On 27 Jun 2006 at 12:18, John Howell wrote: > At 8:40 AM -0400 6/27/06, David W. Fenton wrote: > >On 26 Jun 2006 at 22:57, Owain Sutton wrote: > > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David W. Fenton > >> > Sent: 26 June 2006 20:18 To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: > >> > [Finale] Notation; was RE: Tremolos > >> > > >> > On 26 Jun 2006 at 7:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > > >> > > The same happened in the early sixteenth century. All the > >> > > ligatures and colouration that made 15th century music so > >> > > complex (e.g. mensuration canons) disappeared with the > >> > > introduction of printed music using movable type. > > In comparison with 14th century notation, 15th > century was already simplified! . . .
But which is the cart, and which the horse? I'm suggesting that the notation followed innovations in style, not the other way around. The only example of the latter I can think of is the invention of Mode 2 in pre-Garlandian modal music. > . . . My students in > Early Music Literature routinely transcribe a > 15th century chanson into modern notation, and > learn to read the older notation as they do so. > I would NEVER ask beginners to transcribe--or > perform from--the notation used routinely by > Machaut! I don't see the point of the observation, however much it seems reasonable. > > > > > >> > I think you're reversing cause and effect. > >> > >> What do you mean by this? That ligatures and coloration created > >> complexity (not necessarily true), or that movable type > >> precipitated the disappearance of most ligatures (true)? > > > >That the change in musical style was precipitated by the type, rather > >than that the type was created because of the changes in musical > >style. My understanding of the history of this is that the change in > >musical style came first and drove the notational simplifications > >that are exhibited in the earliest musical type. > > I may just be dense this morning, but it seems as > if you are arguing both sides at the same time. The first sentence of the paragraph is intended to capture the cart- before-the-horse version of the argument (and what I believed was being asserted), while the second gives what I consider to be the correct causal ordering. > Probably not. In my experience, nobody bothers > developing new notational conventions until new > developments in musical style demand them. Guido > developed his staff notation in the 11th century > because he was a teacher teaching by ear, and saw > the potential inherent in a notation system. > (OK, not a style change, but a practical > educational need.) He did not notate rhythms > because they were unimportant in that style (and > that IS related to style). The Parisians were > apparently singing music rhythmically in the > latter 12th century and needed a way to notate > it, so developed the system of rhythmic modes, > USING THE NOTATION (i.e. ligatures) THEY WERE > FAMILIAR WITH. Franko et al. in the latter 13th > century assigned durational value to specific > note shapes for the first time, USING THE > NOTATION HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH, so a given part > could contain flexible rhythmic combinations. > His mensuration signs continued in use for > several centuries, and his notation for rests is > still in use! De Vitry, around 1320, expanded > that system and championed the introduction of > both duple (imperfect) subdivision and coloration > (red ink) to indicate it, because the music he > was composing needed them. This is the way I'd say it all happened. > The biggest change in the 15th century was the > shift from black notation to white notation > (possibly brought about, as I have read, by the > widespread introduction of paper rather than > vellum, and the tendency of the paper fibers to > allow the ink of the time to run as it dried), > which made coloration simpler because scribes > could simply revert to the older black notation > THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH and give it new meaning > (although some fancy mss. continued to use red > ink for coloration; printers' ink is pasty and > would not flow in a quill). Ligatures continued > in use because they were part of the inherited > vocabulary, as were the mensuration signs which > had already been used for such things as > mensuration cannons and continued to be used as > that became a more normal part of the style. > > Yes, the introduction of movable type forced > certain changes, just as Dennis B-K has noted > that the introduction of Finale (and other > graphic notation programs) has forced certain > changes, or rather stood in the way of further > developments in notation which might have already > taken place if composers were free to invent > their own new notational conventions. (Which, of > course, they are still perfectly free to do by > hand, which with the ubiquity of copy machines is > no longer terribly difficult to produce and > distribute.) But it seems to me that in the historical example, there was no resulting limitation on the musical expression of the composers, as I believe Dennis is suggesting is the case with the impoverished notational vocabulary of primitive notation software (I would note that the Finale shape designer, however maligned it may be by all of us who've been frustrated by its idiosyncracies, allows the creation of just about any symbol or shape you'd desire; that doesn't cover all elements of notational innovation, but it at least shows, I think, a degree of planning for some flexibility on the part of Finale's early designers). > There is no question that 16th century notation > changed, but it's interesting that while styles > certainly did change, new notation was not one of > the changes those styles demanded. The new > technology DID force some changes, an ligatures > were easier to produce in Petrucci's > triple-impression printing than in Attaignant's > single-impression method. Ligatures certainly > did not disappear, since they had been part of > the ms. vocabulary for centuries (and therefore > musicians knew how to read them, which we do not > and have to painfully learn!), but there were > fewer and they all tended to be ligatures with > opposite propriety, making it easy to realize > them as representing two semibreves. But they > did require that additional pieces of type be > designed and cast. Coloration didn't disappear > either, but I have to say that I've never seen it > used as late as the 18th century, although I > don't question David's statement since it sounds > as if he has run across it. . . . Charpentier's autographs use black notation for notating hemiolas, something that is not even necessary, but which seems to have been a convention. François Couperin's Lessons use white notation at least once for no good reason that I can think of. > . . . The development > first of proportion signs relating to the > mensurations and then of modern time signatures > made coloration unnecessary. Yet, they continued to use it in certain conventionalized circumstances. This is quite consistent with your earlier point about features of older notational systems continuing to be used after the old system had been superseded. > So if David is suggesting that stylistic changes > drive notational changes (note that I do not call > them "advances," although those that continue in > use are always perceived as advances), I agree > 100% based on the historical record, . . . That was precisely my point -- I was arguing against the assertion that the introduction of movable type caused a change of musical style. > . . . and of > course that record continues through the 20th > century and today. Does notation contribute to > stylistic changes as well? Of course! The > clearest example is that the changes advocated by > de Vitry in the early 14th century, in order to > allow him and his contemporaries to notate more > complex rhythms, made possible (and therefore > inevitable??) the rhythmic complexities of the > late 14th and early 15th centuries. Style and > notation serve each other and feed off each > other, always have, probably always will. I would agree, but the big changes in notational system were driven by the inadequacy of the old system to convey the new musical sounds/concepts. Once the new system was developed, it could certainly be exploited to create new sounds/concepts that were previously unexpressible (the mode 2 example above is the earliest example of this I can think of -- mode 2 didn't exist until efforts were made to theorize mode 1, and mode 2 was necessary for symmetry; once it had been conceptually invented, music was then written using mode 2 -- the first case of theory preceding practice, I think). > (I also note that the graphical "engineering > notation" adopted by the first generation of > those trying to convert a system developed by > monks using feathers into a digital medium did > NOT catch on, although for a while it threatened > to, and it has now found its proper place in > digital editing rather than live performing. > Musicians simply did not accept what seemed so > logical to engineers, and insisted that > programmers come up with graphic notation that > duplicated WHAT THEY WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH! > Plus ça change, plus la meme chose!) I assume you mean things like piano roll notation? It's too precise in its symbols to be convenient for reading from. It's kind of odd that the "digital" notation would be less clear than the analog, precisely because there's not a clear enough distinction between the various possible states. Of course, that last statement may not mean anything to anyone but me. . . . -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
