# What is the difference between renaissance and medieval music?



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

josquindesprez said:


> A few more vocal options for you:
> 
> *Early Renaissance:*
> Guillaume Dufay, Isorhythmic Motets (there are 13, skip around if you want)
> ...


Are you sure Dufay and Josquin aren't medieval style composers?


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Yikes, this is a thing? Polyphony is medieval? Do I need to look this up somewhere?

Nah.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Well clearly polyphony isn't the distinguishing factor, there's plenty of polyphonic music from the C14.


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

Johannes Ockeghem


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Anna Strobl said:


> Johannes Ockeghem


So size is what makes the difference? The number of voices? I don't know what you're saying. There's clearly C17 music that's for four voices, so I don't think this is going in the right direction.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Look at their dates.

Dufay `1397 to 1474
Ockeghem c1420 to 1493
Josquin c1450 to 1525

Wiki (and others) put the Renaissance as starting in 1400. So all three were working in the Renaissance period and all three grew up in the Renaissance period.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Look at their dates.
> 
> Dufay `1397 to 1474
> Ockeghem c1420 to 1493
> ...


So it's not a musical/artistic style? It's just a chronological thing? That doesn't sound right.

The question is interesting because it might help is work out what their music should sound like.

(This is turning into a Platonic dialogue with me playing Socrates!)


----------



## josquindesprez (Aug 20, 2017)

It’s a fair question. I included Allegri as Renaissance but his dates line up more with the early Baroque (though the style strikes me as plainly Renaissance). But honestly I’ve never seen Josquin mentioned as a Medieval-period composer, and I’ve always seen Dufay as one of the first composers of the early Renaissance. Obviously the labels are going to cause trouble with borderline composers (I’d always consider Beethoven Romantic, but certainly a lot of people place him as Classical), but I hear Dufay’s polyphony as closer to the Renaissance than the Medieval period.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Many people would say that Dufay is one of the first reneaissance composers, but what I want to do is probe that a bit. What is it about Dufay's music (as opposed to his birth and death dates) which makes it somehow embody renaissance ideals more than medieval ones? That's the question I want to pose.

The question is central because of style -- when people say "he's a renaissance composer" they mean he has a style which is harmonious, consonant and fluid. I want to question this for Dufay and Ockeghem and possibly for Josquin too.



josquindesprez said:


> I hear Dufay's polyphony as closer to the Renaissance than the Medieval period.


Of course he can be played like that if you want -- you could play Machaut like that if you want! Don't forget that even as late as Josquin we're talking about scores where there's a lot of uncertainty about things as basic as how to manage dissonances, how to place the text, how many singers to use and with what types of methods of forming and blending the sounds . . . What you hear is always the result of someone's performing edition, which may be based on all sorts of presumptions about the correct style for Dufay, Josquin etc.

(This thread was prompted because I was listening to some Josquin sung by the old group Pro Cantione Antiqua which really did sing it as though it was music by a proto Brahms or Schubert. And I started to ask myself what, exactly, do we now know which shows that that way of singing it is a misunderstanding.)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's a performance of the Josquin Stabat Mater. Is this renaissance style?






(I think it's beautiful!)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Contrast this much more harmonious approach from Peter Philips


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Guillaume de Machaut ca. 1300-1377 I consider this renaissance music... with nothing to back me up, and admittedly it's pretty early... so would the 14c be the transition?

As for performing methods, perhaps there is a timeline somewhat different than for composition... lagging behind the composers, and maybe this is what Mandryka is thinking about...

Camerata Nova has some recordings that sound "earlier" in performance style, their Lassus and Palestrina are keepers in my collection.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> So it's not a musical/artistic style? It's just a chronological thing?


I believe that it is neither a style nor a chronological thing. You can debate forever the boundaries between renaissance / baroque, classical / romantic etc, but there are no hard borders. Each period merges into the next.

So I do not think that it is useful to try to pigeonhole a particular composer into a specific era. All that happens is the era is being redefined as that which includes the music of the composer being discussed.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Machaut is *NOT *a Renaissance composer...period.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Root said:


> I believe that it is neither a style nor a chronological thing. You can debate forever the boundaries between renaissance / baroque, classical / romantic etc, but there are no hard borders. Each period merges into the next.
> 
> So I do not think that it is useful to try to pigeonhole a particular composer into a specific era. All that happens is the era is being redefined as that which includes the music of the composer being discussed.


That's cheating!

Even if the boundaries are porous there can still be clear examples. I suggest that we know for sure that Lluis da Mila is a renaissance composer, his music exudes Renaissance.






Are Josquin or Dufay served by this approach?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's some Machaut sung a bit like he's a proto Josquin


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

In my studies I have seen three dates marking the beginning of the musical Renaissance: 1400, 1420, 1450. I am right now looking at a college text entitled "Music in the Renaissance" by Howard M. Brown. His date is 1420.

It is not just a chronological thing. There are stylistic factors which differentiate medieval music from Renaissance music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Look at their dates.
> 
> Dufay `1397 to 1474
> Ockeghem c1420 to 1493
> ...





Mandryka said:


> So it's not a musical/artistic style? It's just a chronological thing? That doesn't sound right.
> 
> The question is interesting because it might help is work out what their music should sound like.
> 
> (This is turning into a Platonic dialogue with me playing Socrates!)


I want to go a bit further with this.

We could have a Whiggish view of music history -- that Machaut was writing like Josquin and Josquin was writing like Beethoven, it's just that Beethoven was better at it than Josquin and Josquin was better at it than Machaut. But basically they're all the same style, at different stages of development.

All music is essentially the same, it's just that some is better than others.

(This is a bit like a racist view that all people are the same, it's just that some are better, more developed. I'm beginning to understand something . . . )


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Crushed like a can by a steamroller...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ArsMusica said:


> There are stylistic factors which differentiate medieval music from Renaissance music.


Well . . . . . . .. . .. .


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Well . . . . . . .. . .. .


I am too busy composing right now...writing a Mass, in fact...working on the Kyrie. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> That's cheating!
> *
> Even if the boundaries are porous there can still be clear examples.* I suggest that we know for sure that Lluis da Mila is a renaissance composer, his music exudes Renaissance.
> 
> ...


For sure, I agree with the bolded bit.

The most important thing is the music of course, and the clips that you and others have posted are really pretty amazing, whatever era anyone wants to allocate them to.


----------



## josquindesprez (Aug 20, 2017)

Well now I'm full of questions.



Mandryka said:


> Many people would say that Dufay is one of the first reneaissance composers, but what I want to do is probe that a bit. What is it about Dufay's music (as opposed to his birth and death dates) which makes it somehow embody renaissance ideals more than medieval ones? That's the question I want to pose.


Are you referring more to how do the general ideals of the Renaissance or the Medieval periods align with what is going on musically in their works, or is it more how the ideals of what we call "Renaissance music" or "Medieval music" align with their works? The first question is very interesting to me, the second one a bit less so (though still interesting, I just have next to no training in music theory).



Mandryka said:


> Of course he can be played like that if you want -- you could play Machaut like that if you want! Don't forget that even as late as Josquin we're talking about scores where there's a lot of uncertainty about things as basic as how to manage dissonances, how to place the text, how many singers to use and with what types of methods of forming and blending the sounds . . . What you hear is always the result of someone's performing edition, which may be based on all sorts of presumptions about the correct style for Dufay, Josquin etc.


I'd concede all of this without question. You posted some Peter Phillips a few posts below, and he's famous for smoothing out dissonances and making things sound pretty, even if it's not what is seen in the generally accepted score. I would imagine that during the Medieval or Renaissance periods, there would be a bit of variation if pieces were performed in the same region, but if you were to take a score of a Franco-Burgundian composer and bring it to Venice, you'd hear something much more distinct.

As I mentioned above, I don't have training in music theory outside of what I've read about on my own. Medieval liturgical music is characterized by monophony that grows into isorhythm, and Renaissance liturgical music builds from isorhythm into more developed polyphony, eventually into very complex polyphony, and then a relatively simpler style following the Council of Trent. Both periods used primarily vocal liturgical music, though there is some evidence of some Renaissance liturgical music also using instruments. That's about the extent of what I can give you. If you want to know why I consider something more a Renaissance piece, it's because it corresponds more closely with what I have heard that I've also seen characterized as Renaissance music. Nothing much more complex than that.

But the bigger question I have, since I come from a literary background instead of a musical one (so this isn't meant to shut down conversation), is discursive: why does this distinction matter? It seems like you are getting at an interesting point with respect to performance, and it's one worth having, especially as someone else mentioned that it might be worth looking at how different time periods (or maybe even national traditions) focus on certain aspects of performance which can skew what we see as characteristic of a certain period. I don't need to listen to a piece as the composer imagined it (and as you pointed out, with early music we often can only take a guess as to how to piece together a score), so HIP doesn't strike me as a necessity. To go further down the literary theory road (this is Walter Benjamin), a translation of a written work is a revitalization of that work. It follows the original text, of course, but it's going to do something new that is configured by the time and place when and where it is translated. Performing music is inevitably the same. So the question is, why does the discursive label of "Renaissance music" or "Medieval music" fundamentally matter?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Tomorrow . . . busy tonight . . . thanks for the reply . . .


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

I read a couple of articles telling that Dufay's use of dominant cadence distinguished Renaissance music from Medieval music. Early Dufay was using double leading-tone cadence, but in Nuper Rosarum Flores (1436), he used D triad leading to the final Gm, the first use of dominant cadence. Since then, the popularity of double leading-tone cadence declined. Medieval music, especially its cadence, sounds very strange to me (I like it), and I guess the dominant cadence and more frequent use of 3rd make Renaissance music more familiar to my ears.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

This is a particularly imaginative Nuper Rosarum Flores, which I think finds a medieval character in the music, but I'm not sure I can explain why!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

josquindesprez said:


> Are you referring more to how do the general ideals of the Renaissance or the Medieval periods align with what is going on musically in their works, or is it more how the ideals of what we call "Renaissance music" or "Medieval music" align with their works? The first question is very interesting to me, the second one a bit less so (though still interesting, I just have next to no training in music theory).


The first is the one I was thinking of.



josquindesprez said:


> I would imagine that during the Medieval or Renaissance periods, there would be a bit of variation if pieces were performed in the same region, but if you were to take a score of a Franco-Burgundian composer and bring it to Venice, you'd hear something much more distinct.


I don't know.



josquindesprez said:


> As I mentioned above, I don't have training in music theory outside of what I've read about on my own. Medieval liturgical music is characterized by monophony that grows into isorhythm, and Renaissance liturgical music builds from isorhythm into *more developed* polyphony, *eventually into very complex* polyphony,


Be careful with the bit in bold, it may come from a reading of early music which sets out to simplify it. People used to think that some of Machaut's polyphonic motets _looked _ so complicated they were unsingable, no audience could possibly follow what was going on, and so harmonically outrageous that only an incompetent naive could have written them. They couldn't possibly be as complicated as they appeared. This is why musical lines were given to instruments rather than voices, and things were fixed to maximise harmonies that sounded consonant (by 18th century standards) This is a sort of _baroquification _of early music.

This is why I suggested that the whiggish view of music history is a bit like racist colonialism. The natives need to be tamed, they're primitive and child like, white European society is superior. The music needs to be tamed, it's ugly and naive and complicated, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are superior.



josquindesprez said:


> But the bigger question I have, since I come from a literary background instead of a musical one (so this isn't meant to shut down conversation), is discursive: why does this distinction matter? It seems like you are getting at an interesting point with respect to performance, and it's one worth having, especially as someone else mentioned that it might be worth looking at how different time periods (or maybe even national traditions) focus on certain aspects of performance which can skew what we see as characteristic of a certain period. I don't need to listen to a piece as the composer imagined it (and as you pointed out, with early music we often can only take a guess as to how to piece together a score), so HIP doesn't strike me as a necessity. To go further down the literary theory road (this is Walter Benjamin), a translation of a written work is a revitalization of that work. It follows the original text, of course, but it's going to do something new that is configured by the time and place when and where it is translated. Performing music is inevitably the same. So the question is, why does the discursive label of "Renaissance music" or "Medieval music" fundamentally matter?


Let me take a literary example. When the restored Globe theatre opened, the investigation of authentic ways of playing Shakespeare inspired Mark Rylance to try some astonishingly inventive experimentation -- experimentation with gender bending, for example. The performance possibilities were broadened and deepened.

I'm hoping the same will happen for early music, that a better understanding of how the composer conceived the music, rather than imposing modern values on it, will inspire some imaginative and exciting experimentation in performance. Indeed it has, for example with Christopher Page's work, Paul Hillier's, Rebecca Stewart's, Bjorn Schmelzer's, Marcel Pres's and indeed Paul van Nevel's.


----------



## steph01 (Dec 21, 2016)

I always thought John Dunstaple is the composer most often associated with the transition from Medieval to Renaissance.


----------



## josquindesprez (Aug 20, 2017)

So thinking about what's going on in the Medieval and Renaissance periods, at least in other forms of art, there is of course a complexity to Medieval literature, but it does grow more polyvocalic as the Renaissance develops. Dante shows some playing with voices and layerings of those voices, Chaucer (influenced in part by Boccaccio) develops things further, but with Rabelais, Cervantes, Gracián, and others you see a layering of unique voices that doesn't seem to be reflected in Medieval texts. At the same time, European art seems to show a trajectory that reverses from that. Medieval paintings play with perspective in interesting ways that seem to show multiple perspectives at once (there's an anonymous painting of the Garden of Eden where different objects appear as if the viewer stands at different positions around the image, and Cranach's Garden of Eden is a good example of continuous narrative, where different times are seen in the same frame. Renaissance paintings move toward a consistent perspective so there is no longer a layering of perspectives of viewership (though there are often more layers in depth). Not sure if that gets at what you were thinking at all.



Mandryka said:


> People used to think that some of Machaut's polyphonic motets _looked _ so complicated they were unsingable, no audience could possibly follow what was going on, and so harmonically outrageous that only an incompetent naive could have written them. They couldn't possibly be as complicated as they appeared. This is why musical lines were given to instruments rather than voices, and things were fixed to maximise harmonies that sounded consonant (by 18th century standards) This is a sort of _baroquification _of early music.


Hopefully this approach can be reproduced at some point. That would be worth hearing.



Mandryka said:


> This is why I suggested that the whiggish view of music history is a bit like racist colonialism. The natives need to be tamed, they're primitive and child like, white European society is superior. The music needs to be tamed, it's ugly and naive and complicated, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are superior.


I'd have to read more about some of this to go down that road. I've played some Renaissance and Baroque music to students before and they find Josquin too complicated for their tastes, and Biber's Battalia is way too much, due to the polytonality. It would seem that a lot of both Renaissance and Baroque music is too complex for people with no background, and I recall seeing similar comments on here with the Grosse Fuge or other late string pieces by Beethoven, for example.



Mandryka said:


> Let me take a literary example. When the restored Globe theatre opened, the investigation of authentic ways of playing Shakespeare inspired Mark Rylance to try some astonishingly inventive experimentation -- experimentation with gender bending, for example. The performance possibilities were broadened and deepened.
> 
> I'm hoping the same will happen for early music, that a better understanding of how the composer conceived the music, rather than imposing modern values on it, will inspire some imaginative and exciting experimentation in performance.


Agreed.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

People often say that classical music is “too complicated” I remember someone saying that here about the Mozart/Haydn quartets!


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

I don't know when the Renaissance Historically started, because is INDIFFERENT. A simple date / year has NO impact to the civilization. Important is when this period is starting to produce culture. And this is AFTER the fall of Constantinople at 1453. Take a look at EVERY serious / well known name of an artist, politician, philosophe, architect etc. and you will immediately understand what I mean.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Dimace said:


> And this is AFTER the fall of Constantinople at 1453.


What is it you see in Dufay's style which makes him pre-renaissance, which isn't present in Josquin's.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

For those with a good ear, does this Josquin mass sound medieval or renaissance style?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Are both Machaut and Dufay transitional composers? If so then to find more definitive style differences one should listen to earlier and later composers


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> For those with a good ear, does this Josquin mass sound medieval or renaissance style?


Renaissance because of his genius for polyphony. Amazingly clear textures in sound. Elegant and beautiful. More modern sounding than music from the medieval period.

To me, this would be more typical of the medieval style:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

This is a bit of polyphonic C14 music


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> What is it you see in Dufay's style which makes him pre-renaissance, which isn't present in Josquin's.


In the motet and mass, Dufay used a freely composed melodic treble voice, supported by a tenor and contratenor in a three-voice texture. The treble might be newly composed, but often it was an embellishment version of chant. The chant melody was always recognizable. Similar rules applied to Dufay's hymns. The treble contained the chant melody and in the fauxbourdon tradition, the two outer voices were written down while the middle voice improvised to fill out the harmony. This was not a practice of Josquin.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It would seem that this would be an identification of trends.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> In the motet and mass, Dufay used a freely composed melodic treble voice, supported by a tenor and contratenor in a three-voice texture. The treble might be newly composed, but often it was an embellishment version of chant. The chant melody was always recognizable. Similar rules applied to Dufay's hymns. The treble contained the chant melody and in the fauxbourdon tradition, the two outer voices were written down while the middle voice improvised to fill out the harmony. This was not a practice of Josquin.


Let me try to move this on a bit. I think the concept of "renaissance" has certain connotations, to do with serenity, harmony, man at peace with the laws of nature. That conception of renaissance man has brought with it a certain conception of renaissance music in performance: we have serene and harmonious performances. Gothic and medieval are, by contrast, restless, disharmonious and alien.

So my concern is not directly to do with the form of Josquin and Dufay's music, it has to do with the content, the meaning, of their poetry. Is there anything in Dufay and Josquin's legacy which makes their art encapsulate a view of the world which is harmonious, peaceful? Or is that a myth, a travesty of their essential _non-modernity_.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Let me try to move this on a bit. I think the concept of "renaissance" has certain connotations, to do with serenity, harmony, man at peace with the laws of nature. That conception of renaissance man has brought with it a certain conception of renaissance music in performance: we have serene and harmonious performances. Gothic and medieval are, by contrast, restless, disharmonious and alien.
> 
> So my concern is not directly to do with the form of Josquin and Dufay's music, it has to do with the content, the meaning, of their poetry. Is there anything in Dufay and Josquin's legacy which makes their art encapsulate a view of the world which is harmonious, peaceful? Or is that a myth, a travesty of their essential _non-modernity_.


The topic is huge, but addressing just your general point above:

The beginning of the Renaissance is when the triadic sound, the basic vocabulary of modern chords that would dominate music for centuries, into the Baroque and Classical, became normal. By contrast, in the Medieval era open consonances were standard at strong points but all kinds of crazy, rough dissonance could happen in between. Rhythm in medieval music could also sound strange and rough to modern ears, early on because they used rhythmic modes to organize it, later on (Ars Subtilior) because they were experimenting with the most complex system of rhythmic notation employed up until the 20thc.

So, the characteristics of the music support your characterization in a general way: harmony, balance, homogeneity and serenity in the Renaissance music, which makes it sound modern enough to feel familiar, versus roughness, contrast, heterogeneity, and an alien quality in Medieval music. Whether or how this is connected to differing world views is a much thornier issue. I'd be worried that medieval roughness might be due in part to the state of notation and theory, rather than being the result of free aesthetic choice, but perhaps that's just my modern prejudice speaking.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I'd be worried that medieval roughness might be due in part to the state of notation and theory, rather than being the result of free aesthetic choice . . .


LOL. Spoken like a musicologist!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Let's take a real example. 

If you look at a mass in Chigi, say the Ockegham L'homme arme, the placement of the text isn't something you can read off the page. Indeed some of the mass text seems not to fit the music at all. How you make sense of that has all sorts of consequences for the way the voices interact, and the resulting rhythms and harmonies. 

Some, indeed most, performers sing the music so as to maximise consonance, and to make the whole cohere and blend in a sweet way. And that's based on an ideological presupposition about what sort of sound reflects renaissance ideals as much as anything else. The music in their hands sounds safely predictable because those ideals are really very similar to late Baroque and even classical ideals. 


What I'm trying to do is expose that for the presupposition that it is. And scrutinise it. 

I want to suggest that what's going on is nothing short of an appropriation, an occupation, a colonisation, of the (early) renaissance by the modern. 

My line of thought really comes out of trying to make sense of what Bjorn Schmelzer and Rebecca Stewart and their pupils do with the music, and the ensemble The Sound and the Fury.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> ...Some, indeed most, performers sing the music so as to maximise consonance, and to make the whole cohere and blend in a sweet way. And that's based on an ideological presupposition about what sort of sound reflects renaissance ideals as much as anything else. The music in their hands sounds safely predictable because those ideals are really very similar to late Baroque and even classical ideals....What I'm trying to do is expose that for the presupposition that it is. And scrutinise it....I want to suggest that what's going on is nothing short of an appropriation, an occupation, a colonisation, of the (early) renaissance by the modern.


Oh, so this academic style of thinking about harmony works in both directions? It sounds like an ideology trying to rewrite history in its own terms. Remain pure, Mandryka, and seek the truth.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Let's take a real example.
> 
> If you look at a mass in Chigi, say the Ockegham L'homme arme, the placement of the text isn't something you can read off the page. Indeed some of the mass text seems not to fit the music at all. How you make sense of that has all sorts of consequences for the way the voices interact, and the resulting rhythms and harmonies.
> 
> ...


Could you explain this a bit? What are the performers doing in either case? Are you saying the text placement affects the level of consonance and dissonance? If so, how? What do the ensembles you cite do that makes it different? (I just get literary references when I google sound and fury.)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Could you explain this a bit? What are the performers doing in either case? Are you saying the text placement affects the level of consonance and dissonance? If so, how? What do the ensembles you cite do that makes it different? (I just get literary references when I google sound and fury.)


It's not quite that the text placement effects the harmonies (though it might), it's also that if the singers may be creative about how their parts align with each other, creating different harmonies and textures, especially if the timbre of each singer's voice is distinct, characterful.

Just thinking of Ockeghem for the moment, one recording I found quite inspiring is this from Ensemble Nusmido, they'd worked with Rebecca Stewart on modal singing.









Sound and Fury have recorded a couple of Ockeghem CDs, this is maybe most easily available









I'd be very interested to get your reactions to what these ensembles are doing.

Schmelzer's ensemble is called Graindelavoix, his Ockeghem CD is extraordinary, and it's well worth reading the essays he writes for the booklets. I've just booked a ticket to hear him give a Busnois concert in Antwerp in August.









In Europe the singing approach of groups like these is very much at the avant garde, it's a lively area, there's a lot of things happening in Holland and Belgium especially, maybe active elsewhere too for all I know.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Is this what you're talking about?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Is this what you're talking about?


(Glad you're getting involved!)

That's the composer and one of the masses, but that thing's got a score in modern notation, someone has made that from a manuscript which looks nothing like it! For example, the manuscript doesn't put the words under the music all the time. There may be huge sections of it which seem to be textless. Rhythms and pitches and accidentals may not be shown etc etc. And that's where the problems begin, because in making that performing edition he has (I'm suggesting) made all sorts of judgements about the nature of Ockeghem's music.

It's a wonderful thing, Early Music, like those people at the end of The Republic, we can just make out some shadows on the wall of our cave!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> (Glad you're getting involved!)
> 
> That's the composer and one of the masses, but that thing's got a score in modern notation, someone has made that from a manuscript which looks nothing like it! For example, the manuscript doesn't put the words under the music all the time. There may be huge sections of it which seem to be textless. Rhythms and pitches and accidentals may not be shown etc etc. And that's where the problems begin, because in making that performing edition he has (I'm suggesting) made all sorts of judgements about the nature of Ockeghem's music.
> 
> It's a wonderful thing, Early Music, like those people at the end of The Republic, we can just make out some shadows on the wall of our cave!


I wondering about that, after the flexibility you spoke of, and I was surprised to see the modern notation. I understand that in the Medieval era, notation was still not completely developed. Would that affect rhythm and synchronization more than pitch? If so, the result would be primarily harmonic...if not, that's an even bigger change, if accidentals are used or dropped. Are there "alternate versions" which can be compared, which are substantially different? I guess you'd know. In any case, this opens up a whole new area of exploration.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

For example, have a look at

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Chig.C.VIII.234

folio 35v and following.

You'll see the superius is texted completely, the altus and bassus partially, and the tenor only with incipits.

I'd need to check to see the different versions of this mass, but this is very common in manuscripts of this period.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Is all renaissance music choral? That's the idea I'm getting from this thread, I have no exposure to it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> (Glad you're getting involved!)
> 
> That's the composer and one of the masses, but that thing's got a score in modern notation, someone has made that from a manuscript which looks nothing like it! For example, the manuscript doesn't put the words under the music all the time. There may be huge sections of it which seem to be textless. Rhythms and pitches and accidentals may not be shown etc etc. And that's where the problems begin, because in making that performing edition he has (I'm suggesting) made all sorts of judgements about the nature of Ockeghem's music.
> 
> It's a wonderful thing, Early Music, like those people at the end of The Republic, we can just make out some shadows on the wall of our cave!


I'm responding to bits of a couple posts:

Ockeghem notated his music using white mensural notation which, as you've noticed, looks very little like modern notation. But you needn't worry about people taking liberties with the rhythms. This system is perfectly understood by musicologists and early music specialists and there is no ambiguity. (I learned how to transcribe this stuff into modern notation but would need weeks of brushing up to be able to do it again.)

There is some ambiguity about pitch in certain situations because musicians and composers of the period used _musica ficta_, which refers to notes expected to be sharped or flatted by the performers even though the accidentals are not written in by the composer. (What could go wrong? ) Anyway, ficta occurs mostly at candences, where leading tones must be sharped. At other times sharps or flats must be added to avoid tritones. Ficta is well-understood too, and there is a pretty good consensus about when and where it should be applied. But it is still common to hear different groups occasionally making different decisions about what to sharp and flat.

So, bottom line, the modern score you have of an Ockeghem Mass is likely to correspond almost exactly to what Ockeghem intended, with the only likely deviations being an accidental here and there.

I wouldn't be much help with text setting issues - it would just be guesswork.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Is all renaissance music choral? That's the idea I'm getting from this thread, I have no exposure to it.


No, there was instrumental music too. A lot of early music written for lute and keyboard instruments was written using tablature notation. Instruments often played some parts of vocal works, especially secular songs. But vocal music did predominate.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Some people think that instrumental polyphony goes way back before renaissance times. Here's a comment from an essay by the instrumental ensemble La Morra, from their CD _Flour de Beaulté. _



> However, the possibility of exclusively instrumental performance (our choice for the remaining pieces on this recording) seems to have received far too little attention from scholars and musicians - despite the fact that (1) the presence of musical instruments at many Western European courtly establishments is confirmed by lit- erary, iconographical and archival evidence, (2) the instruments are seen in the hands of various sorts of musicians, ranging from amateurs to the professional minstrels whose skills included composing high-level art music, and (3) in many instances a strong aesthetic argument makes it a plausible alternative to vocal per- formance, despite the absence of the poetical text. It is also useful to bear in mind that the unity of poetry and music, so strong in the early days of the medieval song, began to weaken during the late Middle Ages, and that at the same time the creation of professional instru- mental groups all over Europe was paving the way for the instrumental ensemble idiom in European art music. Consideration of all these arguments suggests that the history of the instrumental performance of polyphonic vocal music may actually be longer than is traditionally assumed. Many of the Torino J.II.9 songs in fact make a particularly successful repertoire for instrumental performance. Significantly, of all the repertoire contained in this manuscript, it is in the songs that one encounters numerous instances of melodic decoration imposed on the superius part. Admittedly, the presence of virtuoso runs does not exclude vocal performance. These pieces, however, tend to achieve particular excellence when played by skillful instrumentalists. When performing Torino J.II.9 songs with instruments, we did not hesitate to exploit the possibility which emerged once the music was detached from the poetical text, namely the modification of the piece's original form.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> No, there was instrumental music too. A lot of early music written for lute and keyboard instruments was written using tablature notation. Instruments often played some parts of vocal works, especially secular songs. But vocal music did predominate.


Thanks for the information!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Some people think that instrumental polyphony goes way back before renaissance times. Here's a comment from an essay by the instrumental ensemble La Morra, from their CD _Flour de Beaulté. _


Early music performance practice isn't an area in which I have any expertise, but just as someone who reads "liner notes:" Doesn't every group wanting to play early music rep make historical arguments like that? And cite art of the period in support? Gothic Voices argues that all vocal performance of chanson is historically accurate, small vocal ensembles argue for one or two on a part, etc.? I'm sure instrumentalists in the Medieval-Renaissance periods looking for stuff to play, as we all do, would have jumped at the chance to play vocal polyphony by great composers. I get the sense that the choice of performing forces back then wasn't a rigid thing. One used what one had. If three singers gathered they'd likely perform Machaut chansons without instruments, if it was one singer, a lutenist and a shawm player, they'd do it that way. Sounds like La Morra made a good case for their choices, but the only case one needs in my book is whether or not it works.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The first thing I notice when listening to vocal music like this is the perfect intonation, the fifths especially. I wonder if major thirds are flattened to sound more consonant? In ET, they are presently 14 cents sharp. The next intervals I would question are the minor third and the flatted seventh. Minor thirds would sound flatter and minor sevenths would sound sharper, with less need to resolve, which would be perfect for a mode which has flat-sevens all the time, like mixolydian.

This intonation question might also affect the choice and effect of instrumental adaptions, which are less flexible than vocals, especially fretted instruments and keyboards.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> the only case one needs in my book is whether or not it works.


Of course in a way, only a fool would argue with this. Most HIP ensembles are interested in the history because they think it will inspire them with new creative ideas, it will give them ideas for new creative experiments in performance. That's what HIP is.



EdwardBast said:


> Gothic Voices argues that all vocal performance of chanson is historically accurate, small vocal ensembles argue for one or two on a part, etc.?.


No, I don't think that does justice to Christopher Page's work. What he did was find some evidence that in one bit of present day france at one time people sang polyphonic music a cappella, probably OVPP (I'd have to check the OVPP bit!) That gave him the inspiration to try it out, a really long period of experimentation (eg using different vowels and consonants for vocalisations etc.) But he never claimed that everyone sang Landini like Gothic Voices in Landini's time!

And note also that Gothic Voices were never exclusively a cappella, least of all now. Lute accompaniment was always there in some of the songs they performed.

Orlando Consort are more extreme and rigid, I don't know whether their experiment is a success (in Machaut for example, especially in the long monophonic songs, I have my doubts.)



EdwardBast said:


> Doesn't every group wanting to play early music rep make historical arguments like that? And cite art of the period in support?


No. Not in vocal music anyway. Clemencic, Peres, Schmelzer, Paul van Nevel, Pedro Memelsdorff, Paul Hillier -- as far as I know they never argued like that. Not in instrumental music either -- I don't believe that Guillermo Pérez (Tasto Solo) thinks like that, or the people from Ensemble Super Librum (a group I'm particularly interested in) or Catalina Vicens's group Servir Antico.

The iconographic evidence is notoriously hard to understand -- there are always questions about whether the instruments are really with the singers or apart from them, or whether they're with dancers. And you can never tell what sort of music they were accompanying anyway (a polyphonic motet? A song like Kalenda Maia?) The literary evidence may be better.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

That seems weird that the lute, a fretted instrument, would be the main accompaniment for voices, because of its fixed tuning. But keyboards are the same, fixed. Keyboards are more flexible, though, in that they could be adjusted to play in one key perfectly.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The first thing I notice when listening to vocal music like this is the perfect intonation, the fifths especially. I wonder if major thirds are flattened to sound more consonant? In ET, they are presently 14 cents sharp. The next intervals I would question are the minor third and the flatted seventh. Minor thirds would sound flatter and minor sevenths would sound sharper, with less need to resolve, which would be perfect for a mode which has flat-sevens all the time, like mixolydian.
> 
> This intonation question might also affect the choice and effect of instrumental adaptions, which are less flexible than vocals, especially fretted instruments and keyboards.


This is a big area, and in my opinion right at the heart of the matter, because the perfect intonation may be an essential part of the modernisation of the ancient, which is what I'm deploring. It makes it sound more familiar, more baroque.

Rogers Covey Crump has written a series of essays on this for the three CDs he made with other members of the Hilliard Ensemble called _Conductus_. He believes in meantone singing, and he argues that it's the natural way of singing medieval music -- the argument is based on his experience as a performer.

There are also people exploring modal singing, Rene Zosso has released a CD of a summer school he gave on this (I have it but I just find it very boring and technical) , and of course this is a big part of Rebecca Stewart's work.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> That seems weird that the lute, a fretted instrument, would be the main accompaniment for voices, because of its fixed tuning. But keyboards are the same, fixed. Keyboards are more flexible, though, in that they could be adjusted to play in one key perfectly.


I don't know what Christopher Page thinks about intonation, I'll try and find out.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> No, I don't think that does justice to Christopher Page's work. What he did was find some evidence that in one bit of present day france at one time people sang polyphonic music a cappella, probably OVPP (I'd have to check the OVPP bit!) That gave him the inspiration to try it out, a really long period of experimentation (eg using different vowels and consonants for vocalisations etc.) But he never claimed that everyone sang Landini like Gothic Voices in Landini's time!


By historically accurate I mean only that it was one way in which the music was performed. Probably should have said "valid" instead of accurate. Of course not everyone performed Landini that way. I thought it worked better for the Dufay they recorded than for Landini and Caserta.

Anyway, I'm glad there are people like you on the forum with interest and expertise in this music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Renaissance because of his genius for polyphony. Amazingly clear textures in sound. Elegant and beautiful. More modern sounding than music from the medieval period.
> 
> To me, this would be more typical of the medieval style:


Based on this, I don't think I much care for medieval music. It reminds me of old Nintendo music, which I'm sure was inspired by this, but that association makes me think less of it I think.

We can't help these associations we have with composers and how they effect how we think about their music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's a slightly medieval sounding rendition of a bit of Ockeghem


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> (This thread was prompted because I was listening to some Josquin sung by the old group Pro Cantione Antiqua which really did sing it as though it was music by a proto Brahms or Schubert. And I started to ask myself what, exactly, do we now know which shows that that way of singing it is a misunderstanding.)


I know it's a while ago now; can you tell me what recording that was? I want to hear Josquin as proto-Brahms...


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

flamencosketches said:


> I know it's a while ago now; can you tell me what recording that was? I want to hear Josquin as proto-Brahms...


Ugh! Definitely not me! Let's stop Brahms' time machine at his imitations of Schutz.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> I know it's a while ago now; can you tell me what recording that was? I want to hear Josquin as proto-Brahms...


Well I didn't say that, what I said was that they sing it as though it is proto Brahms or Schubert, what I meant was the sonority of their voices, their vocality, their way of making noises come out of their mouth, comes from that 19th century art tradition






(I've not checked they clip.)


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

philoctetes said:


> Guillaume de Machaut ca. 1300-1377 I consider this renaissance music... with nothing to back me up, and admittedly it's pretty early... so would the 14c be the transition?
> 
> As for performing methods, perhaps there is a timeline somewhat different than for composition... lagging behind the composers, and maybe this is what Mandryka is thinking about...
> 
> Camerata Nova has some recordings that sound "earlier" in performance style, their Lassus and Palestrina are keepers in my collection.


Machaut (1300-1377) is late medieval, in the ars nova style and Ciconia (1370-1412) is ars subtilior, also late medieval. Dunstaple (1390-1453) is a composer whom I have read is both medieval and early renaissance. Listen to the end of phrases/pieces and you can hear that major/minor chords emerge during the renaissance timeline and reach "our" tonality. I'm trying to explain that tonal cadences become more common as time goes by, opposed to modal harmony. Guillaume Dufay (1397-1474) is maybe the first renaissance composer (until I read myself up...)


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Maybe it would be easier to hear the difference with 13th century and 15th century composers? F.ex. Perotin and Josquin then narrow the gap to 14th/15th century with Machaut and Ockeghem...
PS. oops, I see this thread has many posts I didn't read


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Well I didn't say that, what I said was that they sing it as though it is proto Brahms or Schubert, what I meant was the sonority of their voices, their vocality, their way of making noises come out of their mouth, comes from that 19th century art tradition
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, yes I know what you meant. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Eriks (Oct 10, 2021)

Is there really a clear difference? In the case of music the classifications medieval - renaissance seems like a Procrustes-bed. I can imagine two natural divisions:
1) From chant to, say, Palestrina. There is then an attempt at rebirth in italy resulting in music with very expressive solo singing. This expressivity is then injected back into polyphonic singing. So the attempt at rebirth occurs at about 1600. 

2) From chant to, say, Perotin. Something new appears with Machaut and is developed until, say, Palestrina. Then as 1) above. 

At least, if one takes the rebirth aspect of Renaissance seriously, is it not hard to fit musical development into the scheme?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Eriks said:


> Is there really a clear difference? In the case of music the classifications medieval - renaissance seems like a Procrustes-bed. I can imagine two natural divisions:
> 1) From chant to, say, Palestrina. There is then an attempt at rebirth in italy resulting in music with very expressive solo singing. This expressivity is then injected back into polyphonic singing. So the attempt at rebirth occurs at about 1600.


Do you not think that Ciconia and Zacara da Teramo, for example, wrote some expressive polyphonic motets?



> 2) From chant to, say, Perotin. Something new appears with Machaut and is developed until, say, Palestrina. Then as 1) above.
> 
> At least, if one takes the rebirth aspect of Renaissance seriously, is it not hard to fit musical development into the scheme?


I think this may be right, but I'm not sure, what do you think the Ars Nova contribution was - what do you find in Machaut for example that you don't find in Gautier de Coincy?

I'm not a great admirer of Palestrina's music, so I don't know it so well, but what I've heard doesn't suggest to me that he was at the end of a process. But as I say, I could only have a very superficial grasp of his legacy.


----------



## Eriks (Oct 10, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> I'm not a great admirer of Palestrina's music, so I don't know it so well, but what I've heard doesn't suggest to me that he was at the end of a process. But as I say, I could only have a very superficial grasp of his legacy.


I do not have deep knowledge about this topic, but I find it very interesting. If we use the names Machaut and Palestrina as containers that also contains contributions from others (they are like the tip of a iceberg) it may be easier to have a discussion about the broad trends.

Regarding the early expressive motets - did it really create a wide spread trend? As it was before printing maybe it could not be widely disseminated ? (I do not know)

By the way, the earlier discussion in the thread is very interesting , and a distinction of music into categories of medieval and Renaissance has meaning, but I am doubtful of the link to the Renaissance at large.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Medieval music is rather centered about the pilgrimages and gregorian chants and other oriental tonalities brought into Europe by spanish muslims and byzantine people. Renaissance is a more western construct in philosophical and aesthetical terms.


----------



## Eriks (Oct 10, 2021)

For differences between stylistic periods to be reasonably clear, the difference should preferably be a difference in kind rather than a difference in degree. If it's hard to draw the line, maybe there is no line? To me that argument point to the following periods:
Gregorian chant <-> ars antiqua
Ars Nova <-> peak of Renaissance music
Monteverdi <-> Bach
Classical period
Romantic period…

With that periodization, maybe the Baroque in music corresponds best with what is called the renaissance in other arts? Of course the term renaissance still has chronological meaning in music.

As composers before the romantic period was more like craftsmen (that is situated in a context without aiming to break norms) and music is a more abstract art, perhaps it makes sense that dramatic change took longer in music rather than in e.g. painting and sculpture?

Just to illustrate how different classifications can be between regions, in Sweden it is common to classify the medieval period as between years 1000-1527. Perhaps a coincidence, but more likely because Sweden is a bit offside and new trends are introduced later than in more central locations.


----------



## Eriks (Oct 10, 2021)

Ariasexta said:


> Medieval music is rather centered about the pilgrimages and gregorian chants and other oriental tonalities brought into Europe by spanish muslims and byzantine people. Renaissance is a more western construct in philosophical and aesthetical terms.


Isn't the renaissance essentially about going back to the classical sources, and trying hard to be able to reach their level (and in the process, instead something new was created). 
Like they were trying to do when creating opera, in the early baroque.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eriks said:


> For differences between stylistic periods to be reasonably clear, the difference should preferably be a difference in kind rather than a difference in degree. If it's hard to draw the line, maybe there is no line? To me that argument point to the following periods:
> Gregorian chant <-> ars antiqua
> *Ars Nova <-> peak of Renaissance music*
> Monteverdi <-> Bach
> ...


No musicologist or theorist I've ever read or met endorses this lumping together of late medieval and Renaissance music. The stylistic, notational, and theoretical differences are enormous.


----------



## Eriks (Oct 10, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> No musicologist or theorist I've ever read or met endorses this lumping together of late medieval and Renaissance music. The stylistic, notational, and theoretical differences are enormous.


Yes, and they are probably right. The more one knows the more distinctions one can make. But from my own listening I can sense a continuum from Machaut to Dufay to Josquin to Palestrina. Whereas I sense a break between Palestrina/Lassus and Monteverdi; and between Bach and , say, Haydn.

I think the accepted way to split is between Machaut (medieval) and Dufay (renaissance) but are they really so different? And if they are, what are the differences? To me, if I put it simply, when comparing recordings with music by Machaut and Dufay, Dufay's music sounds a bit smoother. Whereas between ars antiqua and ars nova there is a huge jump in polyphonic complexity, that is as audible as the difference between Bach and Haydn.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Eriks said:


> Isn't the renaissance essentially about going back to the classical sources, and trying hard to be able to reach their level (and in the process, instead something new was created).
> Like they were trying to do when creating opera, in the early baroque.


Not exactly, imitative counterpoints which was one of the main characteristics of Renaissance music was clearly opposed by Plato, the discussion about reviving greek music was only about the chromaticism not tonality, it was the discussion in tracing the greek chromaticism gave birth to the monody in the late 16th century. Tonality in meantone temperatement and imitative counterpounts in Renaissance were the essential development by franco-flemish composers. But musical development was not directly influenced by humanist campaigns started in Italy in the early 15th century according to some scholars. Renaissance music was almost simultaneously and independently emerged with humanist philosophy.

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2015
By
Reinhard Strohm



> If a fifteenth-century musical "rebirth" or even "Renaissance" can be diagnosed outside Italy, it was originally unaided by humanism, let alone Italian humanism. Musical humanists of the period working outside Italy had in common that they applied classical modes of thinking to musical practices around them, rather than advocating new types of music or exploring music theory. Three topics of the humanist engagements with music have left a trail in music history. The first was a so-called "musical rhetoric". Second, humanist influence encouraged musicians to set a greater variety of Latin poetic forms. Finally, northern humanism developed the modern understanding of composed music as a "completed and independent work".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Eriks said:


> Isn't the renaissance essentially about going back to the classical sources, and trying hard to be able to reach their level (and in the process, instead something new was created).
> Like they were trying to do when creating opera, in the early baroque.


Never heard that said of Dufay or Ockeghem - why do you say that?


----------



## Eriks (Oct 10, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> Never heard that said of Dufay or Ockeghem - why do you say that?


I'm sorry, I was very unclear. When referring to the renaissance in the first sentence of the quote I meant renaissance as the term is generally used (regarding e.g. painting, literature etc…). I did not mean the renaissance as generally used in the context of music.


----------



## Eriks (Oct 10, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> what do you think the Ars Nova contribution was - what do you find in Machaut for example that you don't find in Gautier de Coincy?
> .


If instead of using e.g. Machaut I use the name of schools/movements I get the following scheme:

Ars antiqua -> Ars Nova -> Early renaissance.

Typicallly ars nova is classified as medieval. My issue is that when I listen to works from ars antiqua, ars nova, and early renaissance there is (for me) a larger jump when going from ars antiqua to ars nova, compared to when going from ars nova to early renaissance. Therefore it to me seems artificial to make the split between medieval and Renaissance music after ars nova. Instead ars nova could be considered a transition period, or, more controversially, could it be said to be the beginning of the renaissance (in the context of music)?

Note that my listening samples are heavily biased towards polyphonic church music. Does Mandryka (or someone else) know good musical examples to illustrate the different periods? And that moreover illustrate the differences? Note that I ltend to link Ars nova very strongly with Machaut's mass.

The other, different, issue is that early baroque music seems to match better (than what we typically call renaissance music) with how the renaissance (in general) is described. In that case the term renaissance music mainly has chronological meaning, which is fine even though perhaps a little confusing.

How about this suggestion: the renaissance in music starts with the reformation (in Protestant areas) or the counter reformation (in catholic areas) - both of these had a big influence on music. Before that it's a continuum, meaning that Josquin is at the end of the medieval period.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eriks said:


> If instead of using e.g. Machaut I use the name of schools/movements I get the following scheme:
> 
> Ars antiqua -> Ars Nova -> Early renaissance.
> 
> ...


No, Josquin "at the end of medieval period" is not viable by any standard. The way the periods have traditionally been parsed in music history texts makes perfect sense if one understands the criteria and if one pays attention to the musical materials. You haven't gotten deeply enough into the music itself and how it is made.

There are two main reasons mid to late Renaissance music is heard as more closely related to the Baroque than to Machaut and other medieval music. First, the basic rules of counterpoint in force in the Baroque are essentially the same as those established in Renaissance treatises, as are the principles of pedagogy (species counterpoint). Avoiding parallel perfect intervals and treating all non-triadic intervals as dissonances with specific rules for resolution (passing tones, suspensions, appoggiaturas, etc.) is common to both eras. Today's music schools and conservatories still offer courses in 16thc and 18thc counterpoint precisely because the underlying principals of dissonance treatment and voice-leading are the same for both eras. In 16thc counterpoint they are applied to modal music. In Baroque counterpoint they are applied to tonal music. Medieval counterpoint is completely different. Second, in Renassiance theory the triad was accepted as the fundamental unit of harmony and it remained so in the Baroque. In short, one needs to understand the theory behind the different periods to really understand why the divisions are made the way they are.

I'd write more now but I have a little mountain to climb.

Okay, I'm back. The notation systems are also quite different. White mensural notation for the Renaissance, black notation, mannered notation, etc. for Ars Nova. Also, in the Renaissance, equal voiced imitative polyphony is ubiquitous both in vocal (motets, masses) and instrumental music (ricercars, fantasies, etc.). This kind of polyphony continued to be developed in the Baroque. Medieval counterpoint is quite different (heterogeneous and generally non-imitative).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> I'd write more now but I have a little mountain to climb.


You always say this when you write a lot. (I'm just saying it's kinda _cute_). Anyway, have a safe trip to your _little_ mountain.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Naive question but hopefully someone can answer it succinctly (I'm too lazy to look this up and find a credible source):

Who exactly would have heard Machaut's or Josquin's music? Was there an expansion of audience for "art music" which occurred during the transition from the Medieval to Renaissance?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> This is a big area, and in my opinion right at the heart of the matter, because the perfect intonation may be an essential part of the modernisation of the ancient, which is what I'm deploring. It makes it sound more familiar, more baroque.


I'd like to bump this... something I found online:

http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/pyth.html#intro1

Looks interesting. I'm going to read it and get back on the issue of intonation. At a glance, it seems like the author may be inclined to agree with Mandryka here:



> Remaining the standard theoretical approach in the High Gothic era of the 13th century, Pythagorean tuning seems very congenial to the complex polyphony and subtle harmonic continuum of composers such as Perotin, Adam de la Halle, and Petrus de Cruce. It also nicely fits the style of many 14th-century works, such as the famous Mass of Guillaume de Machaut.
> 
> By around 1420 on the Continent, however, musical style had begun to change in ways that invited new tunings. As composers such as Dufay and Binchois emulated John Dunstable, and gave their music an "English countenance" with a more and more pervasive emphasis on thirds and sixths, fashion moved in the direction of intonations that would make these intervals more smoothly blending. By the end of the century, such tunings (e.g. meantone) were becoming the norm in theory as well as practice.


I wonder what evidence there is to support this last claim ...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I'd like to bump this... something I found online:
> 
> http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/pyth.html#intro1
> 
> ...


In Section 5.3 of the site you cited it says:

"By 1482, Bartolome Ramos had documented a solution that remained standard for keyboard instruments of the 16th and 17th centuries: meantone temperament. Other theorists of the Renaissance described alternative solutions, now known as well-temperament and equal temperament. Before defining and exploring these overlapping categories, we should briefly consider the problem they address."

Later sections describe in more detail the adjustment of fifths to produce better thirds. But the evidence seems to be drawn from the notes of keyboard builders and tuners, as indicated in the quote above, and theory treatises.



hammeredklavier said:


> You always say this when you write a lot. (I'm just saying it's kinda _cute_). Anyway, have a safe trip to your _little_ mountain.


My more or less daily exercise, when I'm not hiking something more ambitious, is to ascend the little mountain on whose knees my house stands or one of several nearby.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I just want to mention one thing which occurs to me as a difference, as a listener, and this may appear very naive but it's what I feel. Renaissance music seems to be preoccupied by beautiful sound. I recall the first time I heard a professional ensemble sing a mass, Josquin I think, Paul van Nevel, in an old church in Antwerp, and from the first note, the first syllable of Kyrie, the sound was exquisite, the word is _heavenly_, it was a really formative experience for me, it taught me in some quite profound way that music is sound.

Medieval music isn't quite like that, though I'd be hard put to explain why not - but I know it isn't!


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Medieval music isn't quite like that, though I'd be hard put to explain why not - but I know it isn't!


I think you are generally right in this statement, but some medieval music (particularly from Italian Trecento and Ars Subtilior composers) favours beautiful sound eg. many pieces by Landini. This may be, why I often have a "renaissance feel", when I listen to him.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't worry too much about periodization because labels are only useful to the extent that they are useful, and generally they tell us more about the way we (or whoever uses them) interpret history than about history itself. 

That being said, I like to use c. 1450 as the boundary between the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, so Dufay would be right on the cusp, a good candidate for a transitional figure.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Naive question but hopefully someone can answer it succinctly (I'm too lazy to look this up and find a credible source):
> 
> Who exactly would have heard Machaut's or Josquin's music? Was there an expansion of audience for "art music" which occurred during the transition from the Medieval to Renaissance?


I'm sure I once read that one consequence of the Avignon papacy was that musicians from all parts of France, Northern Spain and Northern Italy travelled to occitanie and then back home again - so music of the music of the period, Barcelona, Machaut masses, motets etc, were sung both in Reims and in Avignon. But obviously you needed a decent group of singers to do it - and I guess only major churches could pull it off. I think the Avignon papacy was a major major cultural melting pot, a really significant force for the arts in Europe.

This music was important because it brought money to the church via sponsorship and concerts, bums on seats. The money was needed to pay for quite a large staff, and some very ambitious building projects. So I guess, any church which had construction plans would try to get the new music sung.

And arguably quite a lot of at least Machaut's stuff was liturgical, and would be used for regular ceremonies - outside, involving the general public. That's one thesis about the function of his motet cycle, again I can dig up a reference for that, a book, if you want to explore it.


----------

