At 8:40 AM -0400 6/27/06, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2006 at 22:57, Owain Sutton wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David W. Fenton
> Sent: 26 June 2006 20:18
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Finale] Notation; was RE: Tremolos
>
> On 26 Jun 2006 at 7:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The same happened in the early sixteenth century. All the
> > ligatures and colouration that made 15th century music so complex
> > (e.g. mensuration canons) disappeared with the introduction of
> > printed music using movable type.
In comparison with 14th century notation, 15th
century was already simplified! My students in
Early Music Literature routinely transcribe a
15th century chanson into modern notation, and
learn to read the older notation as they do so.
I would NEVER ask beginners to transcribe--or
perform from--the notation used routinely by
Machaut!
> >
> I think you're reversing cause and effect.
What do you mean by this? That ligatures and coloration created
complexity (not necessarily true), or that movable type precipitated
the disappearance of most ligatures (true)?
That the change in musical style was precipitated by the type, rather
than that the type was created because of the changes in musical
style. My understanding of the history of this is that the change in
musical style came first and drove the notational simplifications
that are exhibited in the earliest musical type.
I may just be dense this morning, but it seems as
if you are arguing both sides at the same time.
Probably not. In my experience, nobody bothers
developing new notational conventions until new
developments in musical style demand them. Guido
developed his staff notation in the 11th century
because he was a teacher teaching by ear, and saw
the potential inherent in a notation system.
(OK, not a style change, but a practical
educational need.) He did not notate rhythms
because they were unimportant in that style (and
that IS related to style). The Parisians were
apparently singing music rhythmically in the
latter 12th century and needed a way to notate
it, so developed the system of rhythmic modes,
USING THE NOTATION (i.e. ligatures) THEY WERE
FAMILIAR WITH. Franko et al. in the latter 13th
century assigned durational value to specific
note shapes for the first time, USING THE
NOTATION HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH, so a given part
could contain flexible rhythmic combinations.
His mensuration signs continued in use for
several centuries, and his notation for rests is
still in use! De Vitry, around 1320, expanded
that system and championed the introduction of
both duple (imperfect) subdivision and coloration
(red ink) to indicate it, because the music he
was composing needed them.
The biggest change in the 15th century was the
shift from black notation to white notation
(possibly brought about, as I have read, by the
widespread introduction of paper rather than
vellum, and the tendency of the paper fibers to
allow the ink of the time to run as it dried),
which made coloration simpler because scribes
could simply revert to the older black notation
THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH and give it new meaning
(although some fancy mss. continued to use red
ink for coloration; printers' ink is pasty and
would not flow in a quill). Ligatures continued
in use because they were part of the inherited
vocabulary, as were the mensuration signs which
had already been used for such things as
mensuration cannons and continued to be used as
that became a more normal part of the style.
Yes, the introduction of movable type forced
certain changes, just as Dennis B-K has noted
that the introduction of Finale (and other
graphic notation programs) has forced certain
changes, or rather stood in the way of further
developments in notation which might have already
taken place if composers were free to invent
their own new notational conventions. (Which, of
course, they are still perfectly free to do by
hand, which with the ubiquity of copy machines is
no longer terribly difficult to produce and
distribute.)
There is no question that 16th century notation
changed, but it's interesting that while styles
certainly did change, new notation was not one of
the changes those styles demanded. The new
technology DID force some changes, an ligatures
were easier to produce in Petrucci's
triple-impression printing than in Attaignant's
single-impression method. Ligatures certainly
did not disappear, since they had been part of
the ms. vocabulary for centuries (and therefore
musicians knew how to read them, which we do not
and have to painfully learn!), but there were
fewer and they all tended to be ligatures with
opposite propriety, making it easy to realize
them as representing two semibreves. But they
did require that additional pieces of type be
designed and cast. Coloration didn't disappear
either, but I have to say that I've never seen it
used as late as the 18th century, although I
don't question David's statement since it sounds
as if he has run across it. The development
first of proportion signs relating to the
mensurations and then of modern time signatures
made coloration unnecessary.
So if David is suggesting that stylistic changes
drive notational changes (note that I do not call
them "advances," although those that continue in
use are always perceived as advances), I agree
100% based on the historical record, and of
course that record continues through the 20th
century and today. Does notation contribute to
stylistic changes as well? Of course! The
clearest example is that the changes advocated by
de Vitry in the early 14th century, in order to
allow him and his contemporaries to notate more
complex rhythms, made possible (and therefore
inevitable??) the rhythmic complexities of the
late 14th and early 15th centuries. Style and
notation serve each other and feed off each
other, always have, probably always will.
(I also note that the graphical "engineering
notation" adopted by the first generation of
those trying to convert a system developed by
monks using feathers into a digital medium did
NOT catch on, although for a while it threatened
to, and it has now found its proper place in
digital editing rather than live performing.
Musicians simply did not accept what seemed so
logical to engineers, and insisted that
programmers come up with graphic notation that
duplicated WHAT THEY WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH!
Plus ça change, plus la meme chose!)
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
