Magister Leoninus Viderunt Omnes When George Gershwin wrote I Got Rhythm, he knew that, for generations to come, listeners and performers alike would pay a ripe idea of what he meant. After all, there would be recordings and sluttish rolls of his actual performances of the gash. Not to mention a standardized no(prenominal) of hand system to guide future performers. Alas, no such(prenominal) musical preservatives were available to Magister Leoninus in the delay half of the twelfth century, presuming he would hold wanted them even if they had existed. What were his sonic intentions? Well back al about of the possibilities using deuce really divergent recordings of his variant of the Gradual, from the mound Proper, Viderunt Omnes. One interpretation, by the EMCL (C. 1975), utilizes a insistent metrical regular recurrenceic structure, while the other example, by the corps de ballet Organum (C. 1990), features a a great deal forgor rhythmic approach. These go forth be referred to as metric and forego respectively. The metric diversity has a Western feel that would bet to a great extent correct to ears of European leaning (or learning). Much as we tend to view the past through the prism of today, those who last set these ancient chants in standardized notation aspect them through an equally tainted gaze. The Benedictine monks left approximately embellishment out of their chant settings (C. 1900) beca rehearse they viewed it as an 18th deoxycytidine monophosphate tradition.1 This bias, along with a need to have an easily learnable plot of ground of music, tended to simplify, rather than embellish, the standardized arrangement. True, it could be argued that the text has a genuine rhythmic lilt (conspectum gentium . . . ); however, only one writer from the period, virtually 1300, noted any parallel between the rhythmic modes and poetical meter.2 Hardly a case for common dedicate. To my ears, this metr ic interpretation sounds stilted and stoic.! Almost as if it has been stuffed into ill-fitting clothes by a nearsighted tailor. I think the addition of a bell, reinforcing certain(p) put downbeats, insipid at best. For people who had yet to be enslaved by the clock, this is too squ are. The rationalise version sounds much more root to me; flowing and cascading like a winding river. Could this be more in line with what Leonin intended? Composers of early polyphony were quiet off using a horizontal (additive) method in which severally line was its own entity. This would not impart unbending rhythm as the later vertical (simultaneous) method of the reincarnation would. disregardless of the composers original intentions, he must have cognise that this event piece would be performed with varying gusto and tutelage passim the year depending on the occasion. Yes, it could be argued that the discant sections use the very Western concept of sequences; however, I turn everyplace it is the eastern practice of centonization at play here. Keeping that in mind, the more Eastern practice of melodic mordents, trills, and frills is not as conducive to strict rhythmic performance as a stark line of business melody would be. Marcel Peres sees a lot of these chants were performed using ornamentation that is still living in Byzantine, Syriac, or Coptic pieces.3 preceding(prenominal) all, this piece beneficial sounds more spectral to me. Immediately the atm struck me as more church-like. level rhythm is for dancing, and no one was dancing to this chant. I think. Im persuade that music adoptd gibe to the surroundings in which it existed. As music became used for more secular purposes, it moved out of the sonic sanctuary of the mediaeval churches and into the light. Without the stoney layers of natural reverb to meld entrances and changes in install into a launder of sound, I belive composers and musicians became more aware of preciseness and the need for it in new surroundings that were not so forgiving of sloppiness. This situ! ation piece remains rooted in the sloppy age. throbbing notation was an emerging craft as was polyphonic composition.
In lieu of this, I would not ask singers in the thirteenth Century to be consistently expert at their execution. Personally, I think the original intention of Leonin was somewhere between the two versions weve dicussed. Once again, Im assuming Leonin had a item intention. Like a few 20th Century composers, he might have been merely creating a loose framework, know the piece would evolve and change with each performance. Back to my conduce - I believe the melismatic organum sections were to be performed in an ad-lib free manner. Then, as the discant clausulae appear, the rhythm becomes more important and pulse-like. The contiguous section, the copula, would then table service as a manner to unfurl that rhythm into the nebulous organum of the beginning. Leonin was, after all, starting down this path of polyphony without a map. By winning taking the old and adding to it (troping), he could realise about new textures without abandoning the old. He was playing with polyphony and discovering the rhythmic variation it offered. Melodic variation of the time (tuning, 1/4 or 1/3 tones) would require another makeup to discuss. In conclusion, I believe that trying to pinpoint a definitive rendering of this piece, or any others from that time period, is not only impossible, but unwarranted. even out today, one can find examples of fairly new tunes that are vie oppositely in different places on different occasions. Thelonious Monks Round Midnight, within a ten ner of its release, was already being played with Eas! t Coast changes or West Coast changes. Things would have been much more versatile before mass communication. However, if I were to pick between the free or metric renditions, I would pick the free version. It just sounds more authentic to my modern ears. Besides, an internet search tells the ca-ca: Peres 12, Morrow 0. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
