The two pieces for Monday are examples of the isorhythmic motet, a specialized type of music that was saved for special occassions. In the isorhythmic motet, there is often a proportional relationship in the length/speed/duration of the individual sections of the work to each other. That is, Section A may be twice as long as Section B (2:1) or one and a half times as long as Section B (3:2) etc. The article by Charles Warren tries to read something into the proportions of the DuFay motet. This was a very controversial argument when it was put forth and was rebutted in two other articles: one by Craig Wright, an expert on Early Music at Yale, and more recently by Marvin Trachtenberg, an architecture professor at NYU, among others. So:
1) What about Warren's article?
2) Consider the motet in light of Notker's insertion of words into a chant.
9 comments:
Warren's article interprets Dufay's "Nuper Rosarum Flores" by finding a proportion-parallel between it and Brunelleschi's Dome. He explains that Dufay was trying to musically "paint" the dome. I think that Warren's explanation restricts the influence of the motet, by labeling it as just a reference to the dome and not leaving any room for it to stand for anything else.
In light of Notker's insertion of words in the chant, perhaps Dufay did try to musically imitate the dome in an effort to link the event, the motet, and the dome in a shared, symbolic meaning. One may remember the dome, and quickly link it to the motet (because of their striking similarites) and of course, to the event.
It seems to me that music played a very important role in the Church in the times of the Renaissance, and as the Church held such a powerful position in society, inevitably the music in the church would have a profound impact on those who had anything to do with the Church. Warren suggests that Brunelleschi's Il Duomo was the main source of inspiration for the composition of "Nuper Rosarum Flores" , but I wonder whether it might have been the other way around. Maybe Brunelleschi, having heard Dufay's motet, was compelled to build the Duomo "around" the music. Warren does not really explore this idea. This is ofcourse, just an interesting side-thought. Although the actual mathematical similarities Warren points out were difficult for me to follow, I did get his point and he presented a compelling theory.
What facinated me was Warren's juxtaposition of this massive building, one of the finest examples of Renaissence architecture in Florence, to the "architecture" of "Nuper Rosarum Flores". He is implying that this piece of music is as grand and important as the Duomo itself. Music clearly held quite a different position in culture and society than it does today.
1)
Warren's article is interesting in many sense, but can be cast doubt upon from almost as many angles. He certainly has taken a a very systematic approach to establish the mathematical relations between the physical architecture and musical composition, and given the fact that at that time (and to much extent even now) music is more closely associated with math than humanities, it is not unlikely that a musician with math craze and an architect with professional math depth would swap interesting thoughts when they are in the same city working for the same authority at comparably high level for so many years. Just as some with interest and passion for diverging fields would attempt to do, a math loving composer would possibly try to fuse the numbers of the performance venue structure into the music as well. So in that sense, the linkage can make sense in a pretty convincing way.
Now consider this: When British mathematician Hardy greeted the Indian mathematician Ramanujan in London in 1914 with the words: "The number of the taxi-cab that brought me here was 1729. It seemed to me rather a dull number", the reply was "Not at all, Hardy! It is a very interesting number. It is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways."
(For the interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7144874.stm )
So the point is, given that someone has enough math knowledge, seeing patterns is just as likely to be his hobby as profession. Moreover, math doesn't come out of the blue, rather often to represent the beauty of natural processes through concise expressions. Thus it is very much possible that just as an architect may design a building with fundamental numerical relations in mind, a musician may compose with fundamental by-sense appreciation of harmonic patterns. Another mathematician few centuries later may just by sheer presupposition prove a relation between the two.
Well, since there is no concrete evidence on either side, both sides seem pretty convincing, or not.
2)
The addition of words is a much more elaborate process here as compared to Notker. I would focus on the question of why is the chant sung as a "background" at all, rather than investigating why words got inserted. Because in my view, these songs have are very specifically created for a given occasion, and the lyric either speaks of the occasion or sings glory of religious figures linking / equating / parallelizing the victor's glory with that of saints. Thus, the background chant may pretty well be an attempt to throw in a halo effect on the actual lyric, thus making the song sound like a chat yet have all the extra contents that need to be put in.
An additional observation is that certainly the mortal audience is thought of when composing these musics, so it is no longer only singing for God by repeating his words and closing the cycle. It is rather about making sure that it sounds good to the audience, fits the occasion, and above all makes rhetorical sense in a flowing manner.
In any case, let me say that I enjoyed both the music very much, and it is very interesting to follow the evolution of musical theory in and around the church over time.
When I first began to read Warren's article, I felt like I was reading an explanation about a conspiracy theory; everything seems to conveniently fall into place in order to reach a conclusion which explains a mysterious fact. For example, the assertion that the number 7 appears so many times (remember the movie "23" with Jim Carrey about this kind of occurrence?).
I'm not entirely inclined to believe Warren right off the bat. It's great that he spent all of that time looking at rations in the architecture--something that I would never have the time to do (shout out to all of you math majors--much respect). I looked through the criticisms of Warren's arguments and there's lots of other plausible (and less painstakingly methematical) explanations for the motet's structure, such as the dimensions of the Temple of Solomon (Wright) or that Warren was wrong in his architectural analysis in the first place (Trachtenberg). I find myself siding with the two critics; while Warren's thesis provides a pleasing discussion about the marriage of music and architecture, it seems a little far-fetched.
oh, these opinionated academics!
i can understand why warren would want to neatly wrap up the motet in the numbers and architecture of the cathedral, but i really don't understand why the later critics couldn't just live and let live. who's to say that wright's opinion is any more correct or true than warren's? i am much more inclined to accept trachtenberg's inclusive summation of the motet, because it is impossible to determine irrevocably the creator's intent, even without the interference of history. (but maybe i just have no opinion of my own.. hehe)
This article reminded me of the old party trick where one plays Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" while watching "The Wizard of Oz" in synchrony to "see the connection" between them. Admittedly, there are many similarities between Brunelleschi's Dome and DuFay's Motets, but attempting to discern an intention through what may be nothing more than coincidence might be considered a futile exercise. The 6:4:3:2 ratio is fascinating, but its appearance in Brunelleschis' architecture and DuFay's motets may be a coincidence, it may be intentional, or perhaps there is something intrinsically beautiful and "right" about the ratio (like the Golden Ratio) that causes it to appear in many art forms. I would be curious to know if this ratio has been found in other works of art, music, or architecture. Unless there is more substantial proof than the admittedly surprising circumstantial evidence described in the article showing that Brunelleschi's Dome influenced Dufay, is is possible that this article is nothing more than an unusual exercise in numerology. However, it was certainly thought-provoking nevertheless as the historical timing and circumstance is suspicious (but many "conspiracy theories" play on suspicious circumstance). I'd like to examine the ratios within both the music and architecture in more detail tomorrow in class so that we can weigh the evidence as a class.
The motet seems to represent a significant progression in the complexity of music that we've encountered (monophony->polyphony->motet). We have what appears to be sets of voices that represent, respectively, point and counterpoint or statement and response. With this new layer of complexity, the music is more memorable(which was the purpose of Notker's use of words in the chants), as well as more emotionally moving in my opinion.
Warren tries very hard to make a convincing argument as to Dufay's mirroring of Il Duomo's architecure in his motet's structure, but I think the force of his thesis is ultimately impaired by his last sentence. In it he refers to both the dome and the motet as "the very models of Renaissance sensibility", mainly in that they "reduce gothic dimensions to classical symmetry and proportion."
The implication, at least in my opinion, is that both the church's architecture and the motet's structure independently sought to transcend the styles and limitations of older forms in a similar fashion, albeit independently. There doesn't need to be any causal relationship here, especially when considering that both "architects" took part in the common intellectual discourse of the era.
Even if Dufay was intentionally reflecting Santa Maria's structure in his own work, a more important point is that (like that church), newer, more robust structures in composition opened up several doors at once to a progression away from the set forms Organum and earlier missal pieces. For me, the Brunelleschi-Dufay connection is less interesting than the significance of Dufay's innovations and their place in the evolution of the mass and its music.
I believe that the proportional similarity between Brunelleschi's Dome and the Motet discussed in Warren is an interesting occurance but does not neccessarily mean that the motet is based on the dome's architechural struture itself. I think the use of the proportions itself is more so representative of the Renasanse time.
The Motet appears to be the natural progression of the polyponic and organum. When considering Notker's insertions of words in the chant to when examining the motet I think it can be understood that the motet is adopting secular ideas, like the simplicity of proportions, to relate more to the times.
I am just checking to see if it will let me post this time, since it deleted my post last time.
Post a Comment