re: neil, ibo's incredible translations, margt?

Neil,

Thanks for the 31 heads up, I'm still putting together
my 'commitment' towards getting a G&L 31tet from
microtones. It was interesting to hear some 'hands on'
comments about the differences with the 34, and also the
musical morphing you discussed between 'better than 12'
and some of the more exotic and spicy tones available.
I'll be looking forward to some 31 on your next recording!

Ibo wrote,

>
> Dear list members,
>
> Some historical quotes on this [and/or related] from practitioners of
> the mid-18th century.
>
> It is interesting that the emphasis is mainly on the difference of the
> major and minor semitone, though circulating temperament prevails!
> The "comma" is here most often the "small diesis".
>
> Kind regards
> Ibo Ortgies

These were great quotes. One of the things that often comes up
on this list is whether theoretical writings at a given time
really have much to do with performance practice at a given
time. I think these quotes do show that the "sharps lower than
flats" aspects of meantones was what these practitioners expected of
high quality performance.

In conversations with an opera coach and accompanieist, I was not
surprised by HER surprise when I expressed this aspect of meantones,
since to her "sharps are higher than flats" as she comes from making
leading tones lead (and probably also helping her singers get a
little 'cutting' power against the already sharp thirds on her
piano). As I understand it, classical violinists, at least those
concentrating on European repetoire of the 'commonly played' period
also intonate closer to pythagorean than to meantones or JI.

It seem that there have been two collisions of these trends. One at
the beginning of the meantone era and again at the beginning of the
12tet era. There must be some interesting quotes from the beginning
of 'the mannerist revolution' and again at the straightening of
the well-temperments and beginning of 12t when violinists (and
other non-fixed pitch instruments) were showing up at auditions
ding absolutely the wrong thing to get the job.

Lastly, does anyone (Margot?) have any experience with either
of these books? I have a hankerring to get a little more 16'th
century counterpoint understanding as the basis for some
explorations and these are all listed at Amazon.

Counterpoint : The Polyphonic Vocal Style of the Sixteenth Century
by Knud Jeppesen, Glen Haydon (Translator), Knud Jeppeson

A Practical Approach to Sixteenth-Century Counterpoint by Robert Gauldin

A New Look at 16Th-Century Counterpoint
by Margarita Merriman

Thanks all,

Bob Valentine

Bob Valentine wrote:

On Neil's post:

> Thanks for the 31 heads up, I'm still putting together
> my 'commitment' towards getting a G&L 31tet from
> microtones. It was interesting to hear some 'hands on'
> comments about the differences with the 34, and also the
> musical morphing you discussed between 'better than 12'
> and some of the more exotic and spicy tones available.
> I'll be looking forward to some 31 on your next recording!

It looks like Neil is "getting" 31-equal. As it's 11-limit
consistent, altering the third or seventh of a chord will usually give
interesting results. And that's on top the chords being cleanly tuned
to start with. As I tend towards theoretically respectable intervals,
I don't know what scrunchy chords may be lurking in 34, but I know
there's real potential in 31.

I find 9-limit triads (6:7:9 and relatives) work particularly well on
a guitar. And they fit perfectly in a bluesey sound. Use them right,
and you can get those narrow leading tones to come out.

On Ibo's post:

> These were great quotes. One of the things that often comes up
> on this list is whether theoretical writings at a given time
> really have much to do with performance practice at a given
> time. I think these quotes do show that the "sharps lower than
> flats" aspects of meantones was what these practitioners expected of
> high quality performance.

Indeed, it appears to have been taken for granted that singers would
follow meantone logic. That's something we sort of guessed, but it's
good to see it stated so clearly.

> In conversations with an opera coach and accompanieist, I was not
> surprised by HER surprise when I expressed this aspect of meantones,
> since to her "sharps are higher than flats" as she comes from making
> leading tones lead (and probably also helping her singers get a
> little 'cutting' power against the already sharp thirds on her
> piano). As I understand it, classical violinists, at least those
> concentrating on European repetoire of the 'commonly played' period
> also intonate closer to pythagorean than to meantones or JI.

That's certainly the vibe I get. Violinists in particular seem to be
wedded to Pythagorean thinking. So it's interesting to hear them
explicitly mentioned as hanging the other way before. A real sea
change must have taken place. Also that they were encouraged to tune
to keyboards, so the strings would have been in meantone rather than
Pythagorean fifths. I wounder if anybody does that today for Mozart
fils.

> Lastly, does anyone (Margot?) have any experience with either
> of these books? I have a hankerring to get a little more 16'th
> century counterpoint understanding as the basis for some
> explorations and these are all listed at Amazon.

I second this request. I'm getting so involved in this stuff that a
counterpoint text may well be worth reading. Also, is there any way
of getting Trabaci's split-key music? The pieces I have now, though
interesting, only use Eb-G# and I'm sure a wider gamut was mentioned.

Graham

>Lastly, does anyone (Margot?) have any experience with either
>of these books? I have a hankerring to get a little more 16'th
>century counterpoint understanding as the basis for some
>explorations and these are all listed at Amazon.
>
>Counterpoint : The Polyphonic Vocal Style of the Sixteenth Century
>by Knud Jeppesen, Glen Haydon (Translator), Knud Jeppeson
>
>A Practical Approach to Sixteenth-Century Counterpoint by Robert Gauldin
>
>A New Look at 16Th-Century Counterpoint
>by Margarita Merriman
>
>Thanks all,
>
>Bob Valentine
>

Bob,

In addition to Jeppesen and Gauldin, I'd recommend _Modal Counterpoint,
Renaissance Style_, by Peter Schubert. All three are fine texts.

Best,

Ralph Lorenz

--- In tuning@y..., Ralph Lorenz <rlorenz@m...> wrote:
>
> > Lastly, does anyone (Margot?) have any experience with either
> > of these books? I have a hankerring to get a little more 16'th
> > century counterpoint understanding as the basis for some
> > explorations and these are all listed at Amazon.
> >
> > Counterpoint : The Polyphonic Vocal Style of the Sixteenth Century
> > by Knud Jeppesen, Glen Haydon (Translator), Knud Jeppeson
> >
> > A Practical Approach to Sixteenth-Century Counterpoint by Robert
> > Gauldin
> >
> > A New Look at 16Th-Century Counterpoint
> > by Margarita Merriman
> >
> > Thanks all,
> >
> > Bob Valentine
> >
>
> Bob,
>
> In addition to Jeppesen and Gauldin, I'd recommend _Modal
> Counterpoint, Renaissance Style_, by Peter Schubert. All three
> are fine texts.

The Jeppeson book is a standard counterpoint text.

The *real* classic for this study, however, is _Gradus ad Parnassum_
by Johann Joseph Fux. It was published in Vienna in, IIRC, 1725.

BUT, it is based strictly on the practice of the composer
Palestrina, who lived about 150 years before. The excercises
are therefore modal, not tonal.

Fux knew that this method was out-of-step with those used by
composers in his time. But he felt that Palestrina's technique
provided the best grounding in counterpoint, regardless of the
composer's style.

The book available almost anywhere in paperback, in the English
translation by Alfred Mann. ISBN # 0393002772.

PS - This Margo doesn't have a "t" at the end.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

--- In tuning@y..., Ralph Lorenz <rlorenz@m...> wrote:
>
> > Lastly, does anyone (Margot?) have any experience with either
> > of these books? I have a hankerring to get a little more 16'th
> > century counterpoint understanding as the basis for some
> > explorations and these are all listed at Amazon.
> >
> > Counterpoint : The Polyphonic Vocal Style of the Sixteenth Century
> > by Knud Jeppesen, Glen Haydon (Translator), Knud Jeppeson
> >
> > A Practical Approach to Sixteenth-Century Counterpoint by Robert
> > Gauldin
> >
> > A New Look at 16Th-Century Counterpoint
> > by Margarita Merriman
> >
> > Thanks all,
> >
> > Bob Valentine
> >
>
> Bob,
>
> In addition to Jeppesen and Gauldin, I'd recommend _Modal
> Counterpoint, Renaissance Style_, by Peter Schubert. All three
> are fine texts.

The Jeppeson book is a standard counterpoint text.

The *real* classic for this study, however, is _Gradus ad Parnassum_
by Johann Joseph Fux. It was published in Vienna in, IIRC, 1725.

BUT, it is based strictly on the practice of the composer
Palestrina, who lived about 150 years before. The excercises
are therefore modal, not tonal.

Fux knew that this method was out-of-step with those used by
composers in his time. But he felt that Palestrina's technique
provided the best grounding in counterpoint, regardless of the
composer's style.

The book available almost anywhere in paperback, in the
English translation by Alfred Mann. It's called _The Study
of Counterpoint_. ISBN # 0393002772.

PS - This Margo doesn't have a "t" at the end.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

Oops! Sorry about the double post.

Message # 20193 (the second one) also gives the English title,
_The Study of Counterpoint_.

> -monz
> http://www.monz.org
> "All roads lead to n^0"

>
>The Jeppeson book is a standard counterpoint text.
>
>
>The *real* classic for this study, however, is _Gradus ad Parnassum_
>by Johann Joseph Fux. It was published in Vienna in, IIRC, 1725.
>
>BUT, it is based strictly on the practice of the composer
>Palestrina, who lived about 150 years before. The excercises
>are therefore modal, not tonal.
>
>Fux knew that this method was out-of-step with those used by
>composers in his time. But he felt that Palestrina's technique
>provided the best grounding in counterpoint, regardless of the
>composer's style.
>
>The book available almost anywhere in paperback, in the English
>translation by Alfred Mann. ISBN # 0393002772.
>
>
>PS - This Margo doesn't have a "t" at the end.
>
>
>
>-monz

Fux is an important book, used by many composers throughout the years, but
it is not a standard textbook in sixteenth-century counterpoint. True, the
species approach he presented has been incorporated in many textbooks on
sixteenth-century counterpoint, but Jeppesen has shown that there were many
errors in capturing Palestrina's style. Basically, although Palestrina
served as the model, Fux allowed many eighteenth-century idioms to creep in.

Best,

Ralph Lorenz

--- In tuning@y..., Ralph Lorenz <rlorenz@m...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20182.html#20196

> Fux is an important book, used by many composers throughout
> the years, but it is not a standard textbook in sixteenth-century
> counterpoint. True, the species approach he presented has been
> incorporated in many textbooks on sixteenth-century counterpoint,
> but Jeppesen has shown that there were many errors in capturing
> Palestrina's style. Basically, although Palestrina served as
> the model, Fux allowed many eighteenth-century idioms to creep
> in.

Thanks for correcting me, Ralph. You are absolutely correct.

Of course, the best way to understand a past compositional
style is to use Schoenberg's (supposed) approach: study the
great scores written in that style and extract the "rules"
yourself.

I say "supposed" because this is the approach Schoenberg
advocated in his books, but not exactly the one he followed
himself. He had such a strong bias towards German music
of the "common-practice" period that errors crept into *his*
analyses too, similar to the way they did with Fux.

I'd also like to note that this approach is the one generally
used by "unschooled" musicians. They try to copy music they
like as best they can, and learn the "rules" by "osmosis".
The errors they make in copying usually become the hallmarks
of their own style, if they have enough talent to develop one.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20182.html#20213

> I'd also like to note that this approach is the one generally
> used by "unschooled" musicians. They try to copy music they
> like as best they can, and learn the "rules" by "osmosis".
> The errors they make in copying usually become the hallmarks
> of their own style, if they have enough talent to develop one.

I realized upon re-reading this post that that last clause
might sound condescending.

I didn't mean it that way at all.

Some "unschooled" musicians are among the very best.
One example: IMO, Jimi Hendrix was at least as interesting
and innovative a composer as Beethoven, to say nothing of
his incredible talent as a performer.

My bad again.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20182.html#20182

> Counterpoint : The Polyphonic Vocal Style of the Sixteenth Century
> by Knud Jeppesen, Glen Haydon (Translator), Knud Jeppeson

Well, Jeppesen is the great counterpoint "classic," although I must
confess I do not own a copy...

________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20182.html#20192

>
>
> The Jeppeson book is a standard counterpoint text.
>
>
> The *real* classic for this study, however, is _Gradus ad Parnassum_
> by Johann Joseph Fux. It was published in Vienna in, IIRC, 1725.
>

> The book available almost anywhere in paperback, in the English
> translation by Alfred Mann. ISBN # 0393002772.
>

Of course, Monz is right here... and the paperback is CONSIDERABLY
less expensive than the Jeppesen, which Amazon.com lists as $89.00.

___________ ______ ______ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20182.html#20232

> Some "unschooled" musicians are among the very best.
> One example: IMO, Jimi Hendrix was at least as interesting
> and innovative a composer as Beethoven, to say nothing of
> his incredible talent as a performer.
>

Well, there might be some truth to this, but, as I see it, the
problem is that Beethoven never had the opportunity to learn the
"Star Spangled Banner..."

________ _____ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

J and M!
Hendrix seemed to develop the idea of retrograde (playing backward) in ways unheard of before.
He also remains more interesting electronically than those poor boys stuck in European radio labs.
The sense and stretching of time was monumental. The incorporation of the noise qualities inherent
in the instrument (very African in that such things are enhanced, not suppressed). Like Beethoven
he greatly increased the dynamic range. With a greater melodic gift

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_20182.html#20232
>
> > Some "unschooled" musicians are among the very best.
> > One example: IMO, Jimi Hendrix was at least as interesting
> > and innovative a composer as Beethoven, to say nothing of
> > his incredible talent as a performer.
> >
>
> Well, there might be some truth to this, but, as I see it, the
> problem is that Beethoven never had the opportunity to learn the
> "Star Spangled Banner..."
>
> ________ _____ _____ ____
> Joseph Pehrson

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

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