Dunstaple, Benchois, tuning ambiguities -- some suggestions?

Hi everyone.

Some webpages say that John Dunstaple lived in CCA. 1390_1453, which would suggest performing his pieces in Pythagorean tuning. However, I heard some small excerpts a few years ago and they had such a "triadic" character that I would definitely prefer performing it in 5-limit JI, should I ever perform such a thing. The same applies for someone called Gilles Benchois (1400_1460).
I'm sure there's probably much controversy about this stuff similarly to many other topics, but anyway ... Any oppinions or suggestions are welcome.

Thanks.

Petr

Dear Petr,

John Dunstable is famous for being one of the first (perhaps even the
first in early Renaissance) who compositionally used just major
thirds, "the English countenance", e.g., in fauxbourdon setting.

Best wishes,
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

On 09.03.2010, at 21:32, Petr Pařízek wrote:

> Hi everyone.
>
> Some webpages say that John Dunstaple lived in CCA. 1390_1453, which
> would
> suggest performing his pieces in Pythagorean tuning. However, I
> heard some
> small excerpts a few years ago and they had such a "triadic"
> character that
> I would definitely prefer performing it in 5-limit JI, should I ever
> perform
> such a thing. The same applies for someone called Gilles Benchois
> (1400_1460).
> I'm sure there's probably much controversy about this stuff
> similarly to
> many other topics, but anyway ... Any oppinions or suggestions are
> welcome.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Petr
>
>
>

Petr, you should also check out Busnois, Ockeghem, and Dufay
in addition to Dunstable and Binchois. These are all very important
early composers and the music is fascinating. Naxos has some
cheaper recordings of their works. Look for scores in the original
notation, not modern transcriptions (same goes for Palestrina -
Modern notation screws the whole thing up!)
Enjoy and good luck!
AAH
=====

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Pařízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> Some webpages say that John Dunstaple lived in CCA. 1390_1453, which would
> suggest performing his pieces in Pythagorean tuning. However, I heard some
> small excerpts a few years ago and they had such a "triadic" character that
> I would definitely prefer performing it in 5-limit JI, should I ever perform
> such a thing. The same applies for someone called Gilles Benchois
> (1400_1460).
> I'm sure there's probably much controversy about this stuff similarly to
> many other topics, but anyway ... Any oppinions or suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Petr
>

On 10.03.2010, at 00:48, hpiinstruments wrote:
> Look for scores in the original
> notation, not modern transcriptions (same goes for Palestrina -
> Modern notation screws the whole thing up!)

Could you please elaborate this a bit. Do you miss the ligatures in modern notation, or what are you missing?

Thanks!

Best wishes,
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders wrote:
>
> On 10.03.2010, at 00:48, hpiinstruments wrote:
> > Look for scores in the original
> > notation, not modern transcriptions (same goes for
> > Palestrina - Modern notation screws the whole thing up!)
>
>
> Could you please elaborate this a bit. Do you miss the ligatures
> in modern notation, or what are you missing?

Well, I guess I'm rather a purist when it comes to notation.

I mean, the notations are completely different, and IMO modern
notation is a corruption of the early art. It is an imposition that
obscures the techniques of that art, rendering the music
in ways the composers never conceived and would not
understand. Kind of like playing any of that music on a 12ET piano
and wondering why it does not sound compelling. In terms of the
notation, several basic things were so different as to be ruined by
translation to modern notation:

- Barlines? They did not exist; there was only the mensurstricht. When
you replace a stricht with a barline, you are dividing things up where
they didn't divide that way.

- Meter? Tempus and prolation are totally different concepts than the
modern idea of meter. Putting a meter there changes the idea of pulse
in the music.

- Accidentals? There was the practice of ficta, not written accidentals.
Writing them in the score is completely editorial.

- Key? There was no "key". There were not even "modes" in the modern
sense. Their ideas of composition were interval and pattern based in
ways that are not expressible when the idea of "key" is imposed.

Modern scores make the music look like the composers used modern
techniques when they did not. Their techniques were in many ways
more advanced and deeper than modern formulae, such as in terms of
meter, just take a look at Ockeghem's Missa Prolationem where canons
unfold at metrical relationships that are as far out as anything in the 20th
century, but it was all a product of the metrical technique / worldview /
bag of tricks of that time in the hands of a very creative fellow.

Compare these two scores (not the same piece, mind you, this was a
one minute Google search):
first an ancient codex:
<http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/mes_facs/fsock.jpg>
next a modern transcription (click on the small score images):
<http://obrechtmass.com/explore/ecce.php>

AAH
=====

Just to be clear, I have only meagre knowledge of those techniques
myself and I didn't say all those things just to be picky or to show off.
I only said them because if Petr is interested in the real tuning then
he must also be interested in the real art itself because it's all bound
up together, as different notations have historical tuning implications. I
forgot to mention the staff and moveable C clefs as compared to
modern staff and Treble and Bass as well. And that a 'score' was not
as such! There were reasons for all those things and given a choice
between the new way and the old way, they would choose the old way
because notation and tuning are linked together; that is what I meant
to say with all that.
Yours,
AAH
=====

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:
>
> On 10.03.2010, at 00:48, hpiinstruments wrote:
> > Look for scores in the original
> > notation, not modern transcriptions (same goes for Palestrina -
> > Modern notation screws the whole thing up!)
>
>
> Could you please elaborate this a bit. Do you miss the ligatures in
> modern notation, or what are you missing?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best wishes,
> Torsten
>
> --
> Torsten Anders
> Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
> University of Plymouth
> Office: +44-1752-586219
> Private: +44-1752-558917
> http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
> http://www.torsten-anders.de
>

On 10.03.2010, at 15:38, hpiinstruments wrote:
> - Barlines? They did not exist; there was only the mensurstricht. When
> you replace a stricht with a barline, you are dividing things up where
> they didn't divide that way.
>
> - Meter? Tempus and prolation are totally different concepts than the
> modern idea of meter. Putting a meter there changes the idea of pulse
> in the music.
>
> - Accidentals? There was the practice of ficta, not written > accidentals.
> Writing them in the score is completely editorial.
>
> - Key? There was no "key". There were not even "modes" in the modern
> sense. Their ideas of composition were interval and pattern based in
> ways that are not expressible when the idea of "key" is imposed.

I got your point. However, I prefer being able to actually read the music instead of deciphering a notation :) Modern transcriptions usually try to preserve as much from the information contained in the original notation as possible (e.g., put "barlines" between staffs, note the original tempus, indicate notes connected as ligatures etc.)

My main problem with the original notation is that these are "only" parts, not a score -- I am amazed how these masters composed that way.

Best wishes,
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

these may be recent - but are free Dunstable scores nonetheless

http://icking-music-archive.org/ByComposer/Dunstable.php

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:48 PM, hpiinstruments <aaronhunt@...> wrote:

>
>
> Petr, you should also check out Busnois, Ockeghem, and Dufay
> in addition to Dunstable and Binchois. These are all very important
> early composers and the music is fascinating. Naxos has some
> cheaper recordings of their works. Look for scores in the original
> notation, not modern transcriptions (same goes for Palestrina -
> Modern notation screws the whole thing up!)
> Enjoy and good luck!
> AAH
> =====
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Petr Pařízek
> <p.parizek@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone.
> >
> > Some webpages say that John Dunstaple lived in CCA. 1390_1453, which
> would
> > suggest performing his pieces in Pythagorean tuning. However, I heard
> some
> > small excerpts a few years ago and they had such a "triadic" character
> that
> > I would definitely prefer performing it in 5-limit JI, should I ever
> perform
> > such a thing. The same applies for someone called Gilles Benchois
> > (1400_1460).
> > I'm sure there's probably much controversy about this stuff similarly to
> > many other topics, but anyway ... Any oppinions or suggestions are
> welcome.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Petr
> >
>
>
>