Guillaume de Machaut (c.1300-1377)

[Mandryka]

Found it! I've been going crazy searching for this. Here's some bells and Leonin. Whether they would have been used for training or in performance is something I can't say.

https://www.youtube.com/v/fVjo_mhcGG8

[Mandryka]

Well, it is a controversial subject and I am sure there are some who make the opposite argument, although my sense is that most early period musicologists would agree with my statement.

In motets, I don't believe there's any consensus. Liturgy I need to think about.

A lot depends on whether you think the piece functions best as a sequence of simultaneous lines all of which need to be heard as separate and independent  (in which case you may want to have an instrument, something with a non-vocal timbre), or whether you want to bring out the harmonies, the chords (in which case all voices may help a lot.)

[San Antone]

Found it! I've been going crazy searching for this. Here's some bells and Leonin. Whether they would have been used for training or in performance is something I can't say.

https://www.youtube.com/v/fVjo_mhcGG8

Bells are not the kind of instrument I was speaking of, they were used in the Mass and were not a problem to indicate sectional divisions. 

Motets which were inserted between the main sections of a Mass, also would not use instruments other than organ. 

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but church authorities controlled what occurred in church services.  For centuries there was an accepted tradition that the purpose of music was to enhance the devotional atmosphere.  Instruments normally associated with secular music were not seen as helping to accomplish this goal and in fact were seen to encourage just the opposite.

The same tradition criticized florid singing that might make the text harder to understand or converted the music into an end of itself as opposed to the means to preserve or enhance the religious experience.

[Mandryka]

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but church authorities controlled what occurred in church services.  For centuries there was an accepted tradition that the purpose of music was to enhance the devotional atmosphere.  Instruments normally associated with secular music were not seen as helping to accomplish this goal and in fact were seen to encourage just the opposite.

This, I'm pretty sure, is wrong once Cathedrals started to be built at least, with their own staff, who weren't monks. The Church, Rome or whatever, may have wanted to control religious music, but they weren't specially successful at imposing their wishes. For example, Reims was ferociously independent minded. Anne Walters Robertson is good on this, as is a paper by Christopher Page called The Masters of Organum.

The same tradition criticized florid singing that might make the text harder to understand or converted the music into an end of itself as opposed to the means to preserve or enhance the religious experience.

It's true that some Cistercian monks criticised florid singing, though I wasn't aware that the problem was to do with making the text harder to understand.  If you could find a bit of support for that I'd be interested. Cathedrals had different ideas, and in any case the objection to florid singing may have been a particularly cictercian preoccupation. You've got to remember that in some cathedrals there's so much echo that hardly anyone could understand the words anyway -- they weren't built with acoustic considerations in mind.  The bishops who managed the budgets in cathedrals needed to get sponsors and bums on seats in services and I suppose florid music was one way. Even in the monastery style there was plenty of florid singing, in Aquitaine for example



I think that the medieval view of text in music is really interesting and I'd like to know more about it. This came up for me big time when I was thinking about why so many people sing Machaut motets inexpressively.

[San Antone]

This, I'm pretty sure, is wrong once Cathedrals started to be built at least, with their own staff, who weren't monks. The Church, Rome or whatever, may have wanted to control religious music, but they weren't specially successful at imposing their wishes. For example, Reims was ferociously independent minded. Anne Walters Robertson is good on this, as is a paper by Christopher Page called The Masters of Organum.

It's true that some Cistercian monks criticised florid singing, though I wasn't aware that the problem was to do with making the text harder to understand.  If you could find a bit of support for that I'd be interested. Cathedrals had different ideas, and in any case the objection to florid singing may have been a particularly cictercian preoccupation. You've got to remember that in some cathedrals there's so much echo that hardly anyone could understand the words anyway -- they weren't built with acoustic considerations in mind.  The bishops who managed the budgets in cathedrals needed to get sponsors and bums on seats in services and I suppose florid music was one way. Even in the monastery style there was plenty of florid singing, in Aquitaine for example



I think that the medieval view of text in music is really interesting and I'd like to know more about it. This came up for me big time when I was thinking about why so many people sing Machaut motets inexpressively.

I've read all those writers you refer to, and others.  Andrew Parrott has also written extensively and convincingly on this issue.

I don't really wish to go back and reconstruct the research I did a couple of years ago specifically on the issue of how instruments were or were not  used in sacred music; how late was it when they were beginning to be used and the reasons for the practice of voice-only in the first place.  But here are a few quotes from one article I managed to find quickly among my folders: "Were Musical Instruments Used in the Liturgical Service during the Middle Ages?" by Edmund A. Bowles

There is considerable evidence to show that secular instrumentalists
were not allowed to perform sacred music during the service within
the walls of church and cloister. Eude Rigaud, Archbishop of Rouen
in the mid-thirteenth century, states in his Regestrum visitationum that
there was a statute forbidding all lay folk from entering the choir during
a service. 

Gautier, in his monumental work on the French epic,
observed that the medieval jongleur was forbidden from participating
vocally or instrumentally in the mass.

The Capitulary of 789 forbade bishops, abbots
and abbesses from admitting jongleurs into their confines. A more
specific reference is to be found in a treatise by Gilles de Zamore, the
twelfth-century Franciscan, who wrote in his Ars Musica that with the
exception of the organ, all other instruments were rejected:

And of this instrument alone the church has made use in various kinds
of singing, in prose, sequence, and in hymns, other instruments being
commonly rejected because of the abuses of the jongleurs.

At the larger religious maftrises, such as Notre-Dame at Paris, the min-
strels and jongleurs were also looked upon askance, following the
rigorous exclusion of all secular elements from hallowed ground.

Norman clerics in the thirteenth century were prohibited from asso-
ciating with goliards, actors, and jongleurs. The Synod of Chartres
in 1358 forbade priests and clerics from employing actors or
jongleurs.

  There is a further factor that indicates that secular musicians did not
perform in the liturgical service. The music of the mass and office was
of course committed to manuscript. Within such an unvarying, tra-
ditional and symbolic framework, this ultimately had to be so. Its
successful rendition demanded a certain amount of musical training and
no little practice. Would the jongleur have been able faithfully to
render such music were it set before hime This is very doubtful.
Worldly music depended in a large measure upon improvization.
Songs and dances of this character either were merely 'sketched' in
manuscript form or, more often, were not written down at all.35
During the later Gothic period some jongleurs wrote out 'notes' to
assist their memories when performing songs; but it is interesting to
observe that in these notebooks no music is shown. Consequently, the
performers may never have performed in exactly the same manner each
day;3" they relied primarily upon their ability to improvize, having
learnt to play more or less by heart. The oral delivery of contemporary
prose and poetic works by these entertainers points to the fact that
when instruments were added to provide an accompaniment, the
music, too, had been memorized.3' Similarly, the minstrel schools, or
reunions, usually held during Lent, enabled both singers and instru-
mentalists to exchange stories and songs, and to hear the latest com-
positions of their trade. Such a tradition was hardly capable of pro-
ducing musicians who could master the subtleties of medieval poly-
phonic notation. Owing to the strong feelings against him, as well as
to his lack of technique, the jongleur or minstrel was unable to perform
in the liturgical service.

The traditional Christian objection to the use of musical instruments
in church had its origin in both practical and doctrinal considerations.
In times of hostility the early church existed largely underground.
'Everything depended on their not lifting for their enemies the veil of
secrecy which hid their meetings. Consequently, the Christians were
forced for some time to adopt an unfriendly attitude towards musical
instruments.

But the most important factors were religious in nature,
and the acceptance or denial of instruments was for most churchmen
a matter of conscience. The subject was frequently debated and agree-
ment was not always reached. Official policy, however, varied less as
the Middle Ages wore on. In spite of the fact that some of the less
conservative writers stood for a moderate use of instruments, the strong
moral stand of the majority overruled them. Many church fathers
warned that unlimited instrumental practices would only lead to
excesses and recall men to pagan customs.

Loud, traditionally 'pagan'
instruments were rejected, and in their sermons the writers warned their
congregations against such oriental influences as noisy instruments,
dancing, and hand-clapping in connection with religious services. As
a matter of policy, church singers were forbidden from learning or
playing instruments.

Finally, the faithful were warned that all instrumental music was the work of the devil.

But this has nothing to do with how this music can be performed.  If you enjoy hearing a mass from the Middle Ages or Renaissance with instruments, by all means enjoy it and look for other recordings like it.  We are all free to listen to, perform and record this music as our taste dictates.

There is no need to try to document a historical argument for adding instruments.  We are not bound by what was or wasn't done 600+ years ago; and it really doesn't matter since what is the deciding factor is more practical: how the musicians wish to make the music, and if there are enough people to support their interpretative and performance choices to sustain a career.

[San Antone]

Performing Machaut's Mass on Record
Author(s): Andrew Parrott
Source: Early Music, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Oct., 1977), pp. 492-495

Which instruments were used in the church of  Machaut's time? And how were they used? Both  questions can be safely set aside until another, more  fundamental question has been answered-were  instruments used at all in the medieval church? The  evidence for the organ is clear; also bells had a  function. But what is the evidence for instruments  apart from these ? It has generally been assumed that,  because musical instruments play such a large role in  medieval art and literature, they must have had easy  admission into liturgical usage. After all, the Psalms  themselves are full of exhortations to praise God instruments and hundreds of medieval psalters contain appropriate pictorial representations.

To understand fully the very conservative attitude of the medieval church towards instruments we must first look at the writings of the early Church Fathers.3 To them, quite simply, musical instruments were evil: 'If an anagnost [cantor] learns to play the kithara, he shall confess this. If he does not return to it, his punishment shall be for seven weeks' duration. If he persists, he shall be dismissed and excluded from the church.' (Canones Basilii 74)

The vehemence of this 4th-century Alexandrian law is shared by practically all early Christian writings on the subject of musical instruments. And the prime reason behind it is that instruments were closely associated with sexual immorality. It can, of course, be argued that the need for legislation and for strong criticism of any abuse springs from the very existence of that abuse. This is true enough, but the condemnations of musical instruments were made in the context of wedding-festivities, plays or banquets- never of the liturgy itself. In fact, so exclusively vocal was the music of the early Christian church that there was never occasion to criticize the use of instruments in church and the evidence is that this attitude survived well into the Middle Ages   

Developments in the liturgy through the Middle  Ages were inevitable, but the rites of all religions are  essentially so conservative that changes do not pass  unnoticed. Thus we find that Erasmus, writing more  than a century after Machaut's death, had cause to  criticize instrumental music in much the same way as  the Fathers had done, but with the significant addition  that it was now to be heard 'even in the holy temple,  just as in the theatre'.6

This was a comparatively new  development around 1500, and one that is corro-  borated by other writers. But as far as the church of  Machaut's time and earlier is concerned, we may be  fairly certain that instruments other than the organ  (and perhaps bells) were never used. In fact, a 13th-  century Spanish Franciscan states unequivocally that:  'The Church uses only the organ for its various chants  and sequences and hymns; all other instruments have  been banned because they were abused by play-  actors.'7 

[Mandryka]

I wonder what Parrott would say happened  between the end of the C14 and the start of the C15 to make instrumental participation in liturgy acceptable. (I'm assuming Erasmus was talking about more than bells and organ. ) He also writes as if there's evidence for organ being used in a C14 mass, I'd like to see that evidence.

[Mandryka]

One C19 musicologist (Kiesewetter) found the harmonies towards the end of Machaut's song Dous viaire so nasty that he scribbled in his copy of the score O tempora! O mores! This made me a little curious to hear it.

I found two recordings, Orando and Pierre Hamon


 

Now comes the odd thing. As far as I can see the music is in two parts

Here's a snip of the music



and here's the complete manuscript

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8449043q/f412.item

If I'm right (and I hope I'm wrong) Orlando completely cut out the tenor without any explanation in the booklet.

In Hamon's it's sung beautifully and expressively by Marc Mauillon, with instrumental accompaniment.

[San Antone]

One C19 musicologist (Kiesewetter) found the harmonies towards the end of Machaut's song Dous viaire so nasty that he scribbled in his copy of the score O tempora! O mores! This made me a little curious to hear it.

I found two recordings, Orando and Pierre Hamon


 

Now comes the odd thing. As far as I can see the music is in two parts

Here's a snip of the music



and here's the complete manuscript

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8449043q/f412.item

If I'm right (and I hope I'm wrong) Orlando completely cut out the tenor without any explanation in the booklet.

In Hamon's it's sung beautifully and expressively by Marc Mauillon, with instrumental accompaniment.

I do not think the manuscript fragment (nor the link you posted) are of Dame, vostre doulz viaire.   From what I've read it is a monophonic virelai (n17).  Most versions I've heard treat as such. 

This video has the manuscript

https://www.youtube.com/v/XajTddcgCSE&feature=share

[Mandryka]

I see the problem, there are two things by Machaut with the words Doulz Viaire!

Now that I've found the right one I'm pleased to say that there's a fabulous performance from Clemencic! The great René Zosso I think.

[Mandryka]

I like this recording more every time I hear it. The thing that's knocked my socks off this time is Lay 7, which has been enhanced by Hollliger's polyphonic reworking, which seems to me to be sympathetic, idiomatic, modern and medieval all at the same time. A major achievement on the part of Holliger. I want more things like this -- it really does suggest that aN idea of Bjorn Schmelzer is true -- that early music is a latent avant garde.

[amw]

I've given in and ordered the Gentle Physician Orlando Consort album, having, uh, "found" their other volumes elsewhere—given the state of the postal service I expect it will arrive in about three months, but still significantly cheaper to order direct from Hyperion (costs about $20) than to buy it in a shop ($37).

Am developing a great fascination with Machaut even though I don't feel I quite understand the music—it feels like an artefact from the 25th century, rather than the 15th.

[San Antone]

I've given in and ordered the Gentle Physician Orlando Consort album, having, uh, "found" their other volumes elsewhere—given the state of the postal service I expect it will arrive in about three months, but still significantly cheaper to order direct from Hyperion (costs about $20) than to buy it in a shop ($37).

Am developing a great fascination with Machaut even though I don't feel I quite understand the music—it feels like an artefact from the 25th century, rather than the 15th.

Always happy to see another Machaut fan (btw, he's 14th c.); he's is one of my favorite composers.  OC recordings are good but there are many choices out there.  Because he was able to collect all of his music in multiple complete or near-complete manuscript books, his music is very well documented in recordings.

I like this recording more every time I hear it. The thing that's knocked my socks off this time is Lay 7, which has been enhanced by Hollliger's polyphonic reworking, which seems to me to be sympathetic, idiomatic, modern and medieval all at the same time. A major achievement on the part of Holliger. I want more things like this -- it really does suggest that aN idea of Bjorn Schmelzer is true -- that early music is a latent avant garde.

I usually skip the Holliger's sections after about a few minutes; there is at least one other recording mixing contemporary music with Machaut (which echos amw's comment above about the 25th century:

RESPONSIO is Peter-Anthony Togni's extensive musical commentary on Guillaume de Machaut's medieval masterpiece the Messe de Nostre Dame. Juxtaposing the contemporary sound and performance practice of a bass clarinet against the timeless sonorities of a world class vocal quartet, Responsio brings Machaut's beautiful 14th century creation into the heart of the 21st century.

The similarity between Solage "Fumeux fume par fumee" and the first Ballad is quite striking. 

[Mandryka]

The first Ballad, you mean en amer a douce vie?

[San Antone]

The first Ballad, you mean en amer a douce vie?

The first track on the Holliger CD, Ballade IV "Biaute qui toutes autre pere"

[San Antone]

I had cause to re-listen to Andrew Parrott's recording of the Messe due to a discussion in the HIP thread with Mandryka.  I always cite his recording as one of my favorites but rarely actually listen to it since new recordings come out just about each year.  But it all came home to me just how much I appreciate his recording.

Here's why:

OVPP - all male group.  This is my general preference, and not because it is most likely how Machaut expected his mass to be performed, I just love the sound of male voices instead of a mixed group with high women voices.  The general lack of available singers trained well enough to execute polyphony at Machaut's time would have resulted in his having only a few regular singers.  OVPP would probably have been routine.  A larger choir of churchmen would have sung the chant and other monophonic sections but smaller group of more professional singers would have sung the more complicated music.  Of course it would have been all male since women did not sing in church at all.

But I don't prefer his ensemble because I think it's "correct"; no, I just vastly prefer the sound of an all-male group, especially OVPP, singing in a lower tessitura.  Which brings me to the second point.

The pitch is lowered a fourth.  Parrott has made the case in several articles and books that our understanding of pitch level is different from the earlier centuries.  He makes the same lower transposition for a composer as late as Monteverdi (Parrott's Vespers is worth hearing for that fact alone), but the lower pitch sung by men creates a darker and preferable sound palette, imo.

A minimal approach to adding in accidentals.  Musica ficta is something which causes much consternation within the early music community.  Despite having available a number of surviving texts from the Middle Ages that offer guidance on how to handle accidentals there is still much room for discretion.  I prefer a "less is more" approach since it preserves a modal and remote soundscape rather than a more liberal application which results in the music sounding closer to our time and less distinctly Medieval.

Appropriate liturgical insertions are placed between the mass movements.  Most recordings of mass record only the polyphonic sections of the mass, without the chant, motets and other sections that would have been added for the mass of that day.  Many people prefer to hear just the music that was composed without the liturgical sections.  Not me.  Parrott's recording lasts right at an hour and with the added music the mass sections seem to benefit from the context.  At least for me.

There are other recordings that take a similar approach, but aside from Mary Barry, I don't think Parrott has been equaled or certainly not bettered.

For your listening pleasure, here's his recording in its entirety.

https://www.youtube.com/v/RDovcUQ8Kgk

[Mandryka]

I also enjoy hearing the Machaut in this recording, very much. 

I wonder how Parrott came to his decision about tempo in the polyphony.

I'd be quite interested to know more about Parrott's work on pitch because I was under the impression somehow that we couldn't comment on absolute pitch in Machaut.

If all the singers have a similar timbre there are going to be consequences for hearing all the voices clearly , especially the lower ones.


I don't know is whether there is supposed to be a dialogue between the propers and the ordinary in the Machaut mass, or if there is, I don't know whether Parrott shows it up. If not, I'm not sure what the point is about having a recording with chanting.

[amw]

Always happy to see another Machaut fan (btw, he's 14th c.); he's is one of my favorite composers.  OC recordings are good but there are many choices out there.  Because he was able to collect all of his music in multiple complete or near-complete manuscript books, his music is very well documented in recordings.

In addition to the OC Hyperion recordings (+ one of their discs on Archiv) and the Machaut-Holliger—where I think I like Holliger's contributions even more than Machaut's—I have the Ensemble Musica Nova set of motets, the Hilliard Ensemble partial set of motets, 3 recordings of the Mass (Clemencic Consort, Diabolus in Musica, & Oxford Camerata), Mercy ou mort (chansons & motets) from Ferrara Ensemble, The Mirror of Narcissus (songs) from Gothic Voices, the 2 polyphonic lais from the Medieval Ensemble of London, and an album from the Clerks—I think it's more motets. And probably some Graindelavoix. There's certainly a very wide variety of choices.

I'll keep an eye out for a real life copy of the recording you posted—Parrott albums regularly turn up in the secondhand bin at my nearest CD shop. (I got their St John Passion for $5 some months ago.)

[San Antone]

I also enjoy hearing the Machaut in this recording, very much. 

I wonder how Parrott came to his decision about tempo in the polyphony.

Not sure

I'd be quite interested to know more about Parrott's work on pitch because I was under the impression somehow that we couldn't comment on absolute pitch in Machaut.

The mass is usually written starting in a D minor mode.  I haven't taken a tuning fork to his recording, but would guess from his writings that he went down a fourth to A.

If all the singers have a similar timbre there are going to be consequences for hearing all the voices clearly , especially the lower ones.

Machuat's mass (as well as much of this music) was scored for two sets of voices, two low and two high - tenors and baritones.  The voices sometimes cross - and there can be some difficulty in following a specific voice if you are not familiar with the music.

I don't know is whether there is supposed to be a dialogue between the propers and the ordinary in the Machaut mass, or if there is, I don't know whether Parrott shows it up. If not, I'm not sure what the point is about having a recording with chanting.

The texts of the polyphony were set, but his mass is a Mary mass (Mass of Our Lady) as well as having some requiem aspects, and the inserted sections reflect those ideas.  But beyond that, I like hearing the polyphony within the chants and other sections in order to experience a variety of texture and singing styles.

[San Antone]

In addition to the OC Hyperion recordings (+ one of their discs on Archiv) and the Machaut-Holliger—where I think I like Holliger's contributions even more than Machaut's—I have the Ensemble Musica Nova set of motets, the Hilliard Ensemble partial set of motets, 3 recordings of the Mass (Clemencic Consort, Diabolus in Musica, & Oxford Camerata), Mercy ou mort (chansons & motets) from Ferrara Ensemble, The Mirror of Narcissus (songs) from Gothic Voices, the 2 polyphonic lais from the Medieval Ensemble of London, and an album from the Clerks—I think it's more motets. And probably some Graindelavoix. There's certainly a very wide variety of choices.

I'll keep an eye out for a real life copy of the recording you posted—Parrott albums regularly turn up in the secondhand bin at my nearest CD shop. (I got their St John Passion for $5 some months ago.)

Of your three mass recordings, Diabolus in Musica is closest to Parrott; Oxford Camerata is good for a strictly polyphonic version - but I am not a fan of the Clemencic Consort, although it has its advocates.  Ensemble Musica Nova has recorded the mass with a mixed group and adding in more accidentals, as well as inserting organ music from about a century later.  Despite all of this, it is an enjoyable recording.