIW.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
piper
Thank you for a most informative post (as usual). I'll have to check
Giotto's dates. Clearly, if he was an adult when Landini was 3 years
old, they should not be called "contemporaries" without qualification.
I have a question about this:
On 27 Feb 1999 19:46:50 GMT, "M. Schulter" <msch...@value.net>
wrote:
[snip]
>Note here that while Gothic means to me especially "music of the
>multi-voice era from Perotin-Solage," say, it seems reasonable to include
>Leonin also.
Who or what is "Solage"?
Regards,
piper
McComb) wrote:
[snip]
>Well, I don't see much merit to dividing Leonin & Perotin in
>different periods, although probably more (to allude to another
>sub-thread) than dividing Machaut & Landini, who used identical
>technical resources and wrote on the same topics. Perotin is
>obviously a continuation of the work of Leonin, as well as someone
>who indicated some new directions.
[snip]
I agree that Perotin continued the work of Leonin and took it to new
directions - kind of like Beethoven and Schubert took the work of
Haydn, C.P.E. Bach and Mozart as a point of departure. Beethoven and
Schubert are usually considered early Romantic composers, while Haydn,
Mozart and C.P.E. Bach are usually not considered Romantic. Based on
the somewhat limited listening I've done to the music of Leonin and
Perotin, I think that the work of those two can be at least as
contrasting as late Beethoven and middle-period Haydn. I think I'm
suggesting that separating Leonin and Perotin into two different
(sub-)periods seems reasonable, if the concepts of style periods are
reasonable at all (which, to some extent, they are not).
Also, it may or may not be relevant to bring up the issue of where
Leonin worked. My understanding is that the Notre Dame he worked at
was a Romanesque church on the site where the Gothic Notre Dame's
cornerstone was laid in 1163. I don't know whether or not it's been
proven that Perotin spent part of his career at the Gothic Notre Dame,
but it seems that there's some likelihood that he was the first
composer to work there and, presumably, write music suitable for that
acoustic and ambience. Might it even be possible that the use of
3-part polyphony, though perhaps quite unnecessary in an intimate
Romanesque church, filled up a Gothic one beautifully? In other words,
could Perotin have come up with the idea as a response to the
acoustical characteristics of the new, Gothic cathedral?
M. Schulter
: Dear Margo:
: Thank you for a most informative post (as usual). I'll have to check
: Giotto's dates. Clearly, if he was an adult when Landini was 3 years
: old, they should not be called "contemporaries" without qualification.
Hello, and this is a good point: that "contemporary" can have a range of
meanings, and that it might often be taken to imply "within roughly the
same generation" unless qualified. Just to clarify, at least if I remember
my post correctly: I was considering Giotto as roughly "contemporary" with
the first generation of the Ars Nova, Philippe de Vitry, Johannes de
Muris, and Marchettus of Padua, focusing on the epoch around 1315-1320.
Landini (1325-1397) is clearly later.
: Who or what is "Solage"?
Solage is a composer of the _Ars subtilior_ or "Manneristic" epoch, around
1370-1410, and for me exemplifies many of the trends of the epoch. For
almost 30 years, I've considered getting a "Solage Swings" T-shirt --
although I haven't actually done it yet.
M. Schulter
: If forced, I would probably create some sort of "transitional"
: period in the 1300s to accommodate the polytextual motet.
Hello, and this raises an interesting point: I, too, tend to hear
Machaut's motets, especially, as having a kind of architectonic structure
that especially prompts the adjective "Gothic." It's notable that Munrow's
_Music of the Gothic Era_ focuses on organum and 13th-14th century motets,
as opposed, say, to Machaut's ballades or Landini's ballatas.
While I might continue to follow the approach of referring to all music of
the 13th-14th centuries as "Gothic," I must at least acknowledge that
indeed some of this music may seem more characteristically "Gothic" than
others.
: Well, if you're asking, I think that "flowering" is still a loaded
: term. Some things changed. They changed in ways which made it
: easier for us today to know what sort of music was being performed,
: so that's certainly fortuitous.
That's a nice summary.
: Well, I don't see much merit to dividing Leonin & Perotin in
: different periods, although probably more (to allude to another
: sub-thread) than dividing Machaut & Landini, who used identical
: technical resources and wrote on the same topics. Perotin is
: obviously a continuation of the work of Leonin, as well as someone
: who indicated some new directions. Maybe the answer, although I
: wonder how much it matters, is that the "musical 12th century" was
: simply a few decades longer than the others.
This may be a fine example of where more than one way of drawing a
possible "dividing line" may be equally attractive. If the "musical 12th
century" is associated with developments in organum, then both Leonin and
Perotin can fit within it -- as opposed to the following 13th-century
focus first on the conductus and motet, and then by the middle of the
century more exclusively on the motet and variants such as the possibly
instrumental hocket pieces (apart from a few pieces such as the rondeaux
of Adam de la Halle, and also the liturgical settings from Las Huelgas,
etc.).
If one does what I tend to do, then "Perotin and the 13th century" is the
period of a distinctive style of writing a3 and a4. Incidentally, just
when Perotin (and/or other contemporaries) started writing for three and
voices may be a moot question, although a document from 1198 describing
works for such numbers of voices indicates that it was a late 12th-century
development.
Again, your viewpoint seems at least as persuasive as mine. Maybe this
definition of periods is a bit like musical tunings and temperaments: each
tuning has its advantages and disadvantages.
M. Schulter
: acoustic and ambience. Might it even be possible that the use of
: 3-part polyphony, though perhaps quite unnecessary in an intimate
: Romanesque church, filled up a Gothic one beautifully? In other words,
: could Perotin have come up with the idea as a response to the
: acoustical characteristics of the new, Gothic cathedral?
Hello, there, and my own view would be that the expansion of the regular
polyphonic texture from two to three (or four) parts is at once a logical
extension and a radically important development.
Regardless of the question of whether or not the architecture directly
influenced this development, I would say that the expansion of the musical
sonority and "geometry" is analogous to the new spaces of Gothic
architecture.
An album called _Vox Humana_ with a performance of Perotin's _Alleluya
Posui adjutorium_ makes this point most powerfully by having the singers
introduce first the foundation-tone provided by the tenor, then the fifth,
and finally the octave of the opening sonority. What a sonorous commentary
to Johannes de Grocheio, who describes around 1300 what composers have
been doing for a century or a bit more.
There are various analogies: going from two voices to three is like moving
from 2-D to 3-D graphics (or from plane to solid geometry), or from the
calculus of two variable to that of many variables. In one view, many of
the principles remain unaltered; yet we encounter new phenomena and
possibilities.
Incidentally, it might be helpful to explain here that one reason for
grouping Leonin and Perotin together in contrast to earlier schools of
12th-century polyphony has traditionally been the development of
_measured_ polyphony in the "Notre Dame School." However, many of Leonin's
sustained-note organum passages (_organum purum_) may well have been
performed in the same kind of rhapsodic and free declamation of the upper
part as is traditionally associated with the St. Martial and Compostella
(the latter likely Northern French in origins) repertories.
Also, Leonin and Perotin as "the first two famous composers in Western
European music history" have had an appeal for periodizers -- but I'm not
sure about the musical significance of this point.
Anyway, I see the expanded "Gothic acoustical architecture" of
writing a3 and a4 as an appealing metaphor, but not necessarily an
explanation of why this development should happen not too long after the
rise of the new Gothic architectural spaces.
M. Schulter
: I really enjoy the conductus from the early 12th century, pre-Perotin,
: although _Beata Viscera_ is one of my all-time favorites. I think
: that characterizing the 13th century as emphasizing the conductus
: is rather dubious. I associate the conductus primarily with the
: early 12th century when it was *new* and perhaps more exciting.
Hello, and please let me clarify that I would characterize the conductus
as a form I associate especially with the "Notre Dame School," say
1160-1225, crossing into the _early_ 13th century (e.g. the conductus for
the coronation of Louis IX, later St. Louis, in 1226), but "out of style"
by the middle of the century, maybe making a partial exception for
liturgical works of the Las Huelgas Codex in note-against-style, for
example, and also for English compositions which branch off ultimately
into the category of _cantilena_ or "English discant" as sometimes called.
However, I would find it surprising to view the form as _early_
12th-century, although I certainly recognize that many of the works in a
basically note-against-note style in the St. Martial and Compostella
repertories, for example, could be called "conductus" as reasonably as the
alternative label "discants."
My point was to contrast the _early_ 13th century, when the conductus
still receives some attention, with the middle and late portions of the
century marked by the more unequivocal hegemony of the motet.
In part, my view of the conductus might be weighted toward the epoch
around 1200 not only by the continued practice of the monophonic conductus
and of writing a2, but by what I might somewhat apologetically call the
"flowering" of writing a3 and a4 (e.g. Perotin's _Salvatoris hodie_ and
the anonymous _Vetus abit littera_, two of my favorite conductus).
: In many ways, this is more than incidental, since it's such a
: tangible thing. I've seen the entire chronology of 2-, 3- and then
: 4- voice works called into question, and I think it's a legitimate
: question as to whether the "Gothic" composers continued composing
: organum duplum alongside organum quadruplum. I don't mean to imply
: that you are dismissing the question, but I tend to feel that many
: of the assumptions in this direction may not necessarily be correct.
: Sources are scarce, after all.
<Guess mode on>
My crude guess -- maybe not too far from "conventional" (and often
incorrect) "wisdom" -- is that Perotin and his contemporaries were more
likely to write substitute clausulae for Leonin's discant sections than to
write new complete organa a2.
<Guess mode off>
: Also, do you really think organum quadruplum a la Perotin is really
: comparable to the motets of Montpellier? I think they are rather
: different, to put it mildly. It's hard to see the 13th century as
: very uniform, IMO.
Maybe I'm one who tends to perceive, at least in terms of the harmonic
dimension, something not totally contrary to the traditional concept of an
"all-encompassing style" in the 13th century. That is, if I look through
the discant sections of Perotin's organa a3 and a4, the vertical
sonorities and progressions seek quite akin to those of Montpellier or
Bamberg. However, this is only _one_ aspect of the music, and to agree
with I suspect is your main point, obviously Perotin's _Viderunt omnes_
have a rather different scale and impression than the four-voice motet on
VIDERUNT in the Montpellier Codex (Mo 26)!
Todd Michel McComb
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>I would characterize the conductus
>as a form I associate especially with the "Notre Dame School," say
>1160-1225, crossing into the _early_ 13th century (e.g. the conductus for
>the coronation of Louis IX, later St. Louis, in 1226), but "out of style"
>However, I would find it surprising to view the form as _early_
>12th-century, although I certainly recognize that many of the works in a
>basically note-against-note style in the St. Martial and Compostella
>repertories, for example, could be called "conductus" as reasonably as the
>alternative label "discants."
There is actually a fairly substantial volume of early 12th century
material in forms we can now call conductus, and that especially
includes pre-Notre Dame survivals from around Paris. There are
also some associated with the St. Martial repertory, but not nearly
as voluminous as the more famous organum. Much of Calixtinus is
typically labeled conductus today. I like the Notre Dame conductus
quite a bit, and especially some of Perotin's great works in the
form, but the pre-Notre Dame Parisian conductus is rather compelling
too (monophony and 2-voice).
The whole idea of original composition in Latin, but not based on
plainchant, is rather central to the 12th century, I think. Of
course, this ties in well with our parallel 11th century "secular"
discussion.
>My point was to contrast the _early_ 13th century, when the conductus
>still receives some attention, with the middle and late portions of the
>century marked by the more unequivocal hegemony of the motet.
Yes, OK, that does make sense. And to this we must add the increased
weight of the vernacular in the 13th century and such items as the
rondeaux of Adam de la Halle, etc. I tend to think of the 13th
century as perhaps the richest in terms of developments on multiple
fronts.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
M. Schulter <msch...@value.net> wrote:
>Here I might just add as an aside that while in one view the
>rondeaux of Adam de la Halle might be taken as a kind of outgrowth
>of the conductus, from another (e.g. Richard Hoppin) they could
>also represent a writing out or refining of improvisational
>accompaniments for instruments.
Ah, well, I think you have to look first to the rondellus, which
was first a clerical dance, and then a style of composition for
that dance. There are other factors in the later rondeaux, but
this one really must be seen as decisive, I would think.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
M. Schulter
: The whole idea of original composition in Latin, but not based on
: plainchant, is rather central to the 12th century, I think. Of
: course, this ties in well with our parallel 11th century "secular"
: discussion.
Hello, there is this is a very nicely taken point: indeed, even by later
standards, the concept of a composition based on a newly invented melody
seems to be a basic aspect of the definition of conductus.
As you note, a piece from the Compostella repertory such as _Congaudeant
catholici_ fits this definition of the conductus as nicely as anything
from Notre Dame. Apart from agreeing with you, I'm inspired by your post
to look more into the pre-Notre Dame repertories of the kind you discuss.
: >My point was to contrast the _early_ 13th century, when the conductus
: >still receives some attention, with the middle and late portions of the
: >century marked by the more unequivocal hegemony of the motet.
: Yes, OK, that does make sense. And to this we must add the increased
: weight of the vernacular in the 13th century and such items as the
: rondeaux of Adam de la Halle, etc. I tend to think of the 13th
: century as perhaps the richest in terms of developments on multiple
: fronts.
Here I might just add as an aside that while in one view the rondeaux of
Adam de la Halle might be taken as a kind of outgrowth of the conductus,
from another (e.g. Richard Hoppin) they could also represent a writing out
or refining of improvisational accompaniments for instruments. Hoppin also
makes this argument in cautioning against a too-direct derivation of the
early 14th-century Italian madrigal from the conductus.
In any case, we seem agreed about the richness of the 13th century, and
I'm delighted to be reminded of the importance of the earlier 12th century
also.
M. Schulter
: Ah, well, I think you have to look first to the rondellus, which
: was first a clerical dance, and then a style of composition for
: that dance. There are other factors in the later rondeaux, but
: this one really must be seen as decisive, I would think.
Hello, there, and I would agree that the category of "song with a refrain"
applies both to the original clerical rondellus (akin to the monophonic
conductus) and to the vernacular monophonic and polyphonic rondeau.
In the later 13th and 14th centuries, _rondellus_ denotes an English
conductus-like genre with voice-exchange.
Here what I had in mind mainly was the textural style of the rondeaux a3
of Adam de la Halle: while some might be rather "conductus-like" (mostly
note-against-note), e.g. _Fines amourettes ai_ as I recall it, some can be
heard as more "motet-like," with a rather slower foundation-line and two
more ornamented upper parts, e.g. _Tant con je vivrai_.
Kate Brown
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote
>Ah, well, I think you have to look first to the rondellus, which
>was first a clerical dance,
do we have any idea what sort of dance, and which sort of cleric?
--
Kate B
London
Todd Michel McComb
Kate Brown <amfip...@cockaigne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>do we have any idea what sort of dance, and which sort of cleric?
I can't really answer this question in any detail, although glancing
at the New Grove shows that the 11th-12th century French rondellus
writing is apparently only rather recently surveyed. According to
Antoine Guerber, who prepared the Tours Manuscript for performance
along with some related sources, the rondelli accompanied "pious
amusement for feast days." A basic check of sources showed no
indication of what the dance was like, although some aspects could
be inferred from the phrase structure, and of course for all I know
it is described in detail somewhere. Sorry I could not be more
helpful.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org