# his there a link to be made between josquin desprez and guillaume dufay?



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

*IS there a link to be drawn between josquin desprez and guillaume dufay?*

They seem to be quite similar, in format, in songs, missa and motets
Sometime i mistaken josquin music for Dufay or vice versa how strange?

They seem to have written these work in the same ink, now i like Dufay better
than Josquin, but i love Josquin music to death..

Does a musicologist or someone knowledge drawn the same observstion between these 
two, one was the succesor of the other, one finnish what the other started...

I would says perhaps Dufay seem more straight foward in approche, while Josquin is more subtil,
if you understand what i mean...

He may seem less complexe than Josquin has global achievement but his isorythmic motets
or out of this worldly.

I wont you verdict on these two are they similar or you orange and apple, are there paralel to be drawn between these two distinguished gentelmens of polyphonie.

:tiphat:


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

in my opinion they are similar, but yet, I'm not that dedicated listener of them as you are. At the same time my perception of similarity is a bit away from mainstream I think, because usually I'm guided by my own perception, therefore I can find parallels in places where from the first sight no parallels are seen like Bruckner has parallels with JS Bach for me and not with Wagner as one would logically expected to derive from those stories about Bruckner's admiration of Wagner.

There are many parallels between baroque composers and minimalism music I would say.

so, all in all it's up to everyone to draw parallels between anything one wants....it has so much to do with a perception....therefore one can't say this is right and this is wrong. There is objectivity in all that....sometimes, styles, techniques, etc, but how we perceive it's entirely up to us and that's exactly what goes beyond technical means of a composition.
Usually people answer a questions " how" - styles, techniques, instruments, etc- and forget about " what". and "what" is more important but can be answered only by each one particular person , by listener and here hardly ever could be any objectivity ( well, only objectivity for this particular listener, but not for others). An answer to a question "what" is always subjective, "what " they tried to convey, "what" is transmitted by this particular work. The question "how" is much easier to answer, because it's on the surface , it's about tools with which artist creates, and "what" sometimes is hidden even from an artist himself as he who creates , but a work of art continues living its own life and it's in this work of art there are so many meanings, sometimes even time, passing through various epochs give a new meaning to a work or simply reveals a new meaning of the work as a work of art already contains everything and it's for us to discover "what".

well, all above written is how I understand your questions about parallels and finding parallels. You are giving and finding this meaning when you listen to them and comparing both of them and other composers as well....
you discover something more in them than just technical components or stylistic differences.


----------



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

Helenora very good answer and global observation


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

sometimes I find that we allow ourselves to be guided by authorities in a sense of "musicologists", guys or girls who know more ( well, at least what we think about them ), but in reality they just convey their own subjective opinion on us making it sound persuasive , backing it with facts , references, etc and yes, they know more facts than an average listener / arts admirer and perhaps they can convince us by the way they express it and overwhelming numbers of facts and details provided.

But is it what we should be looking for? their opinions to make them ours ( opinions), simply accepting them if we like them or rejecting if by chance we disagree with what they say? 

No, what we are looking for is finding our own meaning in each work of art , find out by ourselves what it speaks to us. That's the only important thing for me and at the same time the most creative on the way of appreciation of art and learning about it, and it's only then when we really learn and discover, perhaps it takes more time than simple memorization of what was already said by someone and integrating into our own system of beliefs and understanding about art, but then what we discover by ourselves becomes our truth not imposed by someone, in short it becomes something real for us ( only for us). Therefore by saying it we deny any attempt of comparison, because in this situation comparison isn't possible at all as each one understands accordingly to one' own background, comprehension , etc


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Yes and its name is Ockeghem.


----------



## talkclassical2000 (Sep 16, 2016)

Who are these people?


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2016)

helenora said:


> sometimes I find that we allow ourselves to be guided by authorities in a sense of "musicologists", guys or girls who know more ( well, at least what we think about them ), but in reality they just convey their own subjective opinion on us making it sound persuasive , backing it with facts , references, etc and yes, they know more facts than an average listener / arts admirer and perhaps they can convince us by the way they express it and overwhelming numbers of facts and details provided.
> 
> But is it what we should be looking for? their opinions to make them ours ( opinions), simply accepting them if we like them or rejecting if by chance we disagree with what they say?
> 
> No, what we are looking for is finding our own meaning in each work of art , find out by ourselves what it speaks to us. That's the only important thing for me and at the same time the most creative on the way of appreciation of art and learning about it, and it's only then when we really learn and discover, perhaps it takes more time than simple memorization of what was already said by someone and integrating into our own system of beliefs and understanding about art, but then what we discover by ourselves becomes our truth not imposed by someone, in short it becomes something real for us ( only for us). Therefore by saying it we deny any attempt of comparison, because in this situation comparison isn't possible at all as each one understands accordingly to one' own background, comprehension , etc


Exactly my opinion,there is no other truth than what can be observed,experienced by oneself.All other things are secondhand and have no real meaning.Life is a pilgramage .


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Traverso said:


> Exactly my opinion,there is no other truth than what can be observed,experienced by oneself.All other things are secondhand and have no real meaning.


Well, not be contrary, but...I have never seen a germ but am happy to believe in the truth of the germ theory of disease. Similarly, I have never murdered anybody but have a strong belief in the quite second-hand truth that I'll go to jail if I do...

(Obligatory musical connection) Mozart did not say this, to my knowledge.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Well, not be contrary, but...I have never seen a germ but am happy believe in the truth of the germ theory of disease. Similarly, I have never murdered anybody but have a strong believe in the quite second-hand truth that I'll go to jail if I do...
> 
> (Obligatory musical connection) Mozart did not say this, to my knowledge.


I am not talking about knowledge or the daily routine to functioning in society, but to find out what is beauty or something worthwhile, that you have to find out for yourself.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Traverso said:


> I am not talking about knowledge or the daily routine to functioning in society, but to find out what is beauty or something worthwhile, that you have to find out for yourself.


exactly. It's the most fascinating thing to really listen to things, see them as they are, therefore one sees/listens to very details and it ceases to be just set of things combined together harmoniously ( or non-harmoniously) for pure sake of aesthetical pleasure. 
There is a lot of clarity when one listens to attentively without being indoctrinated by opinions of others, ideas or being able to see through those opinions and ideas without actually accepting or rejecting them. It's all about discovery of things by yourself of which an OP is a great example and here it doesn't go whether one is professionally trained or not, it's just enough to have really a great deal of musical experience and an ability and desire to learn about things and discover them.



> there is no other truth than what can be observed,experienced by oneself.All other things are secondhand and have no real meaning.Life is a pilgramage .


It makes everything so much alive. It is as if an entire life until this time one slept and only now got awaken, everything became clear.....This experience makes possible to listen to even 5th symphony of Beethoven  as if one has never heard it and it's possible hear this beauty very new . Bit it's not about pleasure of listening to harmonies rhythms and sounds, it's more of an understanding with music and through music ( here I'm not talking about theoretical stuff , of analyzing with musical methods of various pieces of music even though it's possible if one wants, not about that).


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

talkclassical2000 said:


> Who are these people?


And who are you, that's the question :devil:


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2016)

Pugg said:


> And who are you, that's the question :devil:


I just see that this member is banned.Some people go fast.


----------

