Medieval/Renaissance Polyphony: the a capella heresy - Classical Music Forums

hocket · #1 (**permalink**) Feb-21-2010, 16:26

Hi,

I've been having a phase of rabid interest in medieval and renaissance polyphony in recent months. I've been reading on the web about Christopher Page and the 'English' a capella heresy; the thorny question as to whether polyphonic pieces should be accompanied by instruments or not. Whilst I've been a little disturbed by the sheer venom I've seen directed at the Britich Vocal groups in some quarters, I suppose that it's normal when they've dominated the field for so long and I do think that there should always be room for alternative approaches. Anyway, the point is that I don't think that my concern with this is anything to do with 'patriotism' or any kind of nationalistic feeling, although I am sorry to report that I am indeed English. I was initially attracted to the performance of this music unaccompanied and I can't say that I've enjoyed much of it that I've heard when instruments are used. That's by no means meant to be exclusive, as I've enjoyed some examples when the instrumentation has been discreet and not obscured the polyphony. Essentially though, I'm of the opinion that the a capella approach produces vatly superior results and I'd be disappointed to see that 'go out of fashion', so to speak.

''Would you get to the point?'' I hear you ask. Very well. Whilst there does seem to have been a fairly predictable backlash against the success of the British vocal groups (Tallis Scholars et al) on a number of fronts, what concerns me is the statements I've seen that the scholarly view (since the late 70's/early 80's) that these kinds of music should, generally, be sung without instruments has been overturned in the last few years (recently enough not to have featured in Daniel Leech-Wilkinson's 'The Invention of Medieval Music' of 2002).

This is from an interview with the group Cantica Symphonia:

Quote:

You perform these motets with instruments. How much use was made of such instruments in Dufay’s day? Were they used for all performances or for occasions of special importance?

Giuseppe Maletto: Until recently, there has been a sort of crusade against the use of instruments in medieval sacred music. Yet not all sacred music is liturgical music. The term “motet” is applied both to pieces written for particular political and social events and to pieces to be sung during the liturgy. Even in the case of liturgical music, recent research has removed most doubts about the use of instruments. Nevertheless, some performers and critics continue to hold intransigent positions. I believe that in music, and not only, any sort of fundamentalism is harmful.

Admittedly this might be taken to imply that anyone who doesn't like his records must be a Nazi, but I presume that it is actually based on something.

Similarly this quote is from a reviewer on Amazon:

Quote:

There was a period when performances of Renaissance works performed on instruments or with instrumental doubling of vocal parts came to be frowned upon in preference to a capella performances. Around the time this recording was released things had come full circle and both approaches came to be embraced. Erik van Nevel is clearly a scholar fully aware of the latest thoughts in these matters and the listener can rest assured that in matters of performance practice he knows perfectly well what he is doing. The suggestions of ignorance from the previous reviewer should be turned instead on the reviewer himself.

My question therefore is, what has changed regarding the scholarship on this issue in the last few years that has lead these people to believe that instrumentation is an 'acceptable norm'. Has there been new evidence about this issue discovered or have new interpretations of the existing evidence been promulgated, and if so what are they?

Any help would be appreciated.

nefigah · #2 (**permalink**) Feb-22-2010, 07:26

The best I can offer is I seem to remember back from one of my music history classes that the church at one point cracked down on the use of instruments, which would imply that they were being used. However, I can't remember for sure when exactly that point was; I think it was during the Renaissance, but I'm not positive.

In any case, there's so much that wasn't recorded (or was recorded, and was lost) from those days that I wouldn't be surprised either way, and I'd have to agree with the fellow you quoted that it might only be harmful to hold a firm stance one way or the other on this issue. Who knows what could be uncovered, or what might never be uncovered? I suppose in the meantime, it's best to let individual recordings speak for themselves (which is essentially my stance on all things "HIP vs. modern.")

Sorry that I couldn't be any help, but let us know if you learn anything else about the issue!

hocket · #3 (**permalink**) Feb-22-2010, 11:49

nefigah wrote:

Quote:

I'd have to agree with the fellow you quoted that it might only be harmful to hold a firm stance one way or the other on this issue.

Yes, so do I, I was just being a bit facaetious as there's a slight suspicion that his remarks were a touch self-serving.

Quote:

I suppose in the meantime, it's best to let individual recordings speak for themselves (which is essentially my stance on all things "HIP vs. modern.")

Absolutely, after all an academic essay is not going to change which sounds I like. I am interested to know what the current scholarship on this is . Certainly ther's no doubt that instruments were occasionally used, it's more about 'accepted norms'.

Quote:

let us know if you learn anything else about the issue!

I'll be sure to, and thanks.

hocket · #4 (**permalink**) Feb-22-2010, 18:38

This was posted up on Amazon.com as part of an excellent review (of the Medieval Ensemble of London's 'Mi Verry Joy') only a few days ago and seems to be quite well informed on the subject:

Quote:

As a side point, Fallows's dismissal of tracks with instruments (i.e. 1 lute) as "disturbing...[making] the music more confused and less eloquent" (liner notes p.4) seems a little extreme. Quite apart from the fact that this observation hardly matches performances like the exquisite rendition of 'Tout a par moy' (track 15 - which amazon incorrectly lists as being from the Buxheimer Orgelbuch), Fallows's comment is curious on two fronts. Firstly, he is much kinder in liner notes for CDs by other groups which are considerably more dubious, academically speaking (e.g. Ensemble Gilles Binchois's instrument-dominated recording of secular music by Binchois, entitled 'Mon souverain desir' [Virgin Veritas 7243 5 45 285 2], etc.). Secondly, whilst the case for all-vocal performance of this repertory is clearly extremely persuasive, both aesthetically and musicologically, it seems treacherous to claim that there is "no evidence for performing the secular song repertory from before 1480 with instrumental accompaniment" (liner notes p.4). Potentially problematic sources for this assertion include - 1) eye-witness descriptions, such as the well-known account of 2 singers & 1 lutenist who performed at the famous 'banquet du voeu' in 1454 ("...et au pasté fut joué dung leuz avecques deux bonnes voix...", 'Memoires' of Olivier de la Marche); 2) evidence that churchmen of the period - i.e. the main composers and performers of polyphonic music - sometimes owned instruments (such as the canon Ernoul de Halle at Cambrai, who left a harp, lute, gittern, rebec, psaltery and 2 vielles at his death); and 3) visual and iconographical representations of small mixed ensembles featuring voices and soft instruments. Whilst it is true that such "evidence" is not specific enough to support today's widespread assumption that 15th-century song definitely (and regularly) had instrumental accompaniment - i.e. it may simply relate to performances of semi-improvised polyphony or even monophonic music (like that preserved in the Bayeux manuscript, BNF 9346) - the obverse is equally true: we cannot be certain that such sources do NOT relate to the performance of polyphonic music. Thus, in short, the best compromise for modern listeners is probably to assume that 15th-century song was most often performed by unaccompanied voices, but that participation of certain instruments (particularly harp and lute) occasionally occurred. These 2 possibilities are presented most persuasively on this release.

Good enough for me anyway.