[Smt-talk] Palestrina and Jeppesen, was: MISSING THEORY COMPONENT?

[Richard Hermann]

Dear SMT-listers,

There are two books by Knud Jeppesen that seem to pertain to this issue between Profs. Schubert and Väisälä. The well-known (or should be to English speaking scholars of Renaissance music and of counterpoint) The Style of Palestrina and Dissonance, trans. Edward J. Dent and his Counterpoint trans.& intro. Glen Haydon. The later provides a valuable introduction to the history of counterpoint within its Part 1.

In J's Style of Palestrina, I find both references to many “late Medieval" and also “Renaissance” theorists as well as those subsequent. The book also features extensive references to Palestrina’s oeuvre in support of his observations. There is only one reference to Wagner on p. 164 and footnote in the index, and that page is in a section discussing dissonance treatment between voices and about the ontology of augmented or diminished chords in P’s style. As for his Counterpoint textbook, it has one reference to Wagner on p. 69. There in a footnote the discussion is on leading-tones in modes and how it later becomes important as part of the V to I eventually becoming transformed into Wagnerian and Post-Wagnerian harmony.

I would like to know in more detail where Prof. Schubert found evidence for J’s admiration of P’s melodies for their Wagnerian qualities. Also, evidence that there is a theory of melody in J. 

This idea of a theory of melody in J may be due to translation from, German, to English in 1946. The word melody is stretched to cover many very different ideas, especially in English at that time, that are quite different subsets of lynes (borrowed and adapted from Boretz). By lyne I mean a one pitch at a time succession that is perceptually understood to represent a musical entity. This would include items like melody, theme, subject, inner accompanying voice, tune, answer, countersubject, bass line, etc. Perhaps there are other relevant sources of which I am unaware. 

In J’s Style, the chapter on Melody quotes heavily from P with other Renaissance composers represented and one Bach quotation. There are many references to P’s works for each principle discussed. Other than a passing reference to Schubert’s Miller Lieder, I found no other references to 19th-century music and none to Wagner in any form although my examination was a bit cursory. The discussion appears not to be a theory of melody but rather of how to write acceptable lynes in the style of Palestrina.

This discussion raises a broader epistemological issue: is the only acceptable evidence from theorists of the day? Can we reasonably ignore extensive evidence from the scores themselves in this case? 

I would welcome statistical studies periodically redone as theoretical concepts and categories become more refined, changed, or even rejected. These, of course, could not simply and directly be used in either model composition or analysis from the repertoire, but it would provide a better set of starting points. They would not be theories but rather “teachings” in the sense of Schoenberg’s use of “Harmonielehre” with the limited kind of support that empirical studies provide. Certainly knowledge of the theorists of the day should be continually consulted in devising lists of what should be counted but they also should be open to critique in light of findings. The discussion, I hope, will remain open. There is so much yet to learn about this repertoire.

Best,

Richard Hermann, PhD, Prof. of Music
Regent's Lecturer
Univ. of New Mexico
harhar at unm.edu

On May 25, 2014, at 12:10 36, Olli Väisälä <ovaisala at siba.fi> wrote:

>> I always found it ironic that Palestrina is the model for general principles of melody writing. This has been the case since Jeppesen, a scholar who admired Palestrina's tunes for their Wagnerian qualities, and who had no idea how counterpoint works.
>> 
> 
> Dear Prof. Schubert,
> 
> Your harsh verdict of Jeppesen ("no idea") would be more productive, if you took the trouble of substantiating it.
>>  
>> 
>> I would like to be a fly on the wall of the present-day counterpoint classrooms where this type of writing is taught—is it just recycled Jeppesen? It's for sure not any historical source: no treatise in the Renaissance addresses "good melody writing" (except for the most obvious errors). Palestrina, like everybody else, stole, modeled, recycled, and wrote brilliant tunes, but there was no theory of melody in his day.
>> 
> 
> I think Jeppesen was fully aware that there was no such theory in Palestrina's day. But this certainly does not suffice to imply that we should not utilize Palestrina's music – or Jeppesen's ideas about it – in trying to approach principles of "good melody writing."
> 
> Best wishes,
> Olli Väisälä
> Sibelius Academy
> University of the Arts, Helsinki
> ovaisala at siba.fi
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140525/95c5801d/attachment-0002.htm>