Re: Re: interval names: rational 'tritones'; common practice

> > [Jerry Eskelin, TD 530.2]
> > Renaissance singers had little "interference" from keyboards
> > since the only instruments that were used _with_ singing were
> > somewhat flexible in tuning--viols (if they weren't fretted)
> > and recorders. Then violins hit the scene and took over the
> > responsibility for "ear" tuning.
>

To add to Joe Monzo's remarks:

Perhaps Mr. Eskalin is using the term "renaissance" without enough
specificity. If you could narrow down the term in time and geography, and
possibly name some specific repertoire, we could probably come to some more
certain statements.

That said, if I may be excused my own generalizations, in the vocal
polyphonic repertoire from the great composers of the Netherlands through
Palestrina, there is a great deal of uncertainty about about whether, which,
and how instruments were used or not used. In no case does vocal ensemble
performance with recorder or viol accompaniment seem to have the importance
that the modern -- and principly amateur -- early music movement would lead
one to believe. On the other hand, the use of the organ as accompaniment is
not well understood, and the "Posaunenchor" of cornettos and early trombones
seems to be underestimated. Fretted strings (viols, lutes, citterns etc.)
appear likely to have played a role in secular repertoire, but knowlege of
secular repertoire is even more limited. Although the fretting patterns were
likely an approximation of ET, Lindley's volume on "Lutes, Viols and
Temperaments" makes a case for a large degree of latitude with the use of
moveable frets.

All of this suggests a mixed tuning environment: a bit of pythagorean, some
just, meantone, and something like 12tet from the fretted strings. Perhaps
I'm perverse in this regard, but this does not particularly trouble me, as
this was also an era of transition from modality to tonality, and I assume
that many decisions whether compositional or in performance practice were
answered pragmatically rather than theoretically.

I would suggest -- perhaps Margo Schulter could advise on this -- that this
list consider the "common practice" period as beginning with Monteverdi's
second practice (beginning in the fifth book of Madrigals in 1605, soon
followed by the _Orfeo_ of 1607) where the use of continuo accompaniment
becomes firmly established. Not only are the essential features of
functional, tonal harmony established in this era, but they are established
within the meantone environment. The "commonality" of the era would be
marked by the spread of the continuo ideal throughout Europe.

The question of when to locate the _end_ of the common practice era is a
more difficult one. Examining this in terms of the factors above suggests a
long transition: The continuo bass began its decline with the advent of
instrumental (not vocal) works without continuo in the late 18th century
and ended decisively when Rossini replaced the _recitativo secco_ with
_recitativo stromentato_ in 1815. Meantone temperament was decisively
replaced by 12tet only in the middle of the 19th century. The harmonic
language itself received a series of challenges: new varieties of tonal
motion (especially in post-revolutionary French music of Lesueur and
Berlioz), the chromaticism and symmetries of Lizst and Wagner, the
exhaustive search for chordal alterations with Bruckner, etc..

I propose we consider the birthyear of Hugo Riemann (1849-1919) as defining
the end of the common practice: the pianomaker Broadwood was retiring the
last meantone tuner, Helmholz (whose 1863 work would be essential to
Riemann) had taken his first professorship in physiology, Wagner had
finished Lohengrin, begun the Ring and would compose Tristan in 1855, Brahms
was finishing his private schooling, Berlioz's _Treatise_ was six years old,
and Rossini was happily cooking and composing his "sins of old age".

Daniel Wolf