Re: [tuning] Re: Gesualdo.2

While I have not had the opportunity to compare Gesualdo's actual monographs
to modern editions, I would relish the opportunity. Anyone know where they
might be located?

One thing that I would suggest is that the limitations of theory in the
Renaissance to explain its fashions in tuning is no reason to assume
ettically (and 4 centuries later). My explanation for tuning Gesualdo works
great and yet no one has commented on it regarding the theory involved.
Meantone is safe and I don't think Gesualdo would prefer it to the unfettered
purity possible with pure harmonies. There are only major and minor, no?

The reason I think the pitch had to drift is because there was nothing that
would hold the "original" starting tones in memory. It is Saveur who
introduced the concept of absolute pitch in Paris in 1700, but it was not
enacted until the music unions of France and England declared pitch
frequencies c.1890 (as I recall).

The Musicians' rule of thumb: always tune to the instrument of least
flexibility (usually a keyboard). Gesualdo didn't write for keyboard, but
for unaccompanied voices singing the pure vowels of the Italian language, at
a time when a cappella singing had reached the heights for its time that the
symphony reached for the classical period.

The a cappella music of the Renaissance was not shackled to a temperament for
the simple reason that it is easier to perform it the way I described than it
is to explain it theoretically.

Johnny Reinhard

Johnny wrote,

>My explanation for tuning Gesualdo works
>great and yet no one has commented on it regarding the theory involved.

I commented to the effect that I find your assertion that drift wouldn't
matter since there was no conception of absolute pitch in those days,
patently ridiculous.

I'd put forth Vicentino's adaptive JI system as a reasonable working model,
noting that its 6-cent alterations are too small for one to be able to
expect to find them with much uniformity in practice -- all kinds of minute
swoops, etc., will swamp the differences between many of the various "exact"
models proposed. The salient points will be nearly just major and minor
triads and nearly equal whole tones -- as Margo's historical witnesses
attested.

In a message dated 2/20/01 1:59:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM writes:

> I commented to the effect that I find your assertion that drift wouldn't
> matter since there was no conception of absolute pitch in those days,
> patently ridiculous.

Don't be ridiculous. Since an A could be just about anywhere without a
standard for pitch, even those individuals with a gene for perfect pitch
would not necessarily employ it if they are indeed singing, whether a
cappella or not.

Paul, are you trying to force a theory that fits? All I am suggesting is
that if there is a drift due to an earnest attempt at universal consonance in
major and minor chords, it will be unnoticeable. There are no recordings to
give an instant replay. They may very well move the starting tones around to
fit their voices' best tessitura. Do you find drift in pitch offensive
somehow?

> I'd put forth Vicentino's adaptive JI system as a reasonable working model,
> noting that its 6-cent alterations are too small for one to be able to
> expect to find them with much uniformity in practice -- all kinds of minute
> swoops, etc., will swamp the differences between many of the various
"exact"
> models proposed. The salient points will be nearly just major and minor
> triads and nearly equal whole tones -- as Margo's historical witnesses
> attested.

Considering the fact that some of the best composers were idiosyncratic in
their tunings (e.g. Bach, Handel, Dowland, Ives, Partch) why would Gesualdo
be based on a contraption no longer in use? The use of the term
"quartertones" can mean most any interval smaller than a semitone. And all
of this because someone used the term "quartertones" referring to Gesualdo?
With all due respect, you seem to be force-fitting a solution.

Johnny Reinhard

Paul! I could see Gesualdo wanting to cause drift as a method of
venturing into the unknown, the ungrounded divine.

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:

> I commented to the effect that I find your assertion that drift
> wouldn't
> matter since there was no conception of absolute pitch in those days,
> patently ridiculous.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Johnnt wrote,

>They may very well move the starting tones around to
>fit their voices' best tessitura.

Absolutely agreed. Why not?

>Do you find drift in pitch offensive
>somehow?

Yes -- unless the piece has absolutely _no_ motivic coherence from beginning
to end. Maybe your particular Gesualdo piece didn't. In tonal music, at
least, the pitch level of the exposition, I believe from personal
experience, is retained in the mind and when the music calls for a return to
that pitch level -- I don't want to be a few hundred cents off.

>Considering the fact that some of the best composers were idiosyncratic in
>their tunings (e.g. Bach, Handel, Dowland, Ives, Partch) why would Gesualdo

>be based on a contraption no longer in use?

The "contraption" is simply a slight "just-ification" of 1/4-comma meantone
temperament -- every note is either 3 cents sharp or 3 cents flat of this
reference. If Margo is to be believed, there was a fairly wide understanding
of meantone temperament extended to as many as 19 tones in Gesualdo's time
and locale. The "quartertone" or "fifthtone" between any "enharmonic" pair
such as C and B# was fairly well understood in this milieu. I suppose it is
possible (though rather far-fetched) that Gesualdo somewhere left a set of
instructions for what his notation actually meant, in terms of a monochord.
But lacking that, the almost universal consensus (to within a few cents) of
what notation was standing for in his place and time should be the starting
point for any serious investigations.

In a message dated 2/21/01 4:20:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM writes:

> But lacking that, the almost universal consensus (to within a few cents) of
> what notation was standing for in his place and time should be the starting
> point for any serious investigations.

Paul, in this particular instance, I am going to disagree with your
scholarship. Since I have had excellent results with drifting in Binchois,
Palestrina, and Gesualdo, I see no reason to accept your particular
disapproval. In professional experiences with singers there is no handicap
to drift when it provides pure harmonies consistently.

Now, it would be nice if people had the abilities you want to register for
them, ability to memorize complex tempered relationships on an archicembalo
or related extra-keyed instrument, and the ability to recall and keep to the
exact pitch heights. The musical sense does not have the grasp you attribute
to it. The ease of providing pure harmonies independent of meantone theory
makes much more musical and practical sense to me for Gesualdo than any other
put forward. Clearly we each have areas of expertise that are greater than
others and this may be a blind spot for either of us.

Maybe it is time to answer Kraig's question, are there any a cappella
recordings in strict meantone? I suspect not. Yes, I did indeed read
Margo's post. I think that for music that is tied to a keyboard, at least in
conception, meantone is a likely possibility. Certainly in the Baroque
period it was. However, for Gesualdo, his music would have to be in
something fairly obvious, or he would have need to leave special instructions
for doing his music, if you get my drift. Remember also that they left part
books and not scores from the Renaissance period. This may make for a more
analog approach to the music, and less constrained by a keyboard compass
which was not present in performance.

Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19085.html#19212

However, for Gesualdo, his music would have to be in
> something fairly obvious, or he would have need to leave special
instructions for doing his music, if you get my drift.

That's pretty funny, Johnny! We "get your drift!"

Maybe more of us are actually "drifters" around here than one might
imagine.... You can count *ME* in!
__________ _______ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

Johnny wrote,

>Now, it would be nice if people had the abilities you want to register for
>them, ability to memorize complex tempered relationships on an archicembalo

>or related extra-keyed instrument,

Nothing needs to be memorized except the familiar sizes of common melodic
intervals (there's 1 size of minor second, 1 size of major second, 1 size of
major third, 1 size of minor third, 1 size of fifth). Singing a melody
within a strict-JI rendered counterpoint will necessitate a great deal more
complexity than a near-enough-meantone singing.

>and the ability to recall and keep to the
>exact pitch heights.

Not so exact, and you notice it when it moves a comma.

The musical sense does not have the grasp you attribute
to it. The ease of providing pure harmonies independent of meantone theory
makes much more musical and practical sense to me for Gesualdo than any
other
put forward. Clearly we each have areas of expertise that are greater than
others and this may be a blind spot for either of us.

>However, for Gesualdo, his music would have to be in
>something fairly obvious, or he would have need to leave special
instructions
>for doing his music, if you get my drift.

My drift is that a rough blurring of meantone was the only obvious tuning in
his time and place, and unless we find any "special instructions", it's our
best guess.

In a message dated 2/22/01 12:02:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM writes:

> Not so exact, and you notice it when it moves a comma.

I don't think so. Unless you have the luxury of a recording to analyze it,
you won't notice it, at least not in any detrimental sense.

Johnny Reinhard

I wrote,

>> Not so exact, and you notice it when it moves a comma.

Johnny Reinhard wrote,

>I don't think so. Unless you have the luxury of a recording to analyze it,

>you won't notice it, at least not in any detrimental sense.

I regularly noticed, and was disturbed by, motions that were about half a
comma in John deLaubenfels' early MIDI files.

In a message dated 2/22/01 1:21:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM writes:

>
> I regularly noticed, and was disturbed by, motions that were about half a
> comma in John deLaubenfels' early MIDI files.
>

Paul, you are a creature of the 21st century. It is not fair for you to push
your way of things on the people of the Renaissance. The vocal masterpieces
of the Renaissance are the high point of musical creativity for the period.
To temper for no reason, literally makes no sense.

The purity of the voices would necessitate something "other" than
neo-meantone. Since the voices are most capable of doing this based on
personal performance experience, I think it is obvious if however
experiential. How I remember Leeman Perkins (author of a large book on the
Renaissance and now chairman of the music department of Columbia University)
declare in a loud voice for all to hear, that no one could hear exact just
intervals. After I played it to him with Binchois' "O Solis Ortus Cardine"
or The Rising Sun Ascends (drifting in just) he appeared a bit threatened and
declared that he couldn't hear any difference at all. In the hall way, a
grad student that was present was completely flushed by the experience. He
heard a difference...but that was all, though he thought it an improvement.

Paul, I know it is important to you to follow thoroughly on a topic. To that
end I asked to speak with you by telephone...in real time. I still think
that may be the best way to sort this to any further level.

Johnny Reinhard