Renaissance Cadences
Pan
I went to the mostly Josquin concert by The Clerks' Group this
afternoon (good concert). It was interesting to hear a whole program
of music from that period. I like the music very much, but don't get a
chance to hear it that often. I have several observations and
questions.
(1) I was expecting all the final cadences to go to the 1-5-8 trine,
but several pieces ended on harmonies that included a major 3rd. Which
generation of composers was first to include thirds in final cadences?
Am I correct in assuming that Dufay did not do this? What about
Ockeghem?
(2) I also heard more Landini cadences (though not for final cadences)
and Machaut-style double leading tone cadences than I was expecting.
(3) I have never had a good understanding of Hypo- modes. When a piece
starts in what sounds like E-Phrygian and ends with a final cadence on
A, is it in Hypophrygian? Did I provide enough information for a
person to determine whether or not it was in Hypophrygian?
(4) Would a capella groups have sung in just intonation in those days,
such that both the thirds and fifths were perfectly in tune, or would
they have used Pythagorian large thirds? What about a capella groups
in the 14th century singing music by Machault et al.? In other words,
in periods when Pythagorian or Mean-Tone tunings were the norm for
instruments that needed to be tuned in advance (e.g. organs), did this
affect the tunings of vocalists, woodwind instruments, or bowed string
instruments when no instrument of set pitch was also playing? How? I'd
bring up the point that my experience as a performer in modern
orchestras is that there are efforts to play in just intonation (not
always consciously, but by ear), but not in piano concerti, for
example.
Perhaps some of my questions are answered in the excellent Early Music
FAQ, but I think we could have an interesting discussion here. Please
do point me to specific answers in the FAQ if you like, however.
Michael
To reply by email, please take out the TRASH (so to speak). Personal messages only, please!
Todd Michel McComb
Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>(1) I was expecting all the final cadences to go to the 1-5-8
>trine, but several pieces ended on harmonies that included a major
>3rd. Which generation of composers was first to include thirds in
>final cadences?
This began with the Josquin generation, and became increasingly
standard. Examples before that time are isolated.
>(3) I have never had a good understanding of Hypo- modes.
Note that the Church modes apply to monophony. Assigning them to
polyphony is a matter of opinion, and can easily be misleading. I
prefer not to discuss polyphony in this fashion, at least unless
the composer himself designates it.
>(4) Would a capella groups have sung in just intonation in those
>days, such that both the thirds and fifths were perfectly in tune,
>or would they have used Pythagorian large thirds?
First of all, "just intonation" is a complicated subject. The idea
that all vertical intervals might be in tune implies certain other
things which might not be desirable, such as changing the eventual
pitch of fundamental tones and compromising melodic intervals.
While a few people might disagree, I consider the idea that the
fundamental pitch wandered in this period to be absurd. Because
of that, certain pitch choices are necessary. For church polyphony,
this was a transitional era for tuning. The most likely tunings
involve a modified sort of Pythagorean intonation, one which e.g.
Rogers Covey-Crump (a very knowledgeable person on tuning) actually
calls Pythagorean, but which is not strictly so. If anyone tells
you they can sing this music without tempering any intervals, become
very skeptical.
You can see some discussion of these underlying issues, at least
as they eventually pertain to later sixteenth century practice, in
the partially-completed translation of Olivier Bettens' discussion
of Zarlino on this matter:
http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/zarlino/
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Pan
McComb) wrote:
Thank you for your response, Todd.
>In article <3c674c73...@news.erols.com>,
>Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
[snip]
>>(3) I have never had a good understanding of Hypo- modes.
>
>Note that the Church modes apply to monophony. Assigning them to
>polyphony is a matter of opinion, and can easily be misleading. I
>prefer not to discuss polyphony in this fashion, at least unless
>the composer himself designates it.
Fair enough. Then perhaps you'd have more general advice on how to
listen to the modal character of music from that period?
>>(4) Would a capella groups have sung in just intonation in those
>>days, such that both the thirds and fifths were perfectly in tune,
>>or would they have used Pythagorian large thirds?
>
>First of all, "just intonation" is a complicated subject. The idea
>that all vertical intervals might be in tune implies certain other
>things which might not be desirable, such as changing the eventual
>pitch of fundamental tones and compromising melodic intervals.
[snip]
I see your point. You're right: There are necessary compromises in
most situations.
I'll be sure to check out the link re: Zarlino that you provided. It's
great to have such knowledgeable, helpful respondants in this
newsgroup.
Todd Michel McComb
Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>Then perhaps you'd have more general advice on how to listen to
>the modal character of music from that period?
I really do not. It's not a concept I consider valuable, or rather,
much of the music I like best does not exhibit it in any straightforward
way. I guess this is a terrible answer, but it's the truth, and I
thought I'd share it.
What you might find valuable is the discussion of Tinctoris, in
which he determines that mixing authentic and plagal modes in
different voices produces a pleasing combination. If you think
about this, and the trine concept, I'm sure you'll find it somewhat
suggestive.
From my perspective, Josquin is relatively late music, and I hear
him as playing off of these ideas. However, as I stated, and I
cannot emphasize this strongly enough, this is transitional music
from the harmonic perspective, and those approaching it from the
perspective of later music are going to prioritize these concepts
rather differently. Personally, I consider their views ahistorical,
but they're also more common.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Pan
McComb) wrote:
[snip]
>What you might find valuable is the discussion of Tinctoris, in
>which he determines that mixing authentic and plagal modes in
>different voices produces a pleasing combination. If you think
>about this, and the trine concept, I'm sure you'll find it somewhat
>suggestive.
[snip]
Yes, I really ought to read Tinctoris. I probably will always know
more about Baroque than earlier music because I play the flute, but
I'd really like to understand pre-Baroque music better, on its own
terms.
>From my perspective, Josquin is relatively late music, and I hear
>him as playing off of these ideas. However, as I stated, and I
>cannot emphasize this strongly enough, this is transitional music
>from the harmonic perspective, and those approaching it from the
>perspective of later music are going to prioritize these concepts
>rather differently.
[snip]
That's what I don't want to do.
Best,
Jan Melaerts
panNO...@musician.org op 11-02-2002 05:59:
Michael,
I know that my reply is only addressing part of your posted questions.
May I suggest that you listen to Josquin's Missa Pange Lingua.
In my opinion it's in this mass that Josquin 'invents' a new harmony that
fully accepts the third as being consonant.
In the credo you can hear the remarkable 'Et incarnatus est'.
This sudden display of homophony, painting the most crucial statement of the
Credo, also reveals that the third becomes more and more accepted.
It seems that the third incarnates in Western Music with this 'Et incarnatus
est'. For me it is one of the most moving moments in music ever.
Kindest regards,
Jan Melaerts.
Sybrand Bakker
McComb) wrote:
>
>Note that the Church modes apply to monophony. Assigning them to
>polyphony is a matter of opinion, and can easily be misleading. I
>prefer not to discuss polyphony in this fashion, at least unless
>the composer himself designates it.
I don't think this is a matter of opinion.
There is an abundant number of polyphonic works, in the 16th and in
the 17th century with modal designations.
Also there are many discussions by theorists in the 16th century of
the modes in polyphony.
Probably you are unaware of the work of Prof. Bernhard Meier, who
published two books about this subject, both written in German, which
many English speaking people can't read so they are unfamiliar with
it. Meier sufficiently proofs modes belong to the domain of polyphony
and composers always used modal principles even when they didn't
designate the mode in the title of the piece. Modes are also still
discussed in the 18th century, eg in the Musicalisches Lexikon by
Johann Walther published in 1732.
Regards
Sybrand Bakker
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address
Todd Michel McComb
Sybrand Bakker <pos...@sybrandb.demon-verwijderdit.nl> wrote:
>There is an abundant number of polyphonic works, in the 16th and
>in the 17th century with modal designations. Also there are many
>discussions by theorists in the 16th century of the modes in
>polyphony.
Note that I am discussing the 15th century. These concepts do
become more important in later music, but I resist their earlier
application, largely because I consider them unhelpful.
>Meier sufficiently proofs modes belong to the domain of polyphony
>and composers always used modal principles even when they didn't
>designate the mode in the title of the piece.
I have read many discussions of this type, although I cannot tell
you specifically if I have read some of Meier's work. It is nearly
impossible -- even in the United States -- to earn a doctorate
without at least some minimal fluency in the major European languages,
so that is hardly a major issue.
Anyway, this sort of discussion and demonstration fits very well
with the way later musicians want to view earlier music and polyphony.
The desire to adopt such a stance says a great deal about the
musician in question, although I am certainly in favor of examining
everything (literally, I suppose) from as many angles as one can
devise. Declaring that composers were bound by principles they did
not know is always risky business, and not necessarily the best way
to go about understanding music on its own terms.
Put another way, does La Rue's counterpoint fail in its dissonance
preparation, or is La Rue not exactly bound by such principles?
While the former can be an interesting perspective, the latter is
the fully useful one. It is more difficult to construct such a
question for Josquin, specifically because his music was used as a
model for constructing these later rules, but in many ways that is
beside the point.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
M. Schulter
few observations and miscellaneous details.
First, I would agree with Todd and others that the Josquin era indeed
marks the first frequent use of thirds in concluding sonorities in the
music of Continental Western Europe, with other composers of this era
such as Isaac reflecting a similar trend.
There are a few English pieces going back to around the 13th century
with closing sonorities including thirds, although trines or fifths
are more typical, and as far as I know this statement applies also to
14th-century English music and the music of Dunstable, etc. Many of
these pieces indeed show a strong predilection for pervasive use of
thirds and sixths, but with conclusive cadences to trines, the latter
aspect shared in common with Continental music of the same 13th-14th
century era.
The small number of Continental pieces before the Josquin era with
closing sonorities including thirds are an interesting topic. Mark
Lindley has identified one piece from Florence around 1380 which
appears to close on a major third D-F#; if this is indeed the intended
final sonority, as Lindley points out, it raises an interesting
hypothesis about tuning I'll get to shortly.
Around 1400 or so, there are some pieces from the Apt Manuscript
closing with sonorities including _minor_ thirds above the lowest
note. If one wanted to indulge in a bit of intonational theorizing,
one might surmise that this could be consistent with Pythagorean
tuning, where a sonority of outer fifth divided into minor third below
and major third above would have a ratio of 54:64:81 (about 0-294-702
cents). This is quite close to 16:19:24 (about 0-297-702 cents), which
some 20th-21st century theorists consider the most stable or
conclusive tuning for this type of sonority within the limits of
historical European practice.
Interestingly, as Lindley has noted, there are some _keyboard_
compositions dating to the early or middle part of the 15th century
with concluding thirds, with early examples from the Faenza Codex
(c. 1415) and later ones from the Buxheim Organ Book (some composed
possibly around 1430-1450). These may be relevant also to vocal
compositions of the early 15th century, including those of the young
Dufay, with final cadences to traditionally stable trines, but many
prominent thirds in other places suggesting a style similar to that
found in these keyboard repertories.
This brings us to questions of intonation of a kind relevant to the
Dufay era, and also to the era of Josquin. What I say is in addition
to the more thorough 15th-century discussion in Section 4.5 of my
Pythagorean FAQ at Todd McComb's Early Music FAQ site of the Medieval
Music and Arts Foundation:
http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/pyth.html
In a traditional Pythagorean tuning of the 14th-century variety which
nicely fits the music of Machaut, for example, all regularly spelled
major and minor thirds have their usual Pythagorean sizes of 81:64
(about 408 cents) and 32:27 (about 294 cents). This makes for very
expressive melody, relatively concordant but "active" thirds
suggesting forward motion rather than full repose, and exciting
cadences where major thirds and sixths typically expand to stable
fifths and octaves, example.
Around 1400, however, it appears that a new method of Pythagorean
tuning was catching on in which the usual diatonic notes, or more
generally the notes of the standard _musica recta_ gamut (Bb-B) were
tuned as before, but sharps were tuned at the flat end of the chain.
Thus on a now-standard 12-note keyboard instrument, we would have
(F#) (C#) (G#)
Gb Db Ab Eb Bb F C G D A E B
The result is that with this type of keyboard tuning, major thirds
involving written sharps (e.g. A-C#, D-F#, E-G#) will actually be
played as Pythagorean diminished fourths (A-Db, D-Gb, E-Ab). As it
happens, these altered intervals have ratios of 8192:6561 (about 384
cents) -- very close to the pure 5:4 (about 386 cents) which became
the ideal of the Renaissance.
Theorists of the era such as Prosdocimus (1413), Ugolino of Orvieto
(around 1425-1440), and others, discuss this kind of Pythagorean
tuning. Both Prosdocimus and Ugolino point out what they regard as its
imperfections, urging a 17-note scheme with true Pythagorean sharps
_and_ flats, but their remarks and those of other writers provide rich
documentation for the tuning itself.
As Lindley observes, compositions in the Faenza and earlier Buxheim
repertories seem very nicely designed for this type of Pythagorean
intonation, with many noncadential thirds involving written sharps
which would be near-pure when realized with Pythagorean flats.
Lindley also suggests that the young Dufay's vocal music may have been
influenced by such a keyboard tuning.
By around 1450, an increasing taste for pure or near-pure thirds in as
many locations within the gamut as possible may have led to the
practice of meantone temperament for keyboards, where each fifth is
tuned slightly narrower than pure in order that four such fifths may
equal or approximate a 5:4 third. Lindley suggests that some of the
organ music of Conrad Paumann around 1450 sounds best in such a
temperament, giving early evidence of such a trend.
Thus if a keyboard piece ends on a sonority including a third
_involving a written sharp_, as happens in one of the Buxheim pieces
for which Lindley suggests an early 15th-century Pythagorean tuning,
the piece might be consistent with either Pythagorean in this modified
form or meantone. The later Buxheim repertory, dating to 1450 or
after, seems to call for meantone, as Lindley suggests.
The piece Lindley points out, by the way, is a setting of _Kyrie
cunctipotens_ which seems to suggest a path which 15th-16th century
counterpoint might have taken with a somewhat bolder treatment of
seconds and sevenths than in what has been taken as a "classic"
Renaissance style. It concludes with a sonority of A3-C#4-E4, which
might represent either a meantone tuning or a Pythagorean A3-Db4-E4
(in this notation C4 represents middle C).
To my ears, a scenario like Lindley's for Dufay's earlier pieces
sounds very compelling: the different colors of traditional
Pythagorean thirds and altered ones lend an element of contrast, and
the near-pure thirds seem to proclaim a new "aura," one aspect of the
"English countenance" of "sprightly concords" described in the famous
poem of Martin Le Franc (around 1442).
The Faenza Codex suggests that, at least in part, this could also be
an "Italian countenance" from a stylistic and intonational point of
view.
Please let me emphasize that this is only one of the directions one
could move in starting from a 14th-century Pythagorean tuning; a
different approach would be to make major thirds and sixths _wider_
than in Pythagorean, approximating, for example, the simple ratios of
9:7 and 7:6. Marchettus of Padua (1318) may be suggesting such an
approach in his discussion of cadential intonation, and it's a
direction getting a lot of my musical energy in the early 21st
century, but the history from Dufay to Wagner takes a different
direction.
This brings us to Josquin and company, an epoch in which intonational
paradigms may have been somewhat up in the air.
As Lindley discusses, Ramos (1482) seems to describe a 12-note
keyboard instrument in some kind of meantone temperament (Ab-C#),
while in 1496, Gaffurius takes Pythagorean intonation as his model but
points out that organ tuners typically tune the fifths slightly
narrower than pure by a "small and hidden quantity," suggesting that
meantone has become the general practice.
One possibility is that singers of the Josquin era indeed often
approximated meantone, or some form of "adaptive JI" based on the
ideal of 5-based thirds (5:4, 6:5), with small adjustments to avoid
dissonances or undesired pitch shifts of a kind which singers, but not
fixed-pitch instruments such as keyboards, might negotiate.
Zarlino himself (1558) notes that singers do not run into problems
with small intervals such as commas which appear on keyboard
instruments in 5-based JI, where certain fifths would have a ratio of
27:20 rather than the desired 3:2 (a problem solved in part by having
two "versions" of notes such as D, Bb, and F# on such instruments). He
suggests that the ability of the voice to sing any desired pitch makes
it possible for vocal ensembles to tend toward pure concords without
these complications.
However, while a meantone or "adaptive JI" style of intonation seems
musically quite possible for the Josquin era, the issue remains as to
whether the earlier traditions of Pythagorean tuning, with their more
compact and efficient melodic semitones, might not still have exerted
an influence on singers around the close of the 15th century.
A fine point here is that around 1500, in contrast to much of the
later 16th-century practice, closing sonorities, when they have
thirds, seem often to have _minor_ thirds above the bass, and without
any necessary implication of the kind of unwritten alteration
typically inferred by around the time of Aaron's treatises
illustrating and discussing such alterations (1523, 1525, 1529).
If one wants to make a sonority with minor third and fifth above the
lowest voice as "conclusive" as possible, within the bounds of
historical European intonational practice, then a rather
"Pythgorean-like" approach might actually best approximate the kind of
16:19:24 sonority which could have this effect. (The simpler ratio of
6:7:9, or about 0-267-702 cents, can be quite conclusive, but is
outside this historical range.)
The 5-based JI or meantone intonation at or near 10:12:15 (about
0-316-702 cents), in contrast, might sound somewhat more tentative,
and a range of 16th-century theorists starting as far as I know with
Aaron, and including Vicentino (1555) and Zarlino, find a major third
above the bass preferable for concluding sonorities or other
sonorities of cadential arrival including a third (more and more
common as the century progresses).
However, this is guesswork: some keyboard pieces of around 1500 with
concluding minor thirds above the bass are evidently intended for
instruments in meantone where something close to 10:12:15 would
result.
At any rate, while meantone tunings may have been standard for
keyboards by the Josquin era, recent experiments suggest that singers
might have also inclined toward a Pythagorean tuning for rapid
contrapuntal passages, for example, with certain prominent thirds
adjusted toward 5-based ratios. This statement could also apply to
Ockeghem's music, for example.
As far as modality goes, I would agree with Todd to the extent of
emphasizing that mode could be more of an analytical category than any
strict constraint on a composer's technique. The late 15th-century era
seems to mark a point where the problem of applying modal concepts to
a polyphonic texture was one gaining more theoretical attention; the
Berkeley Manuscript (part dated 1375) has a treatise briefly touching
on this point, but other theorists (e.g. Johannes de Grocheio,
c. 1300) had considered "mode" in the strict sense as relevant to
chant rather than polyphony, defined more by its vertical structure
and trinic concord.
One approach in seeking possible distinctions between authentic and
plagal modes would be to observe the patterns of cadences; there are
some differences in keyboard pieces based on the Psalm tones in the
middle to late 16th century, for example, and comparisons of pieces
around 1500 could relate to one side of this question.
As Todd points out, typically some parts of a polyphonic complex will
be in the authentic version of a mode, and others in the plagal
version: Tinctoris concludes that the mode of the tenor may be
regarded as the principal one if one asked about "the mode of a
piece," a conclusion shared by Zarlino when he refers to the tenor as
the _guida tonorum_ or "guide of the modes." Vicentino, however,
regards the bass as definitive.
Glareanus (1547) provides a mid-16th century viewpoint with Josquin
taken as the pre-eminent model, and discusses the use of "mixed modes"
in Josquin -- different families used in the same piece. Aaron (1525)
also mentions that some composers, in effect, play a game of musical
"hide and seek," starting from a given mode and returning eventually
to that goal, but with many circuitous paths open in the intervening
journey.
Glareanus sees Josquin's ability felicitously to change modes in the
course of a piece as one aspect of his excellence, a theme also
inviting much exploration in the repertory around 1500. Of course, any
use of modal concepts for polyphony should be taken in the context of
other considerations such as vertical sonorities and melodic
interactions.
This is already a fairly long reply, and maybe a good place to
conclude for now and invite more dialogue.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
Todd Michel McComb
M. Schulter <msch...@veenet.value.net> wrote:
>In 1496, Gaffurius takes Pythagorean intonation as his model but
>points out that organ tuners typically tune the fifths slightly
>narrower than pure by a "small and hidden quantity," suggesting
>that meantone has become the general practice.
Margo gives an excellent overview of the various approaches to
tuning which have been proposed, but I especially wanted to highlight
the not-quite-implied simplicity of the statement above. It becomes
increasingly clear to me -- and this is reflected by many interpreters
-- that keyboard tuning was far more "progressive" (to use a loaded
word) in this period than that for major vocal polyphony. Keyboard
tuning gives us the most concrete information, but coming back to
it regularly in such a discussion may overstate its influence. To
mimic Olivier Bettens' use of Zarlino's terms, this is likely the
period during which singers shifted from the diatono (Pythagorean)
framework to the sintono (more thirds-based) framework. In fact,
elements in late Josquin can be heard as expressing emerging
tensions/contradictions between the two, such that e.g. certain
ficta choices do not have one correct answer (as I have suggested
here before). I want to articulate this in more detail, but it is
something which will have to wait for a more formal discussion.
>Glareanus (1547) sees Josquin's ability felicitously to change
>modes in the course of a piece as one aspect of his excellence
Mid-sixteenth century theory is full of this sort of contorted
homage, where the designated heroes must somehow be seen to rise
above the new rules they would not have known. This sentence made
me smile.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Pan
<msch...@veenet.value.net> wrote:
>Hello, there, and to what has already been said, please let me add a
>few observations and miscellaneous details.
[snip]
Add you did, and it was fascinating! Thank you very much, Margo!
M. Schulter
> word) in this period than that for major vocal polyphony. Keyboard
> tuning gives us the most concrete information, but coming back to
> it regularly in such a discussion may overstate its influence. To
> mimic Olivier Bettens' use of Zarlino's terms, this is likely the
> period during which singers shifted from the diatono (Pythagorean)
> framework to the sintono (more thirds-based) framework. In fact,
> elements in late Josquin can be heard as expressing emerging
> tensions/contradictions between the two, such that e.g. certain
> ficta choices do not have one correct answer (as I have suggested
> here before). I want to articulate this in more detail, but it is
> something which will have to wait for a more formal discussion.
Hello, there, Todd, and thanks for this important point. What I might add
is that traditionally trained singers might often lean toward a
Pythagorean orientation because of the more compact diatonic semitones --
about 90 cents, in comparison to 16:15 (~112 cents) in 5-based JI of a
kind shown on the monochord of Ramos, or about 117 cents in meantone with
pure major thirds (only one of the possible shades that could have been
practiced on keyboards during this era).
When theorists of around 1500, or even a bit later (e.g. Aaron), refer to
the diatonic semitone (e.g. E-F or B-C) as the _minor_ semitone, this may
reflect not only an older medieval theory, but also the tendencies of many
singers brought up in a hexachord system emphasizing the mi-fa semitone as
a kind of compass or marker. In recent decades, researchers have found
that modern string ensembles often tend to intone their intervals
somewhere around Pythagorean, rather than 5-based just or even 12-tone
equal temperament (the keyboard standard). Choristers of around 1480-1520
may have often been similarly inclined.
This invites lots more discussion, and I'll be interested in your comments
either here or in another thread. I'd be fascinated about possible
connections between ficta choices and issues of tuning. While the absence
in some passages of a single definitive "solution" is something noted by
Aaron (1529), and also by a modern scholar such as Robert Toft, tying this
in with intonational questions would be an outlook I'd like to learn more
about.
>>Glareanus (1547) sees Josquin's ability felicitously to change
>>modes in the course of a piece as one aspect of his excellence
> Mid-sixteenth century theory is full of this sort of contorted
> homage, where the designated heroes must somehow be seen to rise
> above the new rules they would not have known. This sentence made
> me smile.
From one point of view, since Tinctoris discusses "mixed modes" (different
families, also Zarlino's usage), the concept might not be totally
anachronistic, but I'd agree that any implication that Josquin was
"breaking rules" invites lots of questioning, just as it would be somewhat
humorous to judge Josquin's counterpoint by "severe" late 16th-century
standards.
It's interesting that to Vicentino (1555), changing modes in the course of
a piece is routine, just as one might pleasingly mix architectural styles
for the sake of proportion and variety. From his point of view, if we
accept the analysis of Glareanus, Josquin might be taken as a composer who
helped shape the pleasing modern patterns advocated in his treatise. In
fact, Vicentino has no problem with beginning in one mode and ending in
another, as long as there's not a constraint of form, as with
ecclesiastical pieces where the concluding mode of one piece might be
expected to agree with the beginning of the next, for example.
Both Vicentino and Kirnberger (1771), the latter writing about modal style
as a now older but still very worthwhile technique, take mixing modes as a
standard technique, and give some examples for each mode of cadences to
other modal centers which might be pleasantly interspersed.
You remarks remind me of another passage where Glareanus remarks on
Josquin's genius, and also his failure to "curb his youthful passions" in
certain compositions. Maybe it would be both instructive and entertaining
to survey such comments in Glareanus, and see how they relate to specific
pieces which he cites, when looked at from the perspective of either "late
15th-century common practice" (if that can be more or less ascertained) or
the norms of the mid-16th century.
Todd Michel McComb
M. Schulter <msch...@veenet.value.net> wrote:
>from the perspective of either "late 15th-century common practice"
>(if that can be more or less ascertained)
To take a fragment from your post, this is something which I do
want to work on, but it's tough to forge ahead. Most discussions
of late 15th-century style deal in "negatives" -- i.e. how certain
elements don't fit the prototypical (although by no means uniform)
later sixteenth century "modal" counterpoint. We generally read
about the absence of this, the foreshadowing of that, but there is
little affirmative language grounded in the particular style of the
times. That is slowly changing, but it's a slow process. From the
perspective of trying to circumscribe it, contrapuntal style simply
had "too much variety" in the era leading up to Josquin's late style
(and even somewhat after, before Josquin was accepted as The
Standard).
While Josquin's position with respect to mid-sixteenth century
theory means this *his* (later) music fits such an analysis to some
degree, it doesn't tell one much about the precedents Josquin
employed or the process by which he would have developed his style.
The latter is what I took to be the underlying emphasis of the
original inquiry. If I recall correctly, the mass in the concert
program was Faisant regretz, certainly a "fifteenth century
composition" by my standards (even if an uncertain chronology and
the stubbornness of stylistic markers with respect to nice round
numbers makes it possible, albeit unlikely, that that's not literally
true).
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Pan
McComb) wrote:
>To take a fragment from your post, this is something which I do
>want to work on, but it's tough to forge ahead. Most discussions
>of late 15th-century style deal in "negatives" -- i.e. how certain
>elements don't fit the prototypical (although by no means uniform)
>later sixteenth century "modal" counterpoint. We generally read
>about the absence of this, the foreshadowing of that, but there is
>little affirmative language grounded in the particular style of the
>times.
This is the type of lazy scholarship Gombrich inveighed against in art
history several decades ago. The only way that art can "foreshadow"
other art is if we are using a determinist view of history that holds
that God has preordained all future developments and hints at them
from time to time. I prefer for history to be a Humanities and not
Divinity subject, and for us to assume that the reason why Josquin
"foreshadows" is that later composers were influenced by him, not that
he was a seer. :-)
> That is slowly changing, but it's a slow process. From the
>perspective of trying to circumscribe it, contrapuntal style simply
>had "too much variety" in the era leading up to Josquin's late style
>(and even somewhat after, before Josquin was accepted as The
>Standard).
>
>While Josquin's position with respect to mid-sixteenth century
>theory means this *his* (later) music fits such an analysis to some
>degree, it doesn't tell one much about the precedents Josquin
>employed or the process by which he would have developed his style.
>The latter is what I took to be the underlying emphasis of the
>original inquiry.
That is the only way to arrive at a proper understanding of his work,
it seems to me. I hope that you - and indeed, others - do pursue this.
Are there any theoretical writings by Josquin-era people? What about
remarks by Josquin himself or his contemporaries on what he set out to
do and accomplished? Yes, I know he was very famous and
well-respected, but you're looking for something more specific.
> If I recall correctly, the mass in the concert
>program was Faisant regretz,
[snip]
Affirmative, though only the Kyrie and Gloria of that mass were
performed. I think I understood correctly from the program that Missa
"Faisant regretz" is not a short mass.
Todd Michel McComb
Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>This is the type of lazy scholarship Gombrich inveighed against
>in art history several decades ago. The only way that art can
>"foreshadow" other art is if we are using a determinist view of
>history
I totally agree with you, but I do want to point out that, in
fairness, it's a lot easier for people to use a later focus in
discussing this music. The theory is more defined, etc. I want
to continue warning against it, but sometimes the choice is taking
this sort of perspective or remaining silent. The key is knowing
not to take it too far, in my opinion.
>Are there any theoretical writings by Josquin-era people? What
>about remarks by Josquin himself or his contemporaries on what he
>set out to do and accomplished?
Margo mentioned the major theorists. Until the mid-sixteenth
century, music theory and discussion is sporadic in its survival.
There are some purported quotes from Josquin, but they are small
in quantity (the principle one complains about rhythmic interpolations).
This is one of those critical mass subjects, where passing ideas
back and forth and hammering them around eventually yields some
sort of (at least partial) consensus on what was going on. Josquin
era scholarship has improved tremendously in the past 10 years, and
there's every reason (aside from financial ones, unfortunately) to
believe that it can build on that momentum. Understanding of the
work of composers such as Obrecht and Agricola currently dwarfs
what it was just a few years ago.
>I think I understood correctly from the program that Missa "Faisant
>regretz" is not a short mass.
Right, it is a full cyclic Ordinary. It's too bad you got the
truncated version, but I suppose that was dictated by other constraints
or desires. The Clerks' Group has actually released a CD of this
mass, although it has not yet arrived in the US.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Alain Naigeon
a4cn26$68t$1...@machaut.medieval.org...
> In article <3c69bacd...@news.erols.com>,
> Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>
> >Are there any theoretical writings by Josquin-era people? What
> >about remarks by Josquin himself or his contemporaries on what he
> >set out to do and accomplished?
>
> Margo mentioned the major theorists. Until the mid-sixteenth
> century, music theory and discussion is sporadic in its survival.
> There are some purported quotes from Josquin, but they are small
> in quantity (the principle one complains about rhythmic interpolations).
> This is one of those critical mass subjects, where passing ideas
> back and forth and hammering them around eventually yields some
> sort of (at least partial) consensus on what was going on.
Perhaps it would be useful to remember that Josquin lived
a long life, and that Glarean's quotation opportunately talked
of his "youth". There are, in Jeppesen for example, some evidence
that Josquin's style has changed on some points, at least (Jeppesen
mentions the usage of upper cambiatas, never used again in his
later works). Sometimes, it seems to me that speaking of Josquin
as a decisive step means his very long florishing period has been
a stylistic "block", an "historic atom", so to say. I'm afraid it can't
be so... he knew Dufay, and he knew... Sermisy !
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
Todd Michel McComb
Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
>There are, in Jeppesen for example, some evidence that Josquin's
>style has changed on some points
There is no doubt that Josquin's style changed a great deal over
the course of his career. His early and late works are barely
similar.
>Sometimes, it seems to me that speaking of Josquin as a decisive
>step means his very long florishing period has been a stylistic
>"block", an "historic atom", so to say.
Among people who consider Josquin the greatest composer of the era
(not me), his stylistic development is often seen as synonymous
with the development of what would become the mid-sixteenth century
harmonic style. The idea that his style did not change does not
really work from any of these perspectives.
In other words, Josquin is often seen as "a decisive step" precisely
because of his stylistic changes.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
nbm
thread: Singer friends of mine attended (and found very valuable) the
free (!) daylong workshop in choral singing that the Group held the
day before their New York concert. According to them, the singers
were not particularly interested in tuning systems, responding to a
direct question on the issue with something resembling an airy wave of
the hand.
(By the way, how great is it that the group and the presenting
organization, Music Before 1800, should provide a workshop like this?)
nbm
Todd Michel McComb
nbm <nbma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>According to them, the singers were not particularly interested
>in tuning systems, responding to a direct question on the issue
>with something resembling an airy wave of the hand.
For singers, while some are very interested in the technical details
of tuning, much of it often revolves around developing familiarity
with the particular music. While the Clerks' Group's relative lack
of concern with tuning issues certainly shows (not to say that they
are "out of tune," but that they are as innocuous as possible in
the way they tune particular intervals), the fact that they have
done so much work with late fifteenth century music also shows.
Returning to the discussion of theorists to which you obliquely
referred, for instance Zarlino later attempted to describe specifically
*what singers do,* not from a consciously applied and specific
system, but merely what they do. The idea that singers would have
been intimately familiar with -- or interested in -- tuning systems
is not often suggested, so the Clerks are in good historical company
there.
The only real complication today is that we deal with so much
different music from throughout history and around the world, that
it is difficult to believe that singers can be as intimately familiar
with the music of a particular era as those who lived it. So, by
way of compensation, we berate them with technical discussions.... :-)
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Pan
McComb) wrote:
[snip]
>Among people who consider Josquin the greatest composer of the era
>(not me), his stylistic development is often seen as synonymous
>with the development of what would become the mid-sixteenth century
>harmonic style.
[snip]
Just out of curiosity, who is/are your favorite composer(s) from that
era?
Todd Michel McComb
Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, who is/are your favorite composer(s) from
>that era?
Please allow me to give a less-than-straightforward answer. For
that generation, I work from the perspective of a distinct chronological
hegemony, going Obrecht->Josquin->La Rue. Namely, recent research
on chronology demonstrates that many of the formal innovations which
were once credited to Josquin were actually developed first by
Obrecht. Widespread distribution of Obrecht's mature music dates
to the late 1480s, whereas Josquin's dates to the early 1500s (more
recent research is placing his birth date c.1455, rather than the
traditional c.1440; this is a discussion we've had). On the other
end, La Rue wrote the last real summaries in this style, and used
virtually every conceivable technique in its most mature form,
beginning his period of international reputation shortly after
Josquin. Whereas Josquin's mass cycles show a clear variation in
quality and stylistic development, La Rue's are almost uniformly
of the highest quality.
If you surveyed late-15th century specialists, you'd find Josquin
named as their choice for "greatest composer," rather less often
than many other groups. A friend of mine, who has directed some
fine recordings, calls La Rue "the real Josquin," while Obrecht has
been receiving even stronger support of late, especially in the
work of Rob Wegman.
On a purely personal level, I find Agricola captivating.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org