# Tempo, sonority, vocality in 9th century music



## Mandryka

I’ve been listening to music from St Gallen manuscripts, tropes and sequences some of which have been attributed to a poet called Notker. 

Fortunately there are three recordings I’m aware of - Morent, Vellard and Joppich. 

It’s striking how different the approaches to performances are - not only different speeds and rubato but also different ways of forming sounds with the voice. Also different levels of something I’m just going to gloss for the moment as “expressiveness.“

I just want to ask a basic question, when people are singing this sort of thing, how do they decide something like tempo? Or volume?


----------



## anahit

Since that this music belongs the very far past (musically), I think that they usually need to "interpret" it or "guess", I would stress the word "guess".
I know also many conductors who listen to numerous recordings prior their own interpretation and try to make some inventions in order to be more personal.


----------



## KenOC

anahit said:


> Since that this music belongs the very far past (musically), I think that they usually need to "interpret" it or "guess", I would stress the word "guess".
> I know also many conductors who listen to numerous recordings prior their own interpretation and try to make some inventions in order to be more personal.


I've always suspected that if we heard the music of those times as actually performed, we wouldn't even recognize it!


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> It's striking how different the approaches to performances are -* not only different speeds and rubato but also different ways of forming sounds with the voice. Also different levels of something I'm just going to gloss for the moment as "expressiveness."*
> 
> I just want to ask a basic question, when people are singing this sort of thing, how do they decide something like tempo? Or volume?


Well, these are qualities, which also vary with performances of music from other centuries even up to our days. Concerning performance of 9th century music I would expect rhythm and pitch (absolute as well as relative) to vary just as much or even more, because the neumes didn't indicate these qualities precisely.


----------



## Mandryka

Yes but when these people sing, how do they make their decisions about these things? I remember when I made the initial post being especially struck by the way the vocality was so different, the way of making the sounds. I just want to get a handle on the sort of thought processes singers go through when they're deciding how to sing.


----------



## millionrainbows

_I just want to ask a basic question, when people are singing this sort of thing, how do they decide something like tempo? Or volume?

_It's probably a combination of lots of elements, environments, and human factors determined by the "beings" that are singing it, and their backgrounds, creativity, cultural influences, and proclivities. I'm sure that it is also based on the experience and decisions of the choirmaster. I'd hate to think that it was strictly 'proscribed' according to some overly academic performance norms or rules.

Since this form of singing is essentially a form of worship and "prayer," I would also assume that the overall spiritual awareness and development of the group would be a major factor.


----------



## Mandryka

And this is the sort of thing that Joppich does, who I find the most moving


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> And this is the sort of thing that Joppich does, who I find the most moving.


Yes, it is quite effective. For me, it "sets a mood," so these guys are singing as a single, shared identity. They are on the same wavelength, so to speak. The Doors were able to create this sort of mood as well, and I think that comes from being very close, like on the 'same team.' Also, I don't think this ability to create a mood comes from technical expertise, per se; The Doors were not virtuosi.


----------



## anahit

Mandryka said:


> Yes but when these people sing, how do they make their decisions about these things?


Usually there is an artistic leader that decides that. 
If it is a group without conductor than it is perhaps one of the performers who leads the group, if there is a conductor available, than he/she decides.
Usually, the leader has to make a kind of research before starting rehearsals, if music is unknown, so that he/she understands what happens in music, what type of intonation is needed, phrasing etc. 
And also each choir is focused on performing a certain music. You will not see Moscow Cathedral Singers to perform american gospel music, nor vice versa.


----------



## Mandryka

How on earth is the leader to know what the musical possibilities are unless he lets the musicians try things out together? Especially in chant, where each singer’s experience in oral traditions may well be invaluable for making the score into meaningful music.

Even in later music - an ensemble singing Machaut or Dufay has to decide on balance and tuning and on embellishment, and I just don’t see how they can do this unless they try out things together.

Having said that, someone I know sings for Peter Philips’s ensemble The Tallis Scholars, and I get the impression that he works very much as you describe. It’s much later music of course, Renaissance music.

If I remember right, one set of essays when discusses an experimental approach is the stuff that Rogers Covey Crump wrote on intonation for the three Conductus CDs he made for Hyperion.


----------



## anahit

Mandryka said:


> How on earth is the leader to know what the musical possibilities are unless he lets the musicians try things out together?


sorry, but a good leader/conductor should have a very good imagination in his/her own head. it is not needed to be tested first. rehearsals start with a clear idea how it should sound.

of course, if something seems to be awkward, than it is changed.
but a great leader has clear and unique ideas, makes good concerts and is demanded. 
bad leaders have no ideas, lead amateur ensembles and concerts are not so demanded. 
very easy.


----------



## Mandryka

Honestly the model of authoritative visionary leader, like Toscanini leading NBC or something, is daft when you have an ensemble of a handful of musicians many of whom are at the top of their field in terms of research etc.

I am absolutely sure that, for example, neither Marcel Peres nor Paul Hillier nor Dominique Vellard nor Mary Berry nor Anne Marie Deschamps worked like that.

Of course where you have a bunch of boys singing from the liber usualis it’s a different matter!


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> Honestly the model of authoritative visionary leader, like Toscanini leading NBC or something, is daft when you have an ensemble of a handful of musicians many of whom are at the top of their field in terms of research etc.
> 
> I am absolutely sure that, for example, neither Marcel Peres nor Paul Hillier nor Dominique Vellard nor Mary Berry nor Anne Marie Deschamps worked like that.
> 
> Of course where you have a bunch of boys singing from the liber usualis it's a different matter!


Well, a collective midset with no hierarchy or leader is more in keeping with the way things were done back in medieval times, where authorship was not recognized, and little was written down. Egos were checked at the door.


----------



## anahit

Mandryka said:


> I am absolutely sure that, for example, neither Marcel Peres nor Paul Hillier nor Dominique Vellard nor Mary Berry nor Anne Marie Deschamps worked like that.


 of course, toscanini is an extreme example of "dictatorship" that couldn't be compared even with karajan. but as "millionrainbows" said, there is no collective mind today in professional ensembles.

do you really believe that salonen and gergiev come to rehearsals wondering what consensus about music could be?
instead they do come with an exact idea how it should sound and it is their private idea or imagination. and of course, because they have a great mind, experience and imagination they can project music before it is played. they don't need to hear it before, even with premieres.


----------



## premont

anahit said:


> do you really believe that salonen and gergiev come to rehearsals wondering what consensus about music could be?
> *instead they do come with an exact idea how it should sound *and it is their private idea or imagination. and of course, because they have a great mind, experience and imagination they can project music before it is played. they don't need to hear it before, even with premieres.


This is of course true of symphonic music, but here it is about Medieval music, where the borderline between some individuals making music together and a larger group with a more or less formal leader is more flowing, e.g. Orlando consort and the Hilliard Ensemble. I am sure, that neither the members of the Orlando consort nor Paul Hillier turn up for sessions with a 100% clear idea of how the music should sound. They have to try some options. This is about intonation, musica ficta, rhythm et.c.


----------



## Mandryka

This discussion reminds me of something Christopher Page wrote in _The English A Cappella Heresy_ about the discipline of the English choir system, about how it prepares the singers who have been educated in it to give performances of early polyphony.



> The collegiate and cathedral tradition in which many English singers their training is comparable in some respects to the context in which medieval (and Renaissance) singers received theirs. It is one in which a repertory a large a cappella element is cultivated on a daily basis by men and (usually )boys, all of them relatively young, who hold positions in a cathedral or chapel (often for a relatively short time) for which there is much competition. They are singers for whom singing and rehearsal are constant duties that are not (to say the least) touched by concerns of high art. The prevailing notion among them is one of a versatile, professional competence, constantly kept in trim by a cappella performance, that can be readily be turned to music more ambitious and enjoyable when liturgical duties are over. The process of rehearsal draws a training which often reaches back into the singer's boyhood, which provides him with the directed quickness of mind and the vocal stamina he requires, and which ensures that the choral results are generally quite passable - and sometimes excellent - despite the constant absences, deputizations, hirings and firings that always threaten the homogeneity of what can be achieved. It's a tradition where instrumentalists - apart from organists - are apt to seem like a different breed of musician altogether.
> 
> I tentatively suggest that this is, in some measure, the world of the medieval and early Renaissance singer of polyphony, and the implications of this resemblance, whatever they may be, deserve a reflective study to themselves.


----------



## anahit

premont said:


> I am sure, that neither the members of the Orlando consort nor Paul Hillier turn up for sessions with a 100% clear idea of how the music should sound. They have to try some options.


absolutely agree. yet there are some options, not democratic voting options.
the op asked "when these people sing, how do they make their decisions", once more it is not that _they_ decide, it is someone. even with string quartets, there is always an alpha-musician who leads or thinks more, ..of course there are opinions.
but in chamber groups and larger ensembles it is not that "they" decide. 
And also "How on earth is the leader to know what the musical possibilities are unless he lets the musicians try things out together" - once again they don't need to "try out before". for sure, a leader has some doubts or options, but there is no democracy, and the leader should know the things before going to his job.

a striking difference between amateur and professional ensembles is that when you see rehearsals with amateurs there is always to much noise, everyone has opinion, and a lot of discussion - constantly.


----------



## Mandryka

anahit said:


> absolutely agree. yet there are some options, not democratic voting options.
> the op asked "when these people sing, how do they make their decisions", once more it is not that _they_ decide, it is someone. even with string quartets, there is always an alpha-musician who leads or thinks more, ..of course there are opinions.
> but in chamber groups and larger ensembles it is not that "they" decide.
> And also "How on earth is the leader to know what the musical possibilities are unless he lets the musicians try things out together" - once again they don't need to "try out before". for sure, a leader has some doubts or options, but there is no democracy, and the leader should know the things before going to his job.
> 
> a striking difference between amateur and professional ensembles is that when you see rehearsals with amateurs there is always to much noise, everyone has opinion, and a lot of discussion - constantly.


What I would really love is a blog of all of this. That's to say, a sort of diary showing the process by which a chamber ensemble come to their performance decisions. For someone like me - I'm not a performer and I'm interested in music where performance style is not at all well understood - it's a great mystery.


----------



## premont

anahit said:


> but there is no democracy, and the leader should know the things before going to his job.
> 
> a striking difference between amateur and professional ensembles is that when you see rehearsals with amateurs there is always to much noise, everyone has opinion, and a lot of discussion - constantly.


A problem for the singers and musicians may be, that the leaders opinion isn't but opinion in quite a lot of questions, because we do not know the facts. This is why I am convinced, that Early music groups work in a more democratic way (even with help of musicologists) than Symphony orchestras. It is well known that many Early music groups have a collective "leadership" e.g. La Morra, Piffaro - already I Musici (di Roma) boasted about their musical democracy.


----------



## Mandryka

There's a documented example of this process of collaboration, it's the use of vocalise for untexted music in c14 motets by Gothic Voices. I'll try and find the citations later, but I remember they took a long long time trying out different vowel sounds, moving the technique to different types of music etc. 

Another documented example concerns Marcel Peres, and the way he experimented with singers to find ways of making sense of Roman chant material. Again I can find the details later, it's in one of his books.


----------



## millionrainbows

This underscores the appeal of classical music, compared to popular: we can see a work performed in different incarnations, in different ways.


----------



## Mandryka

And also the problem, a philosophical one, of saying what, if anything, _the work_ is.


----------



## premont

One could say that a work can be found in many different versions, which in the most pronounced cases may have surprisingly little in common. Ideally, they should at least have the simple score in common, but even as to this there is most often disagreement about the interpretation. So a work is no absolutum, and it is continually changing like everything in life, even oneself.


----------



## anahit

premont said:


> This is why I am convinced, that Early music groups work in a more democratic way (even with help of musicologists) than Symphony orchestras.


i would believe that that the general consensus about how to perform such old music would result in the same output. let us assume that there are 320 singers. their total opinion about how to perform a certain music would result in one way of performance because of the consensus democratically chosen; and so, splitting these singers in, let us say, 10 choirs of 32 people, would result in the same or very similar performance.
i have played in an ensemble for old music and there was a leader (violin) who had made a deep research about music we played (composer, history, life). she has chosen people to play with and she decided almost 80% of the performance.

this: professional ensemble musicians like to work with strong leaders.



premont said:


> It is well known that many Early music groups have a collective "leadership" e.g. La Morra, Piffaro - already I Musici (di Roma) boasted about their musical democracy.


for sure. but the musicians they choose to play with are those with similar way of thinking. they would never accept into ensemble someone who has radical or different idea how to perform music, thus that kind of "democracy" is already limited. if that is the case their recordings would result in radically different outputs.


----------



## millionrainbows

anahit said:


> i would believe that that the general consensus about how to perform such old music would result in the same output. let us assume that there are 320 singers. their total opinion about how to perform a certain music would result in one way of performance because of the consensus democratically chosen; and so, splitting these singers in, let us say, 10 choirs of 32 people, would result in the same or very similar performance.
> i have played in an ensemble for old music and there was a leader (violin) who had made a deep research about music we played (composer, history, life). she has chosen people to play with and she decided almost 80% of the performance.
> 
> this: professional ensemble musicians like to work with strong leaders.
> 
> for sure. but the musicians they choose to play with are those with similar way of thinking. they would never accept into ensemble someone who has radical or different idea how to perform music, thus that kind of "democracy" is already limited. if that is the case their recordings would result in radically different outputs.


Apparently you've never tried to start a rock band. Personality chemistry is _everything.
_


----------

