# About the lost early music and manuscripts



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

After reading about a lot of composers, especially in the field of early music, it is amazing that many early composers were able to keep a written catalogue of their performed works, it seems that in those early ages of musical society, a high level of professionism and management skill is already developed among business pertaining to music making and sharing circles. Ortherwise, we would not have the amount of musical legacy left as now. 

The part of lost music is particularly intriguing, because recently some exceptional recoverings of scores shows the possibility of future resurfacing of music unknown to us. It is a new field of attraction of early music. However, I found a prominent feature of the lost part of the music, a lot of 17th century dramas were left without music, especially among the german composers, like Johann Kaspar Kerll, Heinrich Schuetz, etc. It is almost improbable that a composer as famous as Kerll and Schuetz would not survive by their drama music while their religious music survives significantly,and the drama has been a powerful musical form at the time. If anyone ever wondered that some composers would hide a portion of their music for reasons like taboos of profanity. Some composers of early music had been criticized for composing too much secular music(Like Sebastian Duron). Here is a new idea, we known Antoine Forqueray burned most of his music, why is it impossible for other composers to destroy some of their own works? 

Some music maybe will never been found again, not just because got destroyed by natural and man-made desasters, also by the hands of their own masters. It is still interesting to see what will be rediscovered in the future.  Any thing that survives is indeed by miracle.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Survival of sacred music as opposed to secular has a number of causes:

1) Churches long have had a reputation as sanctuaries--although this doesn't save them from carpet bombing in wars, they often aren't hit hard in such situations whereas everything else is fair game.
2) Sacred music is reusable almost infinitely since the church calendar is cyclical. Secular music, especially dramatic, not so much, especially before parlor musicmaking at home was a common thing. Hence, a greater incentive to hang onto the old stuff.
3) There seems to have been an active network of organists and kapellmeisters sharing information and loaning scores for copying. I have no knowledge of that having been the case outside the churches.

I'm sure there are more reasons.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

I read that professional musicians in the Medieval era didn't record their music for fear of being stolen by their competitors. Also, the people who had ability to write down music were usually upper class intellectuals working for church, who tended to look down or ignored the music of jongleur. However, melodies of the secular music were often borrowed in sacred music, even that originally made for obscene lyric.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

gardibot:

These are important clues to musicological issues in history. I see no many mentions of behavioral studies on churches and professional musicians. All they care is about the composers private life and anecdotes. Your 3 points are either too much of a common sense or too exclusive to professionals, among the major media there is a few information on how related people acted about the circulation and preservation of the music. For example, like the important Collegium Germanicum where musical tycoons of the time worked and studied. We know that all Giacomo Carissimi`s autographs in Collegium Musicum vanished in spite of the vatican papal order to preserve them at the composers death, (From the booklet of cd: "Jonas-Lauda Sion" by I Madrigalisti Ambrosiani, STR 33565). Further research onlines turned up informations that these autographs and Carissimis own grave were said to have been destroyed by napoleans army in 1790s. 

We should not just trying to find these music, but also research the relationships between the lost and the behaviors in major historical events. These events that caused the lost should be regarded as significant historical events of destruction, like looting and killing. Now I also got a secret hope that Vatican was conscious enough for the value of music autographs, secretly carried them to their own vaults. 

tortkis:

We can see that composers like A.Forqueray, L.Couperin, J.Froberger, J.Reincken jeasously guarded their music, and left not sacred works. Also notably J.B.Lully who was famous for secular dramas led a decandent personal life, maybe during their times, secular life was quite a matter of sensitivity. Many famous persons led controversial bisexual, promiscuous lifes at the time. But exclusivity put a great risk of getting lost, like Tonos Humanos from spanish 17th century, these music was not published but exclusive to royal houses in Madrid, once the fire broke our at Alcazar Real Madrid in 1735, almost 80% of these works vanished. This did not happened to keyboard musics from 17th century France, Germany, so we have this part of the secret music conserved. On the contrary, sacred works from Portugal was significantly preserved in spite of a even much much greater disaster happened in Lisboa in 1755 AD earthquake, tsunami and fire jointly ruined the whole city including the royal palace, still we do not see as much lost as the fire of Alcazar Real Madrids fire in 1735.

The lost of 17th century Tonos Humanos music in 1735 by a fire from Spain is the certainly most (not a one of)significant musical disaster of the whole western history of Arts. Notably, 80% of the period production in secular genres is lost forever.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The musical copyright situation before the Enlightenment was maddeningly cutthroat, so few composers allowed the record companies to commit their music to disc.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

tortkis said:


> I read that professional musicians in the Medieval era didn't record their music for fear of being stolen by their competitors. Also, the people who had ability to write down music were usually upper class intellectuals working for church, who tended to look down or ignored the music of jongleur. However, melodies of the secular music were often borrowed in sacred music, even that originally made for obscene lyric.


This, plus the fact it was _not_ written to be kept, just to pleasure the guest of the courts and then they have to write again new music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ariasexta said:


> After reading about a lot of composers, especially in the field of early music, it is amazing that many early composers were able to keep a written catalogue of their performed works, it seems that in those early ages of musical society, a high level of professionism and management skill is already developed among business pertaining to music making and sharing circles. Ortherwise, we would not have the amount of musical legacy left as now.
> 
> The part of lost music is particularly intriguing, because recently some exceptional recoverings of scores shows the possibility of future resurfacing of music unknown to us. It is a new field of attraction of early music. However, I found a prominent feature of the lost part of the music, a lot of 17th century dramas were left without music, especially among the german composers, like Johann Kaspar Kerll, Heinrich Schuetz, etc. It is almost improbable that a composer as famous as Kerll and Schuetz would not survive by their drama music while their religious music survives significantly,and the drama has been a powerful musical form at the time. If anyone ever wondered that some composers would hide a portion of their music for reasons like taboos of profanity. Some composers of early music had been criticized for composing too much secular music(Like Sebastian Duron). Here is a new idea, we known Antoine Forqueray burned most of his music, why is it impossible for other composers to destroy some of their own works?
> 
> Some music maybe will never been found again, not just because got destroyed by natural and man-made desasters, also by the hands of their own masters. It is still interesting to see what will be rediscovered in the future.  Any thing that survives is indeed by miracle.


I hadn't read that Antoine Forqueray had burnt his music, can you provide me with some reference about it?

One general thing, the border between secular and sacred music seems unclear to me. Though I'm not at all sure what the finction of (e.g.) a Buxtehude toccata was. Someone in this thread wrote that Froberger and Louis Couperin left no church music but I think that's arguable - at least if you accept that the Louis Couperin organ fantasies and fugues are authentic (does anyone have a view on that?)

Stuff always seems to be turning up, new music by Froberger for example.

I'm not sure I follow the point about Lully. What did he do that was so taboo?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Agree, often though a lot of music did get lost, for example the vast majority of Bach's orchestral music is assumed lost, the church cantatas represent about 2/3rd of what he wrote. That's what I read.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> I hadn't read that Antoine Forqueray had burnt his music, can you provide me with some reference about it?
> 
> One general thing, the border between secular and sacred music seems unclear to me. Though I'm not at all sure what the finction of (e.g.) a Buxtehude toccata was. Someone in this thread wrote that Froberger and Louis Couperin left no church music but I think that's arguable - at least if you accept that the Louis Couperin organ fantasies and fugues are authentic (does anyone have a view on that?)
> 
> ...


I am absolutely sure I had read about A.Forqueray burned all his works except for those secretly preserved by his son Jean Baptiste, who published the transcription for harpsichord. I will try to find other sources and post it here.

Keyboard genres are not strictly liturgical, but can be used in liturgies, like trio sonatas. Strictly, all keyboard genres are not sacred music in nature. Before renaissance, church music was almost purely without accompaniment of instruments.

J.B.Lully was bisexual, the Sun King himself dislike the composers personal behaviors according to the "Le Roi Danse" movie.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> Agree, often though a lot of music did get lost, for example the vast majority of Bach's orchestral music is assumed lost, the church cantatas represent about 2/3rd of what he wrote. That's what I read.


Even J.S Bach lost some compositions, but if you check out the wikipedia page: List of book burning incidents, it is a wonder and miracle how we still have so many classical works left, has been a miracle to consider how gigantic amount of music before the destruction. I mean, it was only middle age Europe, not like modern days world production of music by digital means. It got to be a really immense ocean of music produced by renowned and unknown geniuses with their own feather pens on rough papers and music making on period instruments. It is both a sad thing and a good thing, sad thing is we had lost a great amount of art, good thing is we should treasure whatever is conserved. It is another bigger sadness for bibliophiles too, many original middle age writtings on science and politics are also lost(assuming more scientific/politic/theological/philosophical manuscripts than musical were kept there and destroyed), the saddest is those victims of the wars and disasters.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> I hadn't read that Antoine Forqueray had burnt his music, can you provide me with some reference about it?
> 
> One general thing, the border between secular and sacred music seems unclear to me. Though I'm not at all sure what the finction of (e.g.) a Buxtehude toccata was. Someone in this thread wrote that Froberger and Louis Couperin left no church music but I think that's arguable - at least if you accept that the Louis Couperin organ fantasies and fugues are authentic (does anyone have a view on that?)
> 
> ...


I am still trying to recover the source about Forqueray, but here I found references from wikipedia about some german composers had the tendency to bring their composition to graves after their death:

Gottfried Grünewald : (getauft am 15. Oktober 1673 in Seifhennersdorf; † 19. (20.) Dezember 1739 in Darmstadt) 
Von seinen Werken sind nur sieben Partiten für Cembalo erhalten, die im für die Zeit üblichen Stil verfasst sind. Alles andere ist verloren, möglicherweise auf Anordnung des Komponisten, der insoweit Graupner folgend, die Vernichtung seiner Werke nach seinem Ableben angeordnet haben könnte.
----------

I am not very familiar with german, but basically can understand a few things: like Graupner followed, his other works are lost because he instructed his works to be destroyed upon death.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

It seems like a lot of german composers had the tradition to destroy their own compositions, it may contribute to the particularly great lost of works dating from late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, as represented at best by the generation of Vincent Lübeck(1650-1730). 

The obvious pattern of the lost of german music is likely more pertained to the causes by composers themself rather than accidental disasters, much more works from late 17th century and early eighteenth century are lost than early 17th and middle 18th century(as the works of JS Bach himselfs, his early works are rarely preserved, he may composed a great amount of keyboard works around 1700).

A stunning assumption: More works are lost by the contempraneous causes of the composers themself and their circles than later destructions throught 2 WWs.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ariasexta said:


> ...A stunning assumption: More works are lost by the contempraneous causes of the composers themself and their circles than later destructions throught 2 WWs.


It seems that back in the old days, the interest in music often didn't outlast the occasion that called for it. I've seen estimates that fully half of Bach's works are lost. There are also stories that Mrs. Haydn used her hubby's manuscripts to wrap fish.

Evidently somebody thinks that Brahms's manuscripts deserve the same.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

KenOc:

JS Bachs early works are very in the tradition of J.Pachelbel,G.Bohm etc, I do not know if people would call later works as mature like Goldberg Variation. But I think his early works are as perfect as any later works. For example, BWV 823 surviving in fragments, recalls a sonata in surviving structure.

I think composers who destroy their own works is not moral as a composer. But whatever is left today may seem quite a huge legacy, they are very invaluable.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Brahms is good, his organ music is good. I do dislike many composers after 1850, romantic quintets quartets are nice. I used to love Beethoven in student years, after being exposed to JS Bach by Late G.Leonhardt, I choosed to concentrate on early music. I have to say, I do think many late romantic works should be lost, but certainly not Beethovens and brahms. I forgot almost, it was Brahms organ music introduced me to the organ music, way before in contact with Bachs. His setting of Flumina Babylonis is beautiful.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Ariasexta said:


> ... I have to say, I do think many late romantic works should be lost, but certainly not Beethovens and brahms.


Wait, what?! As in, buh-bye -- ctrl-alt-del? Forget about 'em? Move on, skip some-plus years?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Avey said:


> Wait, what?! As in, buh-bye -- ctrl-alt-del? Forget about 'em? Move on, skip some-plus years?


Well, if Mahler's symphonies didn't exist, had never existed, would we miss them? Note: Trick question!


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Well, if Mahler's symphonies didn't exist, had never existed, would we miss them? Note: Trick question!


Posterity would be more interested in Elton Johns and Eric Clapton legacy rather than some pseudo-classical music produced in industrial&modern ages. Some people should simply stop composing right now, better off start playing some guitar, woodwind instruments.

There are some conservative classical romantic composers should preserve their works. The others, they should make the way for pop and rock instead. I find some nice pop and rock is closer to Renaissance idiom rather to romanticism.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

It has been said that modern pop and rock is close to baroque than to romantic age. I find it true, why, here is my points:

1-Melody line is often monody like, the guitar is playing like monodic accompaiment.

2-The direct expression of pathos, if you listened to Machaut, or virelais, frottoles the medieval composers and their musics, the chant is tryig to give dynamics just like drums and guitars doing today, since in ancient times, no power instruments to give enough sound. There are some remarkable medieval songs here in this cd: <Sinners & Saints: The Ultimate Medieval and Renaissance >, available on Amazon, this disc includes some renaissance instrumental pieces too, highly recommended as a kick off for early music. You will find these songs are very close to pop and rock in pathos they convey: direct expression, simple, repeating, robust undecorated melodies. The chant is in fact like electric guitar in concerts.

Here I will make further explanation why I dislike some latest orchestral works.

1-The basical timber of classical instrument is distorted by industrial additions of more massive metallic structures, like those enlarged modern pianos, these kind of purely modern instruments should not be applyed to classical settings of orchestre. They maybe nice for pop and rock, but when used in orchestral settings with classical violins, cellos, it makes me puke. At least, when in classical settings, please separate modern instruments from classical instruments, do not mix them togather trying to make music in classiccal settings. However, it is ok to use them togather in pop and rock, but to make orchestral works, junk!

2-Violins are beautiful instruments, but it does not mean the more violin the better, the larger scale of orchestra the more technically progressive, well. Franssois Couperin from early 18th century, already discarded some technical aspects of the music, and JS Bach opted for simpler melodies rather than floric ones. Baroque composers had been trying to avoid some technical aspects. So, why are some people still think the more complex the better for music?? These "works" are more of a sociological experiment to test peoples reaction than music, like youtube street pranks.

3- Just imagine if someone composed such music, and you make them to listen to their own "works" everyday, will they be happy? LOL

4-It is unnecessary to pursue technical aspects endlessly, we do not need musical experiments in industrial/scientific perspective, music is humane, natural, orderly.

5-I also admit I dislike Picasso, and that types of "art". I would destroy them if I had the chance. People can sing a millions of simple different melodies, still do not need discordal musical experiment. Simplicity itself is infinite.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Avey said:


> Wait, what?! As in, buh-bye -- ctrl-alt-del? Forget about 'em? Move on, skip some-plus years?


I like the natural, industrial-free ambients of early music, pure voices and instrumental sounds. I also appreciate good pop and rock, since these music just making innovation in ways of singing and basic melodies. I find using classical instruments to make endless discordal compound as music repugnant.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Ariasexta said:


> 5-I also admit I dislike Picasso, and that types of "art". I would destroy them if I had the chance.


You would be joining a distinguished group of art lovers: The Mona Lisa has been attacked at least four times, with acid, rocks, tea cups from a museum gift shop, and red spray paint. On 14 September 1975, in Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, Wilhelmus de Rijk slashed Rembrandt's The Night Watch repeatedly with a knife. "Hans-Joachim Bohlmann (1937-2009) damaged over 50 paintings worth more than 270 million Deutsche Marks (about 138 million euros) by Rubens, Rembrandt, Dürer and other artists." (Wikpedia) Of course, these astute critics were subsequently awarded lengthy research fellowships in mental institutions. I wish you success in all of your worthy endeavors! And welcome (back?) to the forum. Someone so obviously, albeit inconsistently, devoted to the preservation of the world's cultural treasures can only be a boon to our little group.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Ariasexta said:


> 5-I also admit I dislike Picasso, and that types of "art". I would destroy them if I had the chance. People can sing a millions of simple different melodies, still do not need discordal musical experiment. Simplicity itself is infinite.


You would destroy something lots of people love, just because _you_ don't like it?


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> You would be joining a distinguished group of art lovers: The Mona Lisa has been attacked at least four times, with acid, rocks, tea cups from a museum gift shop, and red spray paint. On 14 September 1975, in Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, Wilhelmus de Rijk slashed Rembrandt's The Night Watch repeatedly with a knife. "Hans-Joachim Bohlmann (1937-2009) damaged over 50 paintings worth more than 270 million Deutsche Marks (about 138 million euros) by Rubens, Rembrandt, Dürer and other artists." (Wikpedia) Of course, these astute critics were subsequently awarded lengthy research fellowships in mental institutions. I wish you success in all of your worthy endeavors! And welcome (back?) to the forum. Someone so obviously, albeit inconsistently, devoted to the preservation of the world's cultural treasures can only be a boon to our little group.


 I still love impressionist arts, but not picasso, childrens paintings can be amazing, I prefer children art as impressionist art pieces. Childrens impressionistic arts are much much more superior to many adult artists. Like this one from pinterest. From User:Carly Schwerdt








Picasso is pretentious to me, I feel profound viciousness hiding within his arts. I would like to preserve a lot of art pieces that I love, many classical works and modern works. But, we also have to promote good modern arts.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> You would destroy something lots of people love, just because _you_ don't like it?


Isn't that what the hatred of modernism throughout classical music is based on? That and a sense of entitlement that you're owed something by composers just for being a part of the classical music audience as a whole...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ariasexta said:


> I feel profound viciousness hiding within his arts.


Presumably this is why you want to destroy it. Can you say a bit more? I've never noticed a vicious streak to his work before, but I'm not an expert.

Maybe post a picture of a particularly vicious work by Picasso.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> Presumably this is why you want to destroy it. Can you say a bit more? I've never noticed a vicious streak to his work before, but I'm not an expert.
> 
> Maybe post a picture of a particularly vicious work by Picasso.


Those distorted human figures are so ugly that remind of ghosts(vicious). I do not feel anything artistic about making pictures of distorted human figures crowding togather.

If we want impressionistic arts, we can have cave paintings from archaic ages, ancient arts from India, Mesoamerica, Persia, Oriental cultures, or childrens paintings. If just making paintings of deformed people and objects, anyone can do it. Moreover, ugly pieces may urge people to give up traditions, destroy good heritages. Like Wilhemus De Rijk the destroyers of heritage mentioned by EdwardBast, such people maybe admirer of picasso.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ariasexta said:


> Those distorted human figures are so ugly that remind of ghosts(vicious). I do not feel anything artistic about making pictures of distorted human figures crowding togather.
> 
> If we want impressionistic arts, we can have cave paintings from archaic ages, ancient arts from India, Mesoamerica, Persia, Oriental cultures, or childrens paintings. If just making paintings of deformed people and objects, anyone can do it. Moreover, ugly pieces may urge people to give up traditions, destroy good heritages. Like Wilhemus De Rijk the destroyers of heritage mentioned by EdwardBast, such people maybe admirer of picasso.


Yes, but what Picasso did was not simply create distorted figures, but figures that are presented from multiple perspectives simultaneously. It is not comparable either to the traditional art of non-Western cultures or to the art of children, although superficial similarities could be pointed out.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> You would destroy something lots of people love, just because _you_ don't like it?


I agree - 

_Please, don't think of destroying modern art, whatever your feelings about its worth.
Art has to evolve - new work takes time for people to get used to it - when one artist or musician has developed or changed radically, you need examples of early & late to understand his/her creations - sometimes a listener or viewer will hate at first, but later learn to love, the same composer or artist. That might turn out to be you! _


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but what Picasso did was not simply create distorted figures, but figures that are presented from multiple perspectives simultaneously. It is not comparable either to the traditional art of non-Western cultures or to the art of children, although superficial similarities could be pointed out.


Salvador Domingo Dali is fine with me, surrealism and visual arts are ok. Imagine To print Dali or picasso on my shirts, I think the outcome after walking street can be favorable on Dali`s side.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> I agree -
> 
> _Please, don't think of destroying modern art, whatever your feelings about its worth.
> Art has to evolve - new work takes time for people to get used to it - when one artist or musician has developed or changed radically, you need examples of early & late to understand his/her creations - sometimes a listener or viewer will hate at first, but later learn to love, the same composer or artist. That might turn out to be you! _


I think to destroy something can also be a part of art, to destroy the right thing.:devil:


----------

