"Big Break" in music

[Chaszz]

In European visual art, a "big break" came between the Medieval period and the Renaissance, when ancient Greek and Roman art was rediscovered and realism was developed, driven by
the birth of modern science, interest in the natural world and philosophic humanism. Though I am just beginning to listen to Medieval and Renaissance music, I find no comparable "big break" between them, but instead seem to find it in the transition from Renaissance to Baroque music, when opera was born out of a desire to imitate the ancient Greek music-drama, and when the tempered scale made possible a dramatic expansion of the tools of harmony and the use of many different keys.

Can members comment on:

1. Am I wrong and missing big differences between Medieval and Renaissance music?

2. Am I perhaps accurate in seeing an analogue to the transition in visual art from Medieval to Renaissance, in the transition in music from Renaissance to Baroque?

[springrite]

For me, another Big Break came with Debussy in music. We can find corresponding respresentation in visual art as well, where the western development got a dose of eastern injection.

[some guy]

The big break in the visual arts is probably smaller.

The smooth transition you perceive in the musical arts is probably rougher.

[jochanaan]

1. No, Chaszz, you're right that there was no "big break" between Medieval and Renaissance music and that there was between Renaissance and Baroque.  But there was an earlier major style shift called "Ars Nova," marked by suddenly increased polyphonic complexity, perhaps best exemplified by Guillaume de Machaut.

2.  The two phenomena are similar but not strictly analogues.  The marked change in music was a relatively sudden shift from complex polyphony (sometimes extremely so) and modal complexity, exemplified by such as Gibbons, Tallis, Gesualdo and early Monteverdi, to the simplified, monodic style of early opera.  (It should be said, though, that performers would have added numerous embellishments to the simple written notes.  )

[Teresa]

1. Am I wrong and missing big differences between Medieval and Renaissance music?

I don't think so.  Speaking as a big fan of Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance dance music and troubadour songs, these styles are very similar and the same early music groups preform music from all three periods.  I like the Spanish, Greek, Arabian, Jewish and other middle eastern early music the best.

For me Baroque is the big divide as I don't care for Classical music from the Baroque and Classical eras.  I love Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance and then my interest in Classical music doesn't pick up until the Romantic era.  Modern classical music I love is Romantic and mostly-tonal Modern.  My favorites (as in early music) are music of Nationalistic flavors Russian (including middle eastern influences), American (especially Folk or Jazz influenced), Norwegian, Finnish, French, Spanish, Mexican, Latin-American, etc. 

So my vote is Baroque for the big break.

[Chaszz]

1. No, Chaszz, you're right that there was no "big break" between Medieval and Renaissance music and that there was between Renaissance and Baroque.  But there was an earlier major style shift called "Ars Nova," marked by suddenly increased polyphonic complexity, perhaps best exemplified by Guillaume de Machaut.

2.  The two phenomena are similar but not strictly analogues.  The marked change in music was a relatively sudden shift from complex polyphony (sometimes extremely so) and modal complexity, exemplified by such as Gibbons, Tallis, Gesualdo and early Monteverdi, to the simplified, monodic style of early opera.  (It should be said, though, that performers would have added numerous embellishments to the simple written notes.  )

This is another thing I don't understand. The Baroque is known for moving away from polyphony and toward the homophony of the Classical era. Yet on the other hand, Bach is referred to as the summing up of the Baroque, comes long after the beginnings of opera, and is highly contrapuntal. I have to admit I'm not well versed in the technical profiles of other Baroque music besides Bach, although I've heard a lot of it. Is he the lone complex contrapuntalist of the whole Baroque period?

Also I would think that the tempered scale would be a bigger shift than any other. Also I seem to remember reading that the major third was added roughly around the same time, making possible the tonic-dominant tension that is so important in more recent music. This would seem to me to have changed music from modal to the more modern tonal harmony we are familar with, and taken all together - tonal harmony and 24 keys - to be the real "big break." But I could be confused.

[Scarpia]

This is another thing I don't understand. The Baroque is known for moving away from polyphony and toward the homophony of the Classical era. Yet on the other hand, Bach is referred to as the summing up of the Baroque, comes long after the beginnings of opera, and is highly contrapuntal. I have to admit I'm not well versed in the technical profiles of other Baroque music besides Bach, although I've heard a lot of it. Is he the lone complex contrapuntalist of the whole Baroque period?

I'm no authority, but I would say no.  Handel, Teleman and others continued to write music that was mainly contrapuntal.  But it was a transitional time, Bach's music does not focus on counterpoint to the exclusion of harmony, it is miraculous in that it uses contrapuntal lines to create interesting harmonies.   Towards the end of his life he also wrote some pieces that were more galant in style and looked forward to the classical style.

[jochanaan]

This is another thing I don't understand. The Baroque is known for moving away from polyphony and toward the homophony of the Classical era. Yet on the other hand, Bach is referred to as the summing up of the Baroque, comes long after the beginnings of opera, and is highly contrapuntal. I have to admit I'm not well versed in the technical profiles of other Baroque music besides Bach, although I've heard a lot of it. Is he the lone complex contrapuntalist of the whole Baroque period?

No, most composers wrote contrapuntal stuff to some extent, but less complex than at the end of the Renaissance.  Yet Bach's great mastery was a throwback to the Medieval/Renaissance composers, and toward the end of his life his music was already considered "old style."

Also I would think that the tempered scale would be a bigger shift than any other.

That was a technical change that took some time to take hold.  It wasn't until the early 19th century that it became commonly used, thus enabling remote key shifts and increasingly chromatic harmonies, first in solo piano music, then eventually in orchestral work.

Also I seem to remember reading that the major third was added roughly around the same time, making possible the tonic-dominant tension that is so important in more recent music...

Not at all.  The "Picardy Third" is a very old development, probably from late Medieval times if not even earlier...

[The new erato]

This is another thing I don't understand. The Baroque is known for moving away from polyphony and toward the homophony of the Classical era. Yet on the other hand, Bach is referred to as the summing up of the Baroque, comes long after the beginnings of opera, and is highly contrapuntal.

It's a completely other kind of polyphony based on major/minor harmony and what we today consider the traditional harmonic realtionships, not the modal, predominantly linear polyphony of the Renaissance. And the addition of a separate bass line which carries (as in underpinning) and propels (as in rhytmic) the music makes baroque music something entirely different from previous music, and point directly towards the popular music of today. Yes, I agree that this is the great divide. And that probably the other great divide is what came when impressionism changed the focus of music from melodic line to color.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

This raises a question. Who wrote the first ever piece to be designated as being in a key? (Like "Sonata in C Major").

I've heard from some people that tonality wasn't invented but "just evolved." This answer annoys me. Somebody had to take active steps in creating it. Pieces of music don't evolve; composers write them. So who was the first tonal composer?

[Chaszz]

It's a completely other kind of polyphony based on major/minor harmony and what we today consider the traditional harmonic realtionships, not the modal, predominantly linear polyphony of the Renaissance. And the addition of a separate bass line which carries (as in underpinning) and propels (as in rhytmic) the music makes baroque music something entirely different from previous music, and point directly towards the popular music of today. Yes, I agree that this is the great divide. And that probably the other great divide is what came when impressionism changed the focus of music from melodic line to color.

Bach's bass lines are also independent and fully equal melodies in their own right, something I don't usually find in other composers... and thanks for pointing out the role of the Baroque bass line in leading eventually to jazz and rock bass, which I had never thought about.

...Would not Tristan und Isolde be the beginning of the second divide you mention?

[The new erato]

...Would not Tristan und Isolde be the beginning of the second divide you mention?

At least a very important milestone, yes.