<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
</head>
<body fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Times New Roman;color: #000000;font-size: 12pt;">
The Irenaeus is Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c.130-c.202). Whether 'modus' could have actually meant a musical mode to him is a tangled question but seems extremely unlikely in the context of a treatise against heretics. Hagenbach might have enjoyed the word-play
of course.
<div>If anyone is interested, I can refer you to writings by Charles Atkinson & indeed myself on the subject; all I'll say here is that even by the mid C9th, in the earliest medieval (ie, not late-antique) description of the modes by Aurelian, the word 'modus'
simply means manner or way. He uses other words to describe what we now call 'modes'.</div>
<div><i>f</i><br>
(Dr) Fiona McAlpine<br>
Honorary Research Fellow<br>
School of Music<br>
University of Auckland<br>
<br>
Secretary/Treasurer<br>
New Zealand Musicological Society<br>
<br>
Le Béguinage<br>
42 Horns Rd<br>
RD 1<br>
Oxford 7495<br>
North Canterbury<br>
NEW ZEALAND<br>
<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: smt-talk-bounces@lists.societymusictheory.org [smt-talk-bounces@lists.societymusictheory.org] on behalf of William Helmcke [whelmcke@music.umass.edu]<br>
Sent: Sunday, 18 November 2012 04:46<br>
To: smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org; smt-talk-request@lists.societymusictheory.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Origin of "Semper idem?"<br>
<br>
Dear musicians,<br>
<br>
About three years ago I facilitated a meeting of Latin scholars and I<br>
asked a professor about the possible origins of Schenker's quote.<br>
Although she did not know for certain, she nevertheless briefly<br>
researched the topic and suggested two possibilities. One is from<br>
Augustine's Confessions, which contains something similar (Confessions<br>
8 8.3.6); this confirms Dr. Pastille's earlier observation. A second<br>
is from a book written in 1850 by Karl Rudolf Hagenbach. Quoting the<br>
professor, "The Latin here is taken from someone called Irenaeus (ad.<br>
Haer. ii. 64) and says 'sine initio et sine fine, vere et semper idem<br>
et eodem modo se habens solus est Deus,' which means 'Without<br>
beginning and without end, only God continues truly and always the<br>
same and in the same way.'" Finally, she also observed that the word<br>
"modus" (modo in Schenker's quote) could either mean "way," "musical<br>
measure," or "musical mode."<br>
<br>
Take care,<br>
-William<br>
<br>
William Helmcke,<br>
Doctoral Candidate in Music Theory, University of Massachusetts Amherst<br>
Fulbrighter to Poland 2012-2013, University of Warsaw<br>
Fulbrighter to Poland 2011-2012, University of Warsaw<br>
<br>
<br>
Quoting smt-talk-request@lists.societymusictheory.org:<br>
<br>
> Send Smt-talk mailing list submissions to<br>
> smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org<br>
><br>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org<br>
><br>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
> smt-talk-request@lists.societymusictheory.org<br>
><br>
> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
> smt-talk-owner@lists.societymusictheory.org<br>
><br>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
> than "Re: Contents of Smt-talk digest..."<br>
><br>
><br>
> Today's Topics:<br>
><br>
> 1. Bach quiz (Olli V?is?l?)<br>
> 2. Re: Origin of "Semper idem?" (Donna Doyle)<br>
> 3. Bach Quiz (auerbach@music.umass.edu)<br>
> 4. Re: Origin of "Semper idem?" (John Covach)<br>
> 5. Re: Bach Quiz (Olli V?is?l?)<br>
><br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 1<br>
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:33:20 +0200<br>
> From: Olli V?is?l? <ovaisala@siba.fi><br>
> To: smt-talk smt <smt-talk@societymusictheory.org><br>
> Subject: [Smt-talk] Bach quiz<br>
> Message-ID: <788F47B7-9EB4-4D45-BF85-234DE3ABFE79@siba.fi><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed<br>
><br>
> Dear list,<br>
><br>
> Perhaps some of you might enjoy this kind of recreation. This is<br>
> perhaps a quiz but it might also be a query. The subject is parallel<br>
> fifths in The Well-Tempered Clavier (I and II).<br>
><br>
> I know one example of quite unequivocal parallel fifths in the 96<br>
> movements of WTC. Or perhaps two, if we count those produced by<br>
> sixteenth-note triplets in the D-Major Prelude from WTC II. But I<br>
> don't mean those.<br>
><br>
> If the example I have in mind is the only one, this is a quiz. Who<br>
> will know them or find them?! The quickest to answer gets the prize<br>
> of ... unfortunately nothing more than the huge honor of winning the<br>
> quiz.<br>
><br>
> If there are more equally unequivocal examples, I am certainly<br>
> interested in them, too, and this turns into a query.<br>
><br>
> (Dmitri T., as far as the quiz is concerned, you are not allowed to<br>
> use your computer program! ;-)<br>
><br>
> Olli V?is?l?<br>
> Sibelius Academy<br>
> ovaisala@siba.fi<br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 2<br>
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:57:24 -0500<br>
> From: Donna Doyle <donnadoyle@att.net><br>
> To: William Pastille <william.pastille@sjca.edu><br>
> Cc: smt-talk@societymusictheory.org<br>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Origin of "Semper idem?"<br>
> Message-ID: <5C9F394B-1E30-4DEC-A315-E58BA84AFBD8@att.net><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
><br>
> Dear William Pastille,<br>
><br>
> Many thanks for your research and eloquent explication. The motto<br>
> certainly sounds<br>
> like Augustine. Totally off the cuff, though, I thought it came more<br>
> directly from Goethe.<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> Donna Doyle<br>
> Queens College CUNY<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 8:42 AM, William Pastille<br>
> <william.pastille@sjca.edu> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I was able to find the following passage from Augustine's<br>
>> Confessions, Book 8, Chap. 3:<br>
>><br>
>> nam tu semper idem, quia ea quae non semper nec eodem modo sunt<br>
>> eodem modo semper nosti omnia.<br>
>><br>
>> That is,<br>
>><br>
>> For you [are] always the same thing, because you know in the same<br>
>> way all those things that are not the same nor in the same way.<br>
>><br>
>> The meaning is, I think, that God must be in one and the same state<br>
>> eternally, because his omniscient knowledge has to comprehend in<br>
>> one selfsame act (both all that is eternal and) all that is mutable.<br>
>><br>
>> One can argue with the metaphysics, but let's think about what this<br>
>> means for the world we live in: if God is to be immanent in this<br>
>> mutable world, then there must be a connection between His eternal<br>
>> unchangeability (semper idem) and the worlds continual change (non<br>
>> semper nec eodem modo). In Meisterwerk, Schenker implies, I think,<br>
>> that God may be the "background" of our phenomenal world.<br>
>> Transference of this notion to his analytical levels is obvious,<br>
>> with the difference that Schenker is able to show the connections<br>
>> visually so that they may be grasped by the mind's eye and ear,<br>
>> whereas finding the "prolongations" that connect God to the world<br>
>> of phenomena has not yet been made visible in so graphic a form.<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Smt-talk mailing list<br>
>> Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org<br>
>> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org<br>
><br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL:<br>
> <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20121115/faaa2386/attachment.html><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 3<br>
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:10:13 -0500<br>
> From: auerbach@music.umass.edu<br>
> To: smt-talk@societymusictheory.org<br>
> Subject: [Smt-talk] Bach Quiz<br>
> Message-ID: <20121115171013.150778qlfaw3sqit@umail.oit.umass.edu><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";<br>
> format="flowed"<br>
><br>
><br>
> Greetings, Olli.<br>
><br>
> I'll play. Writing off the top of my head, I'll note that I've always<br>
> been tickled by mm. 49.3-51.2 in the C#-minor Fugue, Book II.<br>
><br>
> It's a clear set of parallel 6/3 chords, but the upper two voices are<br>
> stacked in fifths instead of the normative fourths. In my opinion, the<br>
> little bit of staggering and chromaticism Bach imparts to the alto do<br>
> almost nothing to mask the delightful // 5 effect.<br>
><br>
> I'd definitely mark it as unstylistic on a student counterpoint<br>
> assignment. The piece definitely still merits an A+, though.<br>
><br>
> Is this more or less what you're after?<br>
><br>
> --Brent<br>
><br>
> -----------------------------------<br>
> Brent Auerbach<br>
> Assistant Professor of Theory<br>
> Department of Music and Dance<br>
> University of Massachusetts Amherst<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> Dear list,<br>
>><br>
>> Perhaps some of you might enjoy this kind of recreation. This is<br>
>> perhaps a quiz but it might also be a query. The subject is parallel<br>
>> fifths in The Well-Tempered Clavier (I and II).<br>
>><br>
>> I know one example of quite unequivocal parallel fifths in the 96<br>
>> movements of WTC. Or perhaps two, if we count those produced by<br>
>> sixteenth-note triplets in the D-Major Prelude from WTC II. But I<br>
>> don't mean those.<br>
>><br>
>> If the example I have in mind is the only one, this is a quiz. Who<br>
>> will know them or find them?! The quickest to answer gets the prize<br>
>> of ... unfortunately nothing more than the huge honor of winning the<br>
>> quiz.<br>
>><br>
>> If there are more equally unequivocal examples, I am certainly<br>
>> interested in them, too, and this turns into a query.<br>
>><br>
>> (Dmitri T., as far as the quiz is concerned, you are not allowed to<br>
>> use your computer program! ;-)<br>
>><br>
>> Olli V?is?l?<br>
>> Sibelius Academy<br>
>> ovaisala@siba.fi<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Smt-talk mailing list<br>
>> Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org<br>
>> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 4<br>
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:22:15 -0500<br>
> From: John Covach <johnrcovach@gmail.com><br>
> To: William Pastille <william.pastille@sjca.edu><br>
> Cc: smt-talk@societymusictheory.org<br>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Origin of "Semper idem?"<br>
> Message-ID:<br>
> <CAPFg-FYxAGv-ccYJ_8TBj+5XhHidBWSHtpDcuV6ZTrSiG4RR0Q@mail.gmail.com><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
><br>
> This interpretation is consistent with the kinds of mystical views of music<br>
> often found in pre-WWI Vienna. The idea of God, or some spiritual world or<br>
> entity, residing behind the physical world would not have seemed the least<br>
> bit strange to Schoenberg, Hauer, Berg, or Webern (or Mahler). As I have<br>
> argued elsewhere, Rudolph Steiner's interpretation of Goethe's scientific<br>
> writings is a central source of the mystical readings on music in Germany<br>
> and Austria at this time, mixed with a general knowledge of Schopenhauer<br>
> (mostly the essays) and his elevation of music to the top of the arts.<br>
> Adding a bit of Augustine seems quite natural in this context (even if some<br>
> of these thinkers' ideas are not completely compatible).<br>
><br>
> John Covach<br>
> University of Rochester<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM, William Pastille <william.pastille@sjca.edu<br>
>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I was able to find the following passage from Augustine's Confessions,<br>
>> Book 8, Chap. 3:<br>
>><br>
>> *nam tu semper idem, quia ea quae non semper nec eodem modo sunt eodem<br>
>> modo semper nosti omnia.*<br>
>><br>
>> That is,<br>
>><br>
>> *For you [are] always the same thing, because you know in the same way<br>
>> all those things that are not the same nor in the same way.*<br>
>><br>
>> The meaning is, I think, that God must be in one and the same state<br>
>> eternally, because his omniscient knowledge has to comprehend *in one<br>
>> selfsame act* (both all that is eternal and) all that is mutable.<br>
>><br>
>> One can argue with the metaphysics, but let's think about what this means<br>
>> for the world we live in: if God is to be immanent in this mutable world,<br>
>> then there must be a connection between His eternal unchangeability (semper<br>
>> idem) and the worlds continual change (non semper nec eodem modo).<br>
>> In *Meisterwerk,<br>
>> *Schenker implies, I think, that God may be the "background" of our<br>
>> phenomenal world. Transference of this notion to his analytical levels is<br>
>> obvious, with the difference that Schenker is able to show the connections<br>
>> visually so that they may be grasped by the mind's eye and ear, whereas<br>
>> finding the "prolongations" that connect God to the world of phenomena has<br>
>> not yet been made visible in so graphic a form.<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Smt-talk mailing list<br>
>> Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org<br>
>><br>
>> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org<br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> John Covach<br>
> Professor of Music and Chair, College Music Department, University of<br>
> Rochester<br>
> Director, Popular Music Institute, University of Rochester<br>
> Mercer Brugler Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Rochester<br>
> Professor of Theory, Eastman School of Music<br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL:<br>
> <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20121115/56cd174b/attachment-0001.htm><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 5<br>
> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:52:02 +0200<br>
> From: Olli V?is?l? <ovaisala@siba.fi><br>
> To: auerbach@music.umass.edu<br>
> Cc: smt-talk@societymusictheory.org<br>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Bach Quiz<br>
> Message-ID: <9CF9F584-329E-469F-BFE1-E831B8DA9C32@siba.fi><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;<br>
> format=flowed<br>
><br>
> Thanks Allyn and Brent, for participating and mentioning these<br>
> interesting cases, but the fifths I mean are still clearer: two<br>
> voices going from a fifth to fifth with no intervening note or<br>
> suspension or anything. As a hint, I might add that one of the two<br>
> voices is the bass.<br>
><br>
> Comments on Allyn's example:<br>
><br>
>> The clearest example I know of is from the B-flat Major fugue of<br>
>> Book I, in the last eighth note of measure 41 to the downbeat of<br>
>> meas. 42 in the lower two voices. There may be others, but that is<br>
>> a very clear instance.<br>
><br>
><br>
> These are noticeable for sure since there is just a dissonant 7th<br>
> between two 5ths. However, it is not just any kind of 7th since the<br>
> Eb is the governing bass note in this measure which implies that the<br>
> main voice-leading in the lowest part goes form Eb (rather than G) to<br>
> F. By the way, the mutable second countersubject also causes direct<br>
> octaves in contrary motion in m. 37.<br>
><br>
> Comments on Brent's example:<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> I'll play. Writing off the top of my head, I'll note that I've<br>
>> always been tickled by mm. 49.3-51.2 in the C#-minor Fugue, Book II.<br>
>><br>
>> It's a clear set of parallel 6/3 chords, but the upper two voices<br>
>> are stacked in fifths instead of the normative fourths. In my<br>
>> opinion, the little bit of staggering and chromaticism Bach imparts<br>
>> to the alto do almost nothing to mask the delightful // 5 effect.<br>
><br>
> I think you perhaps mean mm. 47?48, don't you? In general, it is of<br>
> course a good question whether 7?6 suspensions are enough to remove<br>
> the effect of parallel fifths that occur in such 6/3 chains (with<br>
> outer-voice 10ths). According to the Aldwell&Schachter "bible," they<br>
> are normal (3rd edition, Example 21-16, discussion on page 368,<br>
> Example 21-39: Haydn, Piano Sonata, Hob. XVI/52, I, mm. 58 ff.).<br>
> Nevertheless, it is good question whether Bach tended to cover such<br>
> fifths through some additional embellishment; for another somewhat<br>
> embellished example, see WTC II: B-minor Fugue, mm. 38?39 (and for a<br>
> bit similar octaves, WTC II: G-major Fugue, mm. 67?69). However, The<br>
> Art of Fugue contains a striking totally naked example of comparable<br>
> fifths in an ASCENDING chain of 6/3s, see Contrapunctus 8, mm. 122?<br>
> 123 (the passage leading to the A-minor cadence). In this case, the<br>
> 5ths are not broken by suspensions but by 7?6 appoggiaturas, which is<br>
> all the more striking since such appoggiaturas are not so common in<br>
> Bach.<br>
><br>
> I'm looking forward to more suggestions:-)<br>
><br>
> Olli V?is?l?<br>
> Sibelius Academy<br>
> ovaisala@siba.fi<br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Smt-talk mailing list<br>
> Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org<br>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org<br>
><br>
><br>
> End of Smt-talk Digest, Vol 46, Issue 18<br>
> ****************************************<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Smt-talk mailing list<br>
Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org<br>
http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org<br>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>