The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Biffo]

In a discussion today someone suggested that the work of the monks at Solesmes Abbey is an example of HIP. For the past 150 years or so these guys have tried to make sense of medieval performance practice, specifically for Gregorian chant. They claim to use scientific methods to decipher parchments full of neums and the like.  Maybe it's all linked to the 19th century interest in philology (remember Casaubon in Middlemarch, wasn't he interested in philology - or was it myths or the authors of the Bible? Can't remember.)

Anyway if this is right it's not quite correct to say that HIP is a preoccupation of the second half of the 20th century.

I find a little Gregorian Chant goes a long way but this is an interesting discussion. Here is a link to Solesmes Abbey and the history of chant.

http://www.solesmes.com/history

I suppose their attempts to return to the original purity of GC does count as 'historically informed'

Back in the 1980s (?) a choir of Spanish monks (forgotten their name) recorded a number of albums of Gregorian Chant and they became wildly popular, mainly due to TV advertising. The publicity blurb described it as 'the sound of the Middle Ages'. A letter to Gramophone (I think) pointed out that the monk's vocal technique/style derived from 19th century Spanish operetta. Clearly, some chant is more authentic than others.

[Rosalba]

In a discussion today someone suggested that the work of the monks at Solesmes Abbey is an example of HIP. For the past 150 years or so these guys have tried to make sense of medieval performance practice, specifically for Gregorian chant. They claim to use scientific methods to decipher parchments full of neums and the like.  Maybe it's all linked to the 19th century interest in philology (remember Casaubon in Middlemarch, wasn't he interested in philology - or was it myths or the authors of the Bible? Can't remember.)

Anyway if this is right it's not quite correct to say that HIP is a preoccupation of the second half of the 20th century.

Good point.
And I love the plainchant of Solesmes.
A little goes a long way, and a whole lot goes even further: an epiphany of eternity.

[milk]

It would not have been very artistic, if he had, would it have?

And on another point earlier (whose, I do not recall):  That there be one thing or way, and that one thing or way is exactly what the composer wants, always, is in my experience the exception rather than the rule.

Something I learned from living in Japan that blows my mind is that stuff like Noh theater is supposed to be performed exactly the same way every time going back some hundreds of years. I'm not an expert on it and I don't even get how that's possible but that's what they say. Very Japanese but to me just the idea of it is a kind of mental torture. What do we know about the acceptable degree of variety and interpretation expected in Bach's day? "Interpretation" sounds very modern to me but I do remember reading that improvisation was an element of the performer's skill so the notion of "personal" touch was there. I guess that before the heroic performer was born in western musical spheres there was something of the inspiration from god?

[Mandryka]

Something I learned from living in Japan that blows my mind is that stuff like Noh theater is supposed to be performed exactly the same way every time going back some hundreds of years. I'm not an expert on it and I don't even get how that's possible but that's what they say. Very Japanese but to me just the idea of it is a kind of mental torture. What do we know about the acceptable degree of variety and interpretation expected in Bach's day? "Interpretation" sounds very modern to me but I do remember reading that improvisation was an element of the performer's skill so the notion of "personal" touch was there. I guess that before the heroic performer was born in western musical spheres there was something of the inspiration from god?

I think it's real strange that anyone could think that "no interpretation" was a good idea in texted music like motets, as if the text were meaningless vocalise. Yet that's exactly what you see happening time and time again in some mainstream British performances of early music, in Orlando Consort's Machaut for example. It's especially ironic that they treat Machaut like this, Machaut being a wordsmith par excellence.

[Jo498]

But some time after Machaut (or even in his time) there were works with parallel texts, sometimes even sung in different languages (like Latin and French), so it was hardly possible to understand anything!
I am pretty sure there are lots of complaints about the "prima la musica" stance of some late medieval/renaissance composers because this is what eventually led to the "reforms" connected with Palestrina's style that left the text recognizable.
Of course this gives no immediate argument for the interpretation of the music, only that it probably was not presupposed that the text would be easily understandable.

[San Antone]

But some time after Machaut (or even in his time) there were works with parallel texts, sometimes even sung in different languages (like Latin and French), so it was hardly possible to understand anything!
I am pretty sure there are lots of complaints about the "prima la musica" stance of some late medieval/renaissance composers because this is what eventually led to the "reforms" connected with Palestrina's style that left the text recognizable.
Of course this gives no immediate argument for the interpretation of the music, only that it probably was not presupposed that the text would be easily understandable.

Those parallel texts were usually a commentary (in the vernacular) on a familiar liturgical text (latin), so there may not have been as much confusion as you might think.

[San Antone]

I think it's real strange that anyone could think that "no interpretation" was a good idea in texted music like motets, as if the text were meaningless vocalise. Yet that's exactly what you see happening time and time again in some mainstream British performances of early music, in Orlando Consort's Machaut for example. It's especially ironic that they treat Machaut like this, Machaut being a wordsmith par excellence.

I don't agree with you regarding the OC recordings.  You may be looking for more of a dramatic reading, such as is found in madrigal singing, which would seem to be anachronistic for Machaut's style.

[Mandryka]

I don't agree with you regarding the OC recordings. 

In which ways do you find their performances take into account the meaning of the words?

You may be looking for more of a dramatic reading

Certainly not! Just to state a preference I don't even like madrigals sung dramatically in the way that some Italian groups have started to do.  But that's just me, I wasn't really wantaing to talk about what I like, I wanted to talk about how to perform the music.

What I do expect is that the singing expresses a sentiment, it needn't go as far as word painting, but I think that where the poem in the motet is clearly expressing some emotional idea, the singing should be consistent with it at least (i.e. not jaunty when the poem's about being sad or about languishing) and I'd go further and say it should express it a bit (ie be a bit sad sounding, or languid even.)

Part of the reason I want this, is that Machaut himself would have wanted it. He's explicit -- he says that music and rhetoric are important for him, it's like he left us performance guidelines. I assume (you may know better) that by rhetoric he meant the science of persuading people, à la Aristotle.

So maybe "more dramatic" would be anachronistic, I won't comment on that yet. But more expressive wouldn't be. On the contrary.

[San Antone]

In which ways do you find their performances take into account the meaning of the words?

Certainly not! Just to state a preference I don't even like madrigals sung dramatically in the way that some Italian groups have started to do.  But that's just me, I wasn't really wantaing to talk about what I like, I wanted to talk about how to perform the music.

What I do expect is that the singing expresses a sentiment, it needn't go as far as word painting, but I think that where the poem in the motet is clearly expressing some emotional idea, the singing should be consistent with it at least (i.e. not jaunty when the poem's about being sad) and I'd go further and say it should express it a bit (ie be a bit sad sounding if it's about being sad.)

Part of the reason I want this, is that Machaut himself would have wanted it. He's explicit -- he says that music and rhetoric are important for him, it's like he left us performance guidelines. I assume (you may know better) that by rhetoric he meant the science of persuading people, à la Aristotle.

So maybe "more dramatic" would be anachronistic, I won't comment on that yet. But more expressive wouldn't be. On the contrary.

I'd have to focus on the specific aspect of their performances, as I understand it, you are talking about.  I wouldn't call their performances "flat".  Machaut was a very astute and sophisticated court personage, someone of stature of his time.  That said, I have no idea how he would prefer hearing his music done. 

His lyrics employ a structured language, almost utilizing code words and concepts for emotions which would have been out-of-place to declare forthrightly.  So, it is conceivable to me that too much expressive singing might not be what he would want.

Also, I generally don't like to compare recordings, e.g., the OC with Marc Mauillon: Each brings something unique to the music.

[Mandryka]

But some time after Machaut (or even in his time) there were works with parallel texts, sometimes even sung in different languages (like Latin and French), so it was hardly possible to understand anything!
I am pretty sure there are lots of complaints about the "prima la musica" stance of some late medieval/renaissance composers because this is what eventually led to the "reforms" connected with Palestrina's style that left the text recognizable.
Of course this gives no immediate argument for the interpretation of the music, only that it probably was not presupposed that the text would be easily understandable.

I want you to spell this out for me if you have some time. What works do you have in mind with parallel texts sung in different languages? There are, of course, macaronic motets, but the fact that we we have simultaneous Latin and French poems doesn't preclude understanding: you may recite the poems before the singing for example. And, if the voices have distinct timbres, it may well be possible to follow the two poems at the same time.

It's interesting to think of how medieval people listened -- I'm suggesting they followed the words, melodies and harmonies of a three part motet

In a mass (re Palestrina -- about whom I know next to nothing, you have been warned!) the words may not be so important -- we all know them so well anyway.

[Mandryka]

His lyrics employ a structured language, almost utilizing code words and concepts for emotions which would have been out-of-place to declare forthrightly.

That's an interesting idea I've not come across before.

[San Antone]

That's an interesting idea I've not come across before.

E.g., many poems use the word "mercy" which for Machaut could be anything from a glance, to a smile, or even a secret kiss. Many of his songs allude to a man in love with an unattainable woman at court.  But many of these women were in loveless relationships and open to a closeness with a man of a lower social class.

When I get home I might be able locate a chapter or two which discuss his language and veiled meanings.

[San Antone]

Here is an excerpt of a blog article I wrote a while back:

Machaut wrote court music, and his lais or chansons were meant to provide solace to the nobility.  The men and women of a Medieval court had regular and close contact and could develop affections.  However because of the mores of the time these affections could not be acted upon, which would often lead to unrequited love.  The men were expected to be faithful servants to ladies of the court but to never overstep the boundaries of these relationships.  Many of Machaut's lyrics paint a picture of a courtier in love with an unavailable lady.  Machaut's songs offer solace for these individuals in the form of "hope".

During the Medieval period emotions were somewhat formalized: Hope; Desire; Memory; Mercy could represent ideas different to how we think of them today.  For Machaut's courtiers, Desire (for the lady) would produce hopelessness since the desire could not be fulfilled.  And Memory (Souvenir) often led to Desire.  It is common in a Machaut song that he will offer Hope for something less than physical love, a kind glance or word (Mercy) between the lovers would be enough, it had to be enough, under the circumstances. Machaut would counsel his audience to use memory (Souvenir) to conjure images of these kinds of interactions and be happy (Hope) with what they could achieve instead of lamenting over what was out of reach (Desire).

[Mandryka]

In the motets all this stuff about courtly love can be read as a religious allegory.  In fact I don't know the other music so well, I would like to explore them some more.

For Machaut's courtiers, Desire (for the lady) would produce hopelessness since the desire could not be fulfilled. 

This sounds very modern

It is common in a Machaut song that he will offer Hope for something less than physical love, a kind glance or word (Mercy) between the lovers would be enough, it had to be enough, under the circumstances. Machaut would counsel his audience to use memory (Souvenir) to conjure images of these kinds of interactions and be happy (Hope) with what they could achieve instead of lamenting over what was out of reach (Desire).[/i]

Sight, the glance of the beloved, is a recurrent theme I think in Machaut.

Machaut would counsel his audience to use memory (Souvenir) to conjure images of these kinds of interactions and be happy (Hope) with what they could achieve instead of lamenting over what was out of reach (Desire).[/i]

I can't remember this, but it sounds very plausible.

[milk]

I think it's real strange that anyone could think that "no interpretation" was a good idea in texted music like motets, as if the text were meaningless vocalise. Yet that's exactly what you see happening time and time again in some mainstream British performances of early music, in Orlando Consort's Machaut for example. It's especially ironic that they treat Machaut like this, Machaut being a wordsmith par excellence.

Something a Chinese history professor at a university in Japan told me (gleefully) was that in the west historians do interpretation but in Asia they just report the facts. Again, it causes a kind of mental torture just to hear such a thing spoken. Doesn't he realize he's setting up robots to put him out of a job? But they already have it (https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/japan-classrooms-to-use-ai-robots-to-help-teach-english). Sorry! Back to Motets!

[Mandryka]

As far as I know, in early music,  say Dufay and earlier, there is no evidence at all to show that performers were expected to be creative. I've certainly never seen anything on how to form sounds, timbre, tempo, rubato - all the things that a singer might use to make the performance expressive.   And I've never seen anything on the way that the text (the poem) should guide the performances. If that's right it's certainly possible that there was a kind of ur-text and well known performance tradition which these people were expected to follow willy nilly,  deviations were hammered down by the establishment. like milk says happens with Japanese classical theatre. You get a sense of this in the poem The Owl and the Nightingale. 

This may explain the approach of Anglo American interpreters like Gothic Voices, Orlando Consort, the early Sequentia, Mary Berry, and above all Tallis Scholars. They feel more secure singing "come scritto"

Peter Philips once told a friend of mine (so my friend said) that he would never add accidentals to his editions because he feels that the our understanding  of  musica ficta is too embryonic and incomplete - any attempt to use it  runs the risk of being rapidly revealed to be a travesty. I believe this was exactly the approach of Andrew Parott in his 1977 performance of the Machaut mass, one of the things that made it so astonishing at the time, maybe someone who's followed the recording and the score can verify.

Hilliard seems to me to stand apart - there's something to explore there.

I found a quote - I can dig it out if anyone wants - from someone who said that he'd heard some singers (church singers, chanters) embellish the music with accidentals, but when he asked them why they did it, they just said that that's been the tradition round here for ever, that all the great reveered singers of yore did it! I'll find the details.

[San Antone]

As far as I know, in early music,  say Dufay and earlier, there is no evidence at all to show that performers were expected to be creative. I've certainly never seen anything on how to form sounds, timbre, tempo, rubato - all the things that a singer might use to make the performance expressive.   And I've never seen anything on the way that the text (the poem) should guide the performances. If that's right it's certainly possible that there was a kind of ur-text and well known performance tradition which these people were expected to follow willy nilly,  deviations were hammered down by the establishment. like milk says happens with Japanese classical theatre. You get a sense of this in the poem The Owl and the Nightingale. 

This may explain the approach of Anglo American interpreters like Gothic Voices, Orlando Consort, the early Sequentia, Mary Berry, and above all Tallis Scholars. They feel more secure singing "come scritto"

Peter Philips once told a friend of mine (so my friend said) that he would never add accidentals to his editions because he feels that the our understanding  of  musica ficta is too embryonic and incomplete - any attempt to use it  runs the risk of being rapidly revealed to be a travesty. I believe this was exactly the approach of Andrew Parott in his 1977 performance of the Machaut mass, one of the things that made it so astonishing at the time, maybe someone who's followed the recording and the score can verify.

Hilliard seems to me to stand apart - there's something to explore there.

I found a quote - I can dig it out if anyone wants - from someone who said that he'd heard some singers (church singers, chanters) embellish the music with accidentals, but when he asked them why they did it, they just said that that's been the tradition round here for ever, that all the great reveered singers of yore did it! I'll find the details.

I am only addressing the bits I bolded. 

I doubt the quote is accurate since every experienced/knowledgeable early music performer/ensemble is aware that the manuscripts did not include all of the accidentals which would have been applied during performance.  We have a number of treatises which lay out many/most of the rules of how and when musica ficta should be employed. 

However, it is also not unusual for modern groups to abuse the practice and turn modal music into major/minor music - which I think is a travesty.  Still, this issue (adding accidentals) is one of the more controversial ones among the early music performance genre.

I am pretty sure Andrew Parrott's recording of the Machaut Messe was released in 1984, not 1977 (unless you are referring to a performance he gave in York Minster).  It is among my favorites.

[Mandryka]

When we discussed it we talked about the performance in York Minster, people thought that the recording was just like the performance, but no one was quite sure.

I have a very basic question about ficta. What is the point of adding accidentals? Is it to remove dissonances, or add dissonances? Or both? Or neither?

[San Antone]

When we discussed it we talked about the performance in York Minster, people thought that the recording was just like the performance, but no one was quite sure.

I have a very basic question about ficta. What is the point of adding accidentals? Is it to remove dissonances, or add dissonances? Or both? Or neither?

This is a very simplified explanation: Music from the Middle Ages was taught to singers primarily using solfeggio method, i.e. ut-re-mi-fa.  Singers learned the intervals for those four notes (tetrachord), and then transposed them a fourth up to complete the octave.  What that would produce is a scale C-D-E-F / F-G-A-Bb.  Musica ficta was instituted to change either the Bb to C interval to B-C or the F-G interval to F#-G depending upon the cadence.

In practice, they weren't thinking of adding accidentals as we think of it.  For them they were thinking of moving the tetrachord up, superimposing it to a new position in order to duplicate the correct intervals.  In order to create the correct ending cadence, they would think of moving the first tetrachord up so that the final "C" was replaced by the "F", with the E-F now becoming B-C. 

In some manuscripts there would be a # indicated sometimes not.  But to answer your original question it was always inserted to avoid what was considered as linear dissonance, even if it created a vertical one.

[Mandryka]

But to answer your original question it was always inserted to avoid what was considered as linear dissonance, even if it created a vertical one.

Thank you. If someone can find a youtube with an example of linear dissonance I'd be very interested. You make it sound as though the dissonant chord which may result is a neutral side effect.

Some people used to think that medieval harmony was just so bad that they must have been oblivious to it -- as if they didn't hear the harmonies when they listened, they just heard the simultaneous melodies in each voice. I don't know if anyone holds that view today.