I don't know if any of you are having trouble with the vocabulary, but I thought I should share the following links that have been very helpful to me:
https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/itc/music/sonic/index.html
http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/
Also, is anyone interested in forming a study group?
~ Maria Class ~
07 March 2008
19 February 2008
Early Opera
Early opera presents another attempt to convey emotions through music. Do you find that you "feel" Orfeo more than the other pieces we have studied? If so, how, and why might that be the case?
18 February 2008
Reaction Paper
Use this post for questions/comments in relation to the Ockeghem / Gombert reaction paper.
17 February 2008
The Madrigal
In the pieces for today - the madrigals of Monteverdi. We are seeing in action the newfound appreciation for both proper setting of the text and the idea of music setting out to elicit emotional response.
A question that I'd like to look at in class is the following:
Why should music have expression as one of its goals?
A question that I'd like to look at in class is the following:
Why should music have expression as one of its goals?
10 February 2008
Late Renaissance
In these pieces I want you to listen for the way the text is set. As you can see from the documents of the Council of Trent, the Catholic church, owing to the newfound interest in humanism, grew particularly interested in the clear presentation of the text. Think about the way the music fits the text and vice versa, especially in regard to the Palestrina work - the piece which by legend, though not by history, is given credit for "saving" music.
05 February 2008
The Early Renaissance Mass
Both the Ockeghem and the Dufay pieces make use of "L'Homme Arme" a popular fifteenth century tune as their cantus firmus. L'Homme Arme is not a chant. It may be a secular tune. Is this problematic?
02 February 2008
Clearing up Confusion about Proportions
I know that some people may be having problems getting their heads around all this proportion talk and so I hope this may clear it up somewhat.
In this talk about proportions we are really talking about three similar ideas - as they say, "same, same, but different."
On the first level when we speak of these ratios we are simply referring to length of strings and the pitch that those strings would sound if they were plucked.
So if I have a string that is 6 inches long and I pluck it, it will sound a specific pitch. If I have a string 3 inches long and pluck it, it will sound the same pitch as the other string, but an octave higher - (the difference between mens and women's voices generally). Thus we could say that the ratio of the two strings - their string lengths was 2:1 and that same ratio (2:1) could represent the sound of the two strings plucked simultaneously - the interval of an octave. If one wanted they could do an experiment with rubber bands or strings. Since for the medieval musician, music was thought of as the art of measurement it would be logical for them to conceive of pitch relationships like this. When we discussed the acceptable simultaneities of pitches, we were defining those simultaneities - octaves, fifths and fourths in terms of their ratios and suggesting that these simultaneities were deemed acceptable because they could be expressed in simple superparticular - (x+1:x) - ratios.
This is one sense of the ratios.
Another sense is the physical sense - if I pluck that same 6 inch string the whole thing will vibrate. However, at the same time that whole string will vibrate each half of it vibrates, each third of it vibrates, each fourth of it vibrates and so on ad infinitum. Thus, we could concieve of the relationships of the parts of the string vibrating in ratios. Each half to the whole (1:2); each third to the whole (1:3) etc.
Finally, in the sense of the isorhythmic motet we have proportions of lengths of musical sections - self-contained, internally coherent hunks of music. Here we're talking about durations: we could be referring to beats, seconds or whatever. So the first section of music might be 60 seconds long and the next 30. Thus we could say that the sections of music were in a proportion of 2:1. There is a rhythmic component of this, known as mensuration, that complicates the matter.
You're welcome to post follow-up questions to this thread, and we can discuss it more in class on Monday.
In this talk about proportions we are really talking about three similar ideas - as they say, "same, same, but different."
On the first level when we speak of these ratios we are simply referring to length of strings and the pitch that those strings would sound if they were plucked.
So if I have a string that is 6 inches long and I pluck it, it will sound a specific pitch. If I have a string 3 inches long and pluck it, it will sound the same pitch as the other string, but an octave higher - (the difference between mens and women's voices generally). Thus we could say that the ratio of the two strings - their string lengths was 2:1 and that same ratio (2:1) could represent the sound of the two strings plucked simultaneously - the interval of an octave. If one wanted they could do an experiment with rubber bands or strings. Since for the medieval musician, music was thought of as the art of measurement it would be logical for them to conceive of pitch relationships like this. When we discussed the acceptable simultaneities of pitches, we were defining those simultaneities - octaves, fifths and fourths in terms of their ratios and suggesting that these simultaneities were deemed acceptable because they could be expressed in simple superparticular - (x+1:x) - ratios.
This is one sense of the ratios.
Another sense is the physical sense - if I pluck that same 6 inch string the whole thing will vibrate. However, at the same time that whole string will vibrate each half of it vibrates, each third of it vibrates, each fourth of it vibrates and so on ad infinitum. Thus, we could concieve of the relationships of the parts of the string vibrating in ratios. Each half to the whole (1:2); each third to the whole (1:3) etc.
Finally, in the sense of the isorhythmic motet we have proportions of lengths of musical sections - self-contained, internally coherent hunks of music. Here we're talking about durations: we could be referring to beats, seconds or whatever. So the first section of music might be 60 seconds long and the next 30. Thus we could say that the sections of music were in a proportion of 2:1. There is a rhythmic component of this, known as mensuration, that complicates the matter.
You're welcome to post follow-up questions to this thread, and we can discuss it more in class on Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)