In organum and this early polyphony composers added additional melodies to existing lines of chant - chant sung unbelievably slowly at times. I'd like to ask you to think about two aspects of this process.
1) How should we understand this act of adding an additional line of music to a sacred chant? Just why were these people writing, or improvising, these additional lines?
2) Where is the role of emotion in this music?
Next time, we'll continue discussing the the role of music in the medieval church, some technical aspects of coordination, as well as these and other questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I'm not sure how well I can answer these questions but one idea for why they would add lines is in fact to incite emotion. Even though they are sacred, if the chants are unbelievably boring, no one will remember them-including the singers!- or feel anything for them. Not that they made me feel much.
Maybe these additions speak to a movement from chants and polyphony being strictly church and sacred songs meant for God only to being "music" meant for the masses. Perhaps the people writing and improvising these lines were moving beyond the sacred realm and pushing forward into the realm of music as a primary purpose.
Reading a little bit online, it seems that polyphony might have started due to the increased influence of Greek philosophy and secularism. So, I guess the origin was a result of monks breaking out from the influence of the Catholic Church and inserting some secular thought over the religious words.
I suppose this adds some emotion, as the words become more personal (considering they are chosen by the monks themselves) and individuals are allowed to be heard independently.
-Sloan
Before and after listening to this week's batch of music, I listened to the original Gregorian chants we started with. The profound difference between the two sets was noticeable within the first five seconds of each piece. The harmony produced from the polyphony added another dimension to the chants, which were still audible under the different melodies.
The reading mentioned that one "unknown author" in 860 claimed that the addition of the second voice was simply "an ornamentation of church music." I, however, feel that adding the second voice goes beyond simple ornamentation--there had to be some compelling reason to give music this other dimension, and I don't really see how it could just come out of nowhere. When I listened to these new pieces, the music came alive, got my attention, and--most importantly--kept me awake. Particularly ,"Nativitas gloriose virginis Marie"," reminded me of the Muslim call to prayer which sounds from minarets around a city; the music has the quality to express emotion, at least to me, much more effectively than it did in the monophonic chants.
1) People wrote/improvised additional melodies to "jazz up" the monotony a bit. As Notker wrote with regard to adding syllables, innovation made the songs easier to remember. The same could be said for adding melodies, as Genevieve said. Aside from practical purposes, maybe people were writing additional melodies simply to express their creativity. If these songs were performed in churches (not only in monasteries) maybe the songs were written to be more complex to keep people from falling asleep in church (or maybe to attract more people to the monastic lifestyle.
Monasteries served as the main centers of learning /writing/ education before the rise of universities. Perhaps they also served as one of the main centers for musical innovation as well. I'd be interested to here what others have to say about the role of the monastery in the larger scheme of musical development (not only in the church but in Western society as a whole). Maybe Todd can speak more about this tomorrow.
2) Again, it's hard to pin down and define "emotion." It's an intrinsically unscientific exercise, but I recognize emotion's importance and relation to music. If music does not express or evoke emotion, then what is its purpose? If we like or dislike the way something sounds, it evokes emotion. If everyone were indifferent to a sound, then no one would bother to make it anymore.
I suppose we can agree that this music either expresses or evokes emotion, or both. It expresses emotion because the monks feel "awe." It would evoke emotion if it caused people to feel closer to God and caused them to be more religious. However, Perotin's Alleluia Nativitas" is putting me to sleep right now - it sounds like something to which people might meditate - reminds me of the Buddhist "Om."
I think the insertion of extra lines of music to form these organa might have served the purpose of musical/vocal experimentation within an acceptable framework. As suggested by Todd's accompanying background articles, there was debate within the Church as to the role that this polyphony should play in the liturgy.
While I did get a good laugh out of reading about the accusation that this music was meant to arouse the loins more than the spirit, I do think that this sentiment is useful in deducing that there were concerns other than the strictly ecclesiastical that went into the development of organum.
Or, and not to fall into puns, maybe the development of organum was an organic evolution in choral music, in which a chorus could finally sing a piece together but parallel to one another.
It seems like the additional lines mainly function to add aesthetics to the music. They add to the beauty and the complexity of the music. As far as it's place within the religious context, it seems like that may have been controversial. One of the readings said that one of the chants was considered "the music of the devil" because of the feelings that it excited in the listener. I found it interesting that that phrase was used particularly as I had only heard it used to refer to the tri-tone in the transition from Baroque to Classical. It just reinforces how much of the act of listening to music is contextual. Both additional lines and tri tones now sound pleasing and are often even expected by modern listeners. But, when they were first being used, listeners found them provocative and upsetting.
Not really adding anything new here, but like Rachel already said, the "Nativitas gloriose virginis Marie" brought the muezzin's call to mind. it was unexpected, but very interesting.
the addition of polyphony to the plainchant, i think, was a natural progression because musical convention can only stay the same for so long. perhaps the act of adding an additional line was an attempt at enriching the offering to God. this ties in somewhat with the discussion we had about the higher pitch for certain chants, likewise, i think here the additional line is a show of additional effort, to please/glorify/etc God.
As for emotion, i'm not sure if there is any easy correlation to be drawn; if anything, i think the addition of a musical line could be distracting, even confusing, thereby detracting from the worship. yet the music becomes infinitely more beautiful (in my opinion) with the harmony, the interplay of voices; i'm not sure what emotion this would be, at least for myself it's some sort of sad but lifting feeling. i know, hokey.
oh. i almost forgot - did i hear a regular beat in some of the music we listened to?
When you listen to the first chants then to "Alleluia Nativitas" and finally the two organums, especially "Nativitas gloriose virginis Marie" you can really hear a progression of the additions and how intricate they become. I agree with what has already been said about the chants being more enjoyable to listen to. I particularly thought "Nativitas gloriose virginis Marie" was beautiful.
I agree with Sloan in that the addditions were made because the masses began to become more influenced by Greek philosophy and secularism. When it comes to religion, especially Christianity, one of the goals is conversion. One of the struggles is to create an atmosphere within church that is current with the times but still upholds the Christian standards. I believe the alterations was an attempt by monks to stay current with various movements at the time.
However, I also believe that creativity is something innate within human beings, therefore, innovation to the Gregorian chants was inevitable so that human expression and creativity could be fully realized.
I think interpolations were created to improve the effectiveness of the original chants' role in the universal harmony scheme envisioned by Greek and medieval Christian philosophers. The Speculum article states that Gregorian chants had no independent artistic function but served as a type of conduit between the monks and God within the universal harmony scheme. The tropes written by monks of succeeding generations suggests an evolution of ecclesiastical attitudes regarding the chants' effectiveness as a mode of divine harmony. Over time, the monks intellectually (not necessarily creatively) understood polyphony to be a better representation of universal harmony than monophony because of its inclusion of multiple tones (simultaneous tones being the auditory reality of the universe).
However, as ecclesiastical attitudes evolved, I think the trope also evolved into an acceptable space for creative experimentation. This probably catalyzed the consideration of music as an independent form of expression, separate from the liturgy.
I think emotion had very little to do with the interpolations, which I tend to view as a type of philosophical commentary. I do believe that the effect of this commentary produces more emotion in the modern listener, but I'm not sure that infusion of emotion is the intention here.
I agree with what people are saying about the aesthetic appeal of adding another line of music, but I also couldn't help but think of a more spiritual correlation, or reason for the change. The innovation of Polyphony is to have many different voices singing different lines of music, and yet simultaneously coming together in some kind of union/harmony. Doesn't that sound also like the Holy Trinity - The father, son, and holy spirit are separate, different, and yet also one and the same?
Also, I think the added line gives the listener a greater sense of being uplifted. Especially, in the first organum - the lower, slower, possibly more "earthly" line of chant is established, and then while the listener is anchored down in this line, they also begin to hear the higher pitched line, and I think listening to the two together gives one a sense of at once being grounded in the earth and also feeling drawn to something higher.
The additional line of chant provides a new experience to the music. The new harmony may have made the music feel more uplifting. The controversy debating whether music was agreeable to God probably fueled this addition. According to the JSTOR article, "The us of music was once and for all limited by its consideration as a potential aid in securing eternal life" After all, if the monophonic chants pleased God, then more agreeable, polyphonic, music with pleasing harmony must be more pleasing with God.
These new lines of music add a new depth. I would be interested to know if these new lines were determined by the text on which they were based like the main line of chant or if they were added to enhance just the melody. The addition of harmony invokes a sense of, well, harmony. The addition of this extra line adds a new layer that contributes to a new sense of emotion that can be found in the chants.
I think the idea of the trinity is a good one. This corresponds directly to what the article refers to as harmony of the spheres, "we constantly find in medieval treatises reference to the harmony of the spheres as an integral part of the fundamental classification of music." The multi part music perhaps is a direct analogy to this Christian and Greek notion.
Perhaps also now we have some beginnings of virtuosity though with monks this wouldn't seem humble enough. Maybe the added lines as well as multiple voices require greater skill in writing/singing, and allow for great composers or vocalists to shine. We do see in the write-up for Alleluia Nativitas gloriose virginis Leoninus and Perotinus referred to as the best composers.
The addition of voices practically lets the music capture the mind and emotions of the listener in a powerful way that can be very simply experimented with if one tries to stop playing one of the longer chants a few minutes before it actually ends. It would hit you like a blast, since you are deeply "in to it" and stopping without the closing will be similar to suddenly being let go after getting emotionally binded and bonded to the music. If this effect was consciously put into the song through the addition of the new lines, I must say it was a master-stroke.
Rachel's drawing comparison to the Muslim prayer call is very thought provoking. I would broaden the example in a few steps: first, this indeed is very similar in structure and effect to the tradition of melodically reciting the Koran which again aims to capture the attention and admiration of the listener. But then, there are non textual later creation of praise songs that rather than praying or repeating God's verses aims at praising the God and/or the prophet and simply say "yes, we love you too, God". From there on comes the Sufi tradition which totally bypasses formal praying and aims for emotionally bonding with God through non-verbal expression that largely consists non-textual music. Therefore, the parallelism is really striking both in forms and intent.
Also, in terms of technicality, the training-of-voice or setting the stage like parts in the early portions of the Ativitas Gloriose Virginis Marie is extremely similar to, and can almost be mistaken for, classical South Asian music tradition stemming both from the Sanskritik ancient tradition and more recent (colonial British period) revisionist improvised versions. The South Asian classical tradition on one part aims at training and preparing the voice before the actual music starts, and often involves very few long drawn out Sanskrit rooted words or simply the basic vocal modes.
I am not arguing in favor of some "hidden link"; instead, my suggestion is that totally different and non interacting religious / secular / mixed musical traditions evolved in similar manners to reach the audience and hold on to them without loosing the primary elements of the music/song.
(Just wanted to point out that Shourav is my (Rubab) Google screen name. In Bangladesh everyone has two names: one for formal use usually stemming from religious tradition (Rubab(a) is a Persian musical instrument) and an informal one for family use usually coming from secular Bengali tradition (Shourav means fragrance). It is similar among my Hindu/Buddhist/Christian friends back home who have Sanskrit/Western based formal names and Bengali informal names.)
The extra improvisations, I think, in align with many of the other's answers, would be to add some dynamism to the music. Adding the extra lines was probably an effort to appeal to the masses, because the chants do sometimes sound monotonous.
I do believe the polyphony has an emotional effect because the extra lines add a "grander" or "significance" to what is being sung by emphasizing it with more lines and voices.
Post a Comment