Ars subtilior & Willaert mp3s

Since back in '90 I wasn't yet a microtonalist or all that aware of
historical tuning, I did these in 12-ET, but they're a cut above the
average synthetic realization (rendered to Yamaha TX802 FM
synthesis). Sometime I'll retune & re-record, but in the meantime
you can find the 'historical' originals at

http://fortuitous-artists.biz/MedRenMusic.html

Ars subtilior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_subtilior

of course could be viewed as the culmination of Medieval musical
style, or as degenerate mannerism as most musicologists think of it.
Listen for yourself and decide for yourself if you'd rather hear
Perotin, Guillaume de Machaut, or these later composers.

I'd appreciate suggestions as to historically appropriate tuning(s)
for these, including the Willaert.

> Since back in '90 I wasn't yet a microtonalist or all that aware of
> historical tuning, I did these in 12-ET, but they're a cut above the
> average synthetic realization (rendered to Yamaha TX802 FM
> synthesis). Sometime I'll retune & re-record, but in the meantime
> you can find the 'historical' originals at

> http://fortuitous-artists.biz/MedRenMusic.html

> Ars subtilior
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_subtilior

> of course could be viewed as the culmination of Medieval musical
> style, or as degenerate mannerism as most musicologists think of it.
> Listen for yourself and decide for yourself if you'd rather hear
> Perotin, Guillaume de Machaut, or these later composers.

Dear Harold,

Please let me start by thanking you warmly for making and sharing
these performances, on which I'll soon comment in another post -- from
which I might learn some lessons about creative timbres on the TX802.

Recent musicological trends not only applaud the intricacy and beauty
of the Ars Subtilior, but suggest a kind of reversal of one
traditional view that this is largely notation-driven music: rather,
the notation is seen as seeking to capture some of the subtleties of
performing ensembles, maybe a bit like trying to write down the fine
points of jazz improvisations. Of course, the nice thing is that one
can admire the whole Perotin-Ciconia era, and that's my own stance,
with it serving as a kind of "classic" foundation for my own music.

> I'd appreciate suggestions as to historically appropriate tuning(s)
> for these, including the Willaert.

Why don't I give some quick answers here on a generic period basis,
and say more about specific pieces in the post I've promised above?
(Right now I'm wearing very effective foam earplugs as a precaution
after a minor audio mishap earlier in the week, not ideal for even
frequency response in listening to music.)

For Continental European music of around 1200-1410, or
Perotin-Ciconia, and including the Ars Subtilior as the latest part of
this period, I'd generally recommend a regular Pythagorean tuning with
as many notes per octave as are required to play all accidentals as
written, for example Eb-G#. Sometimes a different 12-note range might
be required (e.g. Ab-C#), or more than 12 notes per octave (e.g. Gb-G#
for Solage's _Fumeux fume_).

On the TX802, the preset microtuning table P05 (Pythagorean) with a
"tuning key" of C gives Eb-G#; a "key" of F gives Ab-C#, for example.
For the Solage piece I mentioned, I'd use P05 with a "key" of Eb for
the lower manual (Gb-B) and a "key" of C for the upper manual (Eb-G#),
thus getting the requisite 15-note range.

For music of the period 1420-1450, and somewhat earlier in certain
parts of Italy, a modified Pythagorean tuning like Gb-B (TX802 P05,
"key" of Eb) or Db-F# ("key" of Bb) seems typical: thirds involving
sharps are often rendered on keyboard as Pythagorean diminished
fourths or augmented seconds very close to 5-limit ratios (5:4, 6:5).
The contrast between these altered thirds and regular Pythagorean ones
not involving sharps is one of the alluring features of this epoch.
Thus Mark Lindley suggests that the vocal music of the young Dufay,
for example (c. 1420-1440), might have been influenced by this kind of
keyboard tuning.

For the era of around 1450-1680, some variety of meantone seems the
norm, with temperaments of this kind evidently catching on around
1450-1480. Anything from 1/3-comma to 1/6-comma might be idiomatic:
typically I use 1/4-comma or 2/7-comma, which Mark Lindley regards as
the region of maximum euphony for a 16th-century style, but temperings
with major thirds a bit wider than pure are also reported in this
period. One might guess that if playing Willaert's music on a keyboard,
Vicentino (treatises of 1555, 1561) might have used something at or around
1/4-comma, and Zarlino (who considers Willaert the very paradigm of good
modern style) 2/7-comma, his temperament described in 1558, although in
1571 he suggests that 1/4-comma is also agreeable and not too difficult to
tune.

On the TX802, P04 gives 1/4-comma, with Eb-G# if the "key" is C. Some
pieces might call for ranges of Ab-C# ("key" F) or Bb-D# ("key" G).
The idea is to be able to play all accidentals as written; I can
emulate Renaissance "split-key" instruments by having the lower manual
in Ab-C#, for example, and the upper in Bb-D#: this gives a choose of
Ab/G# and Eb/D# (a 14-note range of Ab-D#).

If one is seeking a conventional period keyboard rendition of most
"standard" music, this quick summary might give some ideas.

I should add that medieval English music (say 1200-1450) is a special
question, since both a theorist (Walter Odington, c. 1300) and some
styles of writing suggest tendencies to a certain points to sing
thirds at or close to 5-limit rather than Pythagorean ratios.
Christopher Page suggests that thirds within phrase may often approach
these simpler ratios, while cadential major thirds or sixths should be
Pythagorean or larger. An English organ treatise of 1373 suggests one
period solution: having tuned a basic diatonic set of notes in
Pythagorean, tune the note for an accidental by averaging the
length of the two adjacent organ pipes forming a usual 9:8 Pythagorean
tune (e.g. if the pipes for C and D are at 90 centimeters and 80
centimeters, measure the C# pipe at 85 centimeters). This produces an
18:17:16 division which does yield some "mollified" thirds, to borrow
Page's term. Anyway, it's one authentically documented period
approach, and I could do Scala files for some interpretations of this,
depending on whether you consider Bb as a basic note (a 3:2 or 4:3
from F) or an added accidental (18:17 above A and 17:16 below B).

When we get into keyboard emulations of flexible-pitch instruments
such as notably the human voice, or Renaissance viols (fretted but
"nuanceable"), things get more intricate; but for conventional
keyboard intonation, this might serve as a very basic guide.

Most appreciatively, with many thanks,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@...

Hi Margo,

>An English organ treatise of 1373 suggests one period
>solution: having tuned a basic diatonic set of notes in
>Pythagorean, tune the note for an accidental by averaging
>the length of the two adjacent organ pipes forming a
>usual 9:8 Pythagorean tune (e.g. if the pipes for C and
>D are at 90 centimeters and 80 centimeters, measure the
>C# pipe at 85 centimeters). This produces an 18:17:16
>division which does yield some "mollified" thirds, to
>borrow Page's term.

Fascinating.

>Anyway, it's one authentically documented period approach,
>and I could do Scala files for some interpretations of this,
>depending on whether you consider Bb as a basic note (a 3:2
>or 4:3 from F) or an added accidental (18:17 above A and
>17:16 below B).

Please do. And Harold, if you have the MIDI files, you
can use Scala to retune them!

>When we get into keyboard emulations of flexible-pitch
>instruments such as notably the human voice, or Renaissance
>viols (fretted but "nuanceable"), things get more intricate;
>but for conventional keyboard intonation, this might serve
>as a very basic guide.

Great crash course. Thanks Margo!

-Carl