University of California Press American Musicological Society

Discant, Counterpoint, and Harmony
Author(s): Richard L. Crocker

Source: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Spring, 1962), pp. 1-21
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/830051 .
Accessed: 17/04/2014 03:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
University of California Press and American Musicological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 155.207.130.6 on Thu, 17 Apr 2014 03:54:26 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Discant,
Counterpoint,
and
Harmony
BY
RICHARD L. CROCKER
HOW
OFTEN ONE
READS,
in discussions of medieval
music,
remarks like
this: "Here the voices sound a
major
triad-but,
of
course,
the
com-
poser
did not think of it that
way."
A commendable
reservation;
but one
that raises the
urgent question:
how
,did
he think of it?
Many
feel that the medieval
composer
did not think of vertical
sonor-
ity
at
all; or,
if he
did,
only
in
abstract,
mathematical terms. This view
holds that medieval
polyphony
is
"linear,"
that vertical sonorities are the
product
of
intersecting
melodic
lines,
and that these sonorities are for-
tuitous. If the medieval
composer
did
pay
attention to vertical
sonority,
it was
only
to ensure the use of
perfect
consonances,
that
is, unison,
fourth, fifth,
and octave. This was
obviously
due
(the
argument
con-
tinues)
to a
mystical
trust in number rather than to a musical trust in the
judgment
of the
ear,
since these
"perfect"
intervals sound
bad,
or at best
disembodied. In
any
case,
neither the
composer
nor the listener is
sup-
posed
to have listened to the vertical
sonority.
This is a hard doctrine to swallow. It seems to have arisen when
modem ears were first confronted with medieval
sounds;
accustomed to
"traditional
harmony,"
the ear found the sound of medieval music mean-
ingless
or intolerable. But when viewed as the result of simultaneous melo-
dies,
the
crudity
of the
progressions
became
acceptable,
even
interesting.
In this
way
medieval music was made accessible to the modem
mind,
which was
willing
to attribute
philosophic
brilliance but not common
sense
perception
to the musical
contemporaries
of St. Thomas
Aquinas.
Is such a
drastic,
merely
cerebral solution as this
really necessary-or
even
tenable-any longer?
Is it
really necessary
to
deny
the evidence of
our senses
(and theirs)
that three melodic lines
sung simultaneously
do
in fact strike the ear with a
progression
of three-note chords? Must we
deny
the
logic
of
history,
that to a
monophonic age
the most
striking
fact
of
polyphony
must have been the
presence
of three
pitches
where there
should be
only
one?
Finally,
must we
deny
the facts of a
polyphonic style
that
compressed
the three
"independent"
melodies into a
single
octave
and then fused them
together
with modal
rhythm,
the most uniform
rhythm
known to the
history
of music? Reasonable observers have for
some time
suggested
a more reasonable
interpretation.
It
requires,
I
think,
only
a
summing up
of these
suggestions
in order to
present
an account
of the
theory
of medieval
polyphony
more in
harmony,
so to
speak,
with the facts.
There is one reasonable observer
who,
it seems to
me,
must be cited
2
JOURNAL
OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY
by
more than a footnote. In
1937,
a
quarter
of a
century ago,
Prof.
Thrasybulos Georgiades presented
the whole matter
quite clearly
in his
thesis,
"Englische
Diskanttraktate aus der ersten Hailfte des
15. Jahrhund-
erts." He showed that the
procedures
of medieval
polyphony
were to be
explained
as
progressions
of
intervals,
two-note entities. The
logic
of such
progressions
is distinct on the one hand from
melodic, "linear,"
logic,
and on the other from the
logic
of triads. Prof.
Georgiades's interpreta-
tion was made in connection with the
problem
of discant in
England,
and
the
very
few who have bothered to
pursue
his remarks have done so
largely
in the same
connection.'
But a recent
writer,
Sylvia Kenney,
has shown
that discant in
England
is in all essentials the same as discant
anywhere
else;2
this makes it
easy
to
apply
the idea of interval
progression
to all of
medieval
polyphonic theory.
For it is the medieval view that we want to understand. We know
how we conceive
it;
what we need to know is how
they
conceived it. To
do
this,
we must take hold of their
theory
books with both hands and read.
If this
reading
is done in the
light
of Prof.
Georgiades's
remarks,
one finds
that the discant authors from the
I3th
to the i6th centuries
provide
a
clear, consistent,
and
pertinent
account of medieval-and Renaissance-
polyphony.
For our
purposes
"discant" means a
system
of
teaching two-part
composition,
in use from the
I3th
to the
I6th
centuries.3 This is the most
comprehensive
definition of the
term;
it can also refer to a
specific
musical
style
or to the
upper
voice of a
composition.
We will not be concerned
with these more restricted
meanings.
Discant,
so
defined,
shows how to
1 E.
Apfel,
Studien zur Satztechnik der mittelalterlichen
englischen Musik,
2
vols.
(Abhandlungen
der
Heidelberger
Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
Philosophisch-
historische
Klasse.
Jahrg. 1959, 5. Abhandlung);
also
"Der
klangliche
Satz und der
freie
Diskantsatz im
15. Jahrhundert,"
Archiv
fiir
Musikwissenschaft
XII
(1955), PP. 297ff.
See also G.
Schmidt,
"Zur
Frage
des Cantus firmus im
14.
und
beginnenden 15.
Jahrhundert,"
Archiv
fiir
Musikwissenschaft
XV
('958), pp.
230ff.
2
"
'English
Discant' and Discant in
England,"
Musical
Quarterly
XLV
(1959),
PP.
26ff. Most writers on medieval music are
forced,
in
spite
of
any
convictions to the
contrary,
to
acknowledge
in some
degree
the existence of a vertical
component;
to
list all such references would be futile. As
special
studies one should mention E.
Lowinsky,
"The Function of
Conflicting Signatures
in
Early Polyphonic
Music,"
Musical
Quarterly
XXXI
(i945),
.
227;
H. E.
Bush,
"The
Recognition
of Chordal
Formation
by Early
Music
Theorists,"
Musical
Quarterly
XXXII
(1946),
p.
227;
G.
Reaney,
"Fourteenth
Century Harmony
and the
Ballades, Rondeaux,
and Virelais of
Guillaume de
Machaut,"
Musica
disciplina
VII
(I953),
p. 129;
H.
Tischler,
"The
Evolution of the Harmonic
Style
in the Notre-Dame
Motet,"
Acta
musicologica
XXVIII
(1956), p.
87;
K. v.
Fischer,
"On the
Technique, Origin,
and Evolution of
Italian Trecento
Music,"
Musical
Quarterly
XLVII
(I96I),
pp. 41ff
(too
late to be
considered in the
present
article).
3
Most of the discant treatises are
published by
C. E. H. de Coussemaker in
Scriptorzum
de
musica medii
evi
nova
series, 4
vols. (Paris, 1864-76)
(hereafter
ab-
breviated as
CS),
and in Histoire de
l'harmonie
au
moyen age (Paris, 852)).
These
versions are
not,
of
course,
completely
reliable and will one
day
have to be
replaced;
for the
present survey,
however,
they
are
adequate.
Other texts will be cited as needed.
DISCANT, COUNTERPOINT,
AND HARMONY
3
combine one
(and
only
one)
note with each note of a
given
melodic
progression by
the
application
of two basic
principles.
The first
principle
deals with the kinds of
sonority
to be
used,
the second with the order in
which sonorities
may appear.4
The first
principle requires
discant to consist
essentially
of concords
and
only accidentally
of discords. With
slight adjustments
in the definition
of
concord,
this
principle governs
not
only
medieval discant and Renais-
sance
counterpoint,
but also
Baroque thorough-bass
and traditional har-
mony.
The second
principle requires contrary
motion between the two
parts.
This
principle
is
absolutely binding,
but has
many, many exceptions.
A
large part
of the
typical
discant treatise is devoted to circumvention of this
principle, laying
down conditions under which similar or even
parallel
motion
may
be used. Here
again, reflecting
on the nature of
thorough-
bass or traditional
harmony,
we can observe: "Plus <a
change, plus
c'est
la meme chose."
In
applying
the first
principle
the critical
point
is,
clearly,
the defini-
tion of concord.
Systematic
treatment of the concords of discant
appears
first in the theorist
John
of
Garland,5
at a time
(mid-I3th century)
when
the
new,
international
style
of Leonin and Perotin had
firmly
established
the use of these concords.
John's formulation,
destined to become
classic,
is itself a clarification of the
previous
"common doctrine of
discant,"
or
Discantus
positio vulgaris,
a short
exposition
found
immediately
before
John's
in the
compendium
of
Jerome
of Moravia." The
Positio
vulgaris
says
that some
intervals,
namely
unison, fifth,
and
octave,
are better than
others,
and some are more
dissonant,
but
"according
to
greater
or lesser
degree."
Even in this modest treatise there is no hint of an absolute dichot-
omy
between consonance and
dissonance; indeed,
the notion of a con-
tinuum
stretching
from consonance to dissonance
prevails throughout
the Middle
Ages
and Renaissance.
John
of Garland
arranges
intervals on the continuum as follows:
-%
CONSONANCE DISSONANCE
d
Perfect
Middle
Imperfect Imperfect
Middle
Perfect
unison fifth
major
third
major
sixth
major
second
major
seventh
octave fourth minor third minor seventh minor sixth minor second
tritone
4
These are
rephrasings
of Miss
Kenney's
second and third
principles
of discant.
My
friend and
colleague gives
as a first
principle
the
requirement
that discant should
consist of
only
one note
against
another. I take this to be not a law like the other
two,
but rather a
part
of the definition of
discant,
like the
provision
that discant concerns
only
two voices.
5
Or
perhaps
Anon. VII
(CS I, 382),
if the
passage
in
question really
antedates
John's
treatise.
6
S. M.
Cserba, Hieronymus
de Moravia
O.P.
Tractatus de
musica
(Regensburg,
1935).
The Discantus
positio vulgaris
is on
pp. 189-194; John's
De musica mensurabili
positio
on
pp. 194-230,
his discussion of consonance on
pp. 20o7ff.
4 JOURNAL
Being
a theorist as well as a
practical
musician, John
goes
on to draw the
inference: "The more the
string
ratio of an interval
approaches equality,
the more concordant it sounds."
Certainly
a
justified
inference,
and one
that
brings up
the
question
of the
judgment
of concord and discord.
Medieval
writers,
from
John
of Garland
on,
consistently
invoke the
judgment
of the ear in
discussing
the
degree
of concord and discord.
Since this observation is in flat contradiction to the
opinion
commonly
held about medieval
musicians,
it seems
prudent
to exhibit a
quantity
of texts sufficient to convince the most
sceptical.
John
of Garland: "A concord is said to exist when two
pitches
are
joined
to-
gether
at the same time in such a
way
that the sense of
hearing
tolerates them
one with the other. Discord is described contrariwise."7
Anonymous
I:
"A concord is the
harmony
(harmonia)
of two or more dif-
ferent sounds
produced
at the same
time,
blending together
and
reaching
the
ear in sweet
uniformity (uniformiter suaviterque
veniens ad
auditum)."8
Lambert: "Concord is said to exist when two
pitches sounding
at the same time
blend
together
so that
they
render sweet
melody
(suavem melodiam)
in the
ear.
...
"9
Anonymous
II:
"Discant is
composed principally
of consonances and
only
incidentally
of
dissonances,
in order that the discant
per
se
may
be more beauti-
ful,
and that we
may
be more
delighted by
the consonances. Consonance is
made of diverse sounds mixed
together.
Dissonance is a
rough
collision
(dura
collisio) ."10
Ars
contrapunctus
secundum
Philippum
de Vitriaco: "These concords
(unison,
fifth, octave)
are called
perfect
because
they bring
a
perfect, pure
(integrum)
sound to the ears of the listeners."
11
Jacob
of
Liege:
"Discant is said to be a consonance of different
songs: just
as
consonance
requires
distinct
pitches
mixed
together
at the same
time,
so discant
requires
distinct
songs (cantus) sounding simultaneously.
Not all
sounds, how-
ever,
can be combined into a mixture that will
present
itself
smoothly
and
sweetly
to the
listener;
similarly,
not all
songs
when mixed
together
make
discant,
but
only
those that harmonize with one another so that
through
their
concord
they
make as it were one
song...."12
Johannes
Tinctoris: "A
concord, therefore,
is a mixture of two
pitches
rendered
sweetly agreeable
to the ear
by
a natural
power
(naturali virtute)."S8
Clearly,
from these
statements,
it is false to believe that the Middle
Ages
relied
solely
on mathematics and excluded the
judgment
of the ear in de-
termining
the nature of consonance. These authors
say,
in
sum,
that the
ear takes
pleasure
in
consonance,
and the
greater
the consonance the
greater
the
pleasure;
and that for this reason one should use
chiefly
con-
sonances in
composing discant.l4
7
Cserba, Hieronymus
de
Moravia, p. 207.
8 CS
I, 297.
SCS
I, 260.
lo CS I, 311.
11
CS III, 27.
12
CS II, 387-
13 CS
IV, 78.
14
The
formulas used
by
the discant writers to describe consonance
go
back,
of
course, all
the
way
to
Boethius,
De
institutione
musica
I, viii,
ed. G. Friedlein
(Leipzig,
1867), p. I95.
AND HARMONY
5
How do we
square
this with our own
experience?
For
today many
listeners would hesitate to describe the interval of a fifth as "sweet." Per-
haps
we can
explain
the
discrepancy by noting
at least two distinct bases
for
judgment
of consonance. If we consider a fifth
(referring
of course to
one that is in
tune)
we can hear that the two tones do indeed blend
to-
gether,
almost as well as a unison or octave.
Organists,
choral
technicians,
string
and wind
players
will all find within their
experience
reason to
agree
with this
judgment.
On this basis we find ourselves in
complete
accord with the medieval theorist.
The second basis is the function of intervals within the
development
of
style;
here our
judgment
differs from that of the medieval musician. He
finds the
simplest
intervals to be the
sweetest,
a
judgment
which
one
must admit to have been reasonable in the
springtime
of
polyphony.
We,
withdrawing
a little from sonorous
reality,
find the more
complex,
less
consonant intervals to be
sweeter;
today
the older
generation prefers
thirds and
sixths,
while some of us
give
our vote for
pulchritude
to the
broad scratch of a
major
second.
The discant
teacher, then,
calls the octave a
"perfect
concord" because
its two
pitches
blend so
well;
then he recommends the octave for use in
discant because its
perfection
is
stylistically appropriate.
John
of Gar-
land makes a distinction between the
"perfect"
concords,
unison and oc-
tave,
and the "middle"
concords,
fifth and
fourth,
perceiving
in the latter
intervals a lesser
degree
of sonorous blend. He
goes
on to
assign
to the
major
and minor thirds the
grade
of
"imperfect"
concord,
which-and
this is a fact
usually neglected-admits
these intervals to most of
the
rights
and
privileges
of concords. For
imperfect
concord
is,
to
John,
not
yet
discord. Since discant is made
essentially
of
concords,
major
and minor
thirds are included as basic
ingredients.
(Hence
the rule that discant must
end with a
perfect
or middle
concord,
not an
imperfect
one;
this is the
one
place
where thirds are not
recommended.)
It is not
true, therefore,
that the medieval theorist
regarded
thirds as discords: at the time of
John
of
Garland,
discant
specified
the essential concords of
composition
to be
unison, octave, fifth, fourth,
major
and minor third.
The
description
of the continuum between consonance and dissonance
does not
change
much
through
the centuries-indeed it cannot
change,
being
a
description
of the
plain
facts of sound. On the other
hand,
the
description
of the functions of the various consonances and dissonances
changes steadily,
since here the theorist must
constantly
account for new
stylistic practices.
In
general,
the
changes
seem to occur first in
practice;
they
are reflected almost
immediately
in the
writing
of the discant
teacher,
the
practical
treatise that teaches one how to
compose.
But between the
description in the practical treatise and the
explanation in the
theoretical,
speculative
treatise there was
apt
to be a
lag
of several decades or more.
Thus
I3th-century composers
treated the
perfect
fourth as a
concord,
6
JOURNAL
and discant treatises described it as such. In the
i4th century,
however,
the discant teachers characterized the fourth as
discordant,
on the
grounds
that it was now treated like a discord even if it did not sound like one.
But this reason did not
satisfy
the
speculative
theorist,
who knew that the
ratio of the fourth
(4:3)
occurred within the
tetrad,
the first four num-
bers,
and that it came
immediately
after the ratio for the
perfect
fifth
(3:2).
Furthermore,
the fourth was a basic element in
the
Pythagorean
harmony:
S
FIFTH
---
FIFTH
6 8 9 12
FOURTH
TON
FOURTH
OCTAVE
Last but not
least,
the fourth sounded like a consonance. Confronted
by
all these
arguments,
a theorist could
hardly assign
the fourth a status
of discord for
merely stylistic
reasons. In fact the
anomaly
of the fourth
is so
deep-seated
that
according
to latest
reports
the issue is still in doubt.
We should not be
upset,
therefore,
if the medieval theorist is less than
conclusive on this
point.
But the need for formal
explanation
did not touch the
practical
teacher
of discant. After
all,
he had
already
described the
major
and minor thirds
as concords
despite
their
complex
ratios
(81:64
and
32:27 respectively15).
It cost him little to
place
the fourth
among
the discords. This was the
only
time that a concord was demoted to a
discord;
the other
changes
consisted
in
raising
the
major
and minor sixths to the status of concords-or
better,
in
moving
the
dividing
line between concord and discord further down
the continuum to include more
complex
intervals as
concords.
Following
Prof.
Georgiades's suggestion,16
we can construct a tentative
genealogy
of
the
anonymous
discant authors on the basis of their treatment of these
concords. In the
I3th century
the
anonymous
authors
I, IV,
and VII
from Coussemaker's first volume maintain with Franco the classification
of
John
of
Garland.17
Anonymous II,18
however,
includes the
major
sixth
along
with the thirds as an
imperfect
concord. This
change reappears
in
15 Their
proper
names in this
tuning
are "ditone" and
"semiditone" respectively;
they
are so named
by
the
early
discant authors.
16
Englische
Diskanttraktate aus der ersten
Hdlfte
des
t
.
Jahrhunderts (Schriften-
reihe des Musikwissenschaftlichen Seminars der
Universitiit
Miinchen,
Vol. III,
Wiirzburg,
1937), p.
61.
17
CS
I, 298, 358, 382; Cserba, Hieronymus
de
Moravia,
pp. 207, 250;
O.
Strunk,
Source Readings
in Music
History (New York, 1950), pp. 152f.
18
CS
I, 312.
AND HARMONY
7
Wolf's
Compendium'9
(1336),
which furthermore
drops
the fourth from
the list of
concords,
thus
reducing
their number back to six. The number
is increased
again
to seven in the Ars
contrapunctus
secundum
Philippum
de
Vitriaco20 (late
i4th century?) by
the addition of the minor
sixth;
this
arrangement
is
reproduced
in the Ars discantus secundum
loannem
de
Muris.21
All this is better shown in the
following
table:
1250
1300 (?) 1336 after 1350 (?)
unison unison unison unison
octave octave octave octave
fifth fifth fifth fifth
fourth fourth
major
third
major
third
major
third
major
third
minor third minor third minor third minor third
major
sixth
major
sixth
major
sixth
minor sixth
Why
the fourth should be
dropped
and the sixths added to the list of
concords are
questions
that would detain us too
long
here. There
are,
I
am
certain,
very
clear
stylistic
answers,
towards which Prof.
Georgiades
points
the
way:22
he
says
that the
major
sixth was
adopted
before the
minor one because the
major
was
part
of a
progression
from fifth to
octave
by contrary
motion,
whereas the minor sixth could
proceed only
to a fifth and that with one voice
stationary.
Since this latter
progres-
sion was less
congenial
to the
style
as a
whole,
the minor sixth could not
attain concordant status as
easily.
Concurrent with these
changes
in the classification of
concords,
there
was a
change
in the treatment of intervals
larger
than the
octave. I3th-
century
discant viewed these as
compounds
of those smaller than the oc-
tave,
hence
subject
to similar treatment: a fifth and a
twelfth,
for
example,
were handled in the same
way.
The authors
speak
of the number of inter-
vals as
"infinite,"
envisaging
an endless
duplication
of intervals
upwards
by
octaves,
but all
subject
to the rules
governing
those below the octave.23
Lambert
(ca. 1260), however,
gives
the six concords as follows: octave
and double octave
(perfect);
fifth and twelfth
(middle);
fourth and
eleventh
(imperfect).24
In other words,
he insists on the
Pythagorean
con-
sonances
(fourth, fifth,
and
octave)
as the
only
true
concords,
being
al-
most the
only
author to do
so;
but he
adapts
this doctrine to
John's
sys-
tem of six concords
by including
the
respective
octave
compounds.
This
anticipates
the later treatises Ars
perfecta
in
nrusica
magistri Philippoti
19
J. Wolf, "Ein
Beitrag
zur Diskantlehre des
14. Jahrhunderts,"
Sanmnelbdnde der
Internationalen
Musikgesellschaft
XV
(1914),
pp.
504ft.
20
CS
III,
27.
21
CS
III, 70.
22
Englische Diskanttraktate,
pp. 64f.
23
For example, John
of Garland:
Cserba,
Hieronynmus
de
Moravia,
p.
208.
24
CS
I, 260;
the
passage
is
corrupt
but its
meaning
evident.
8
JOURNAL
de
Vitriaco25
and the Liber musicalium
Philippi
de
Vitriaco,26
which in-
clude the tenth and twelfth
among
the concords. Since these writers
ennumerate thirds and sixths without
specifying major
or
minor,
the
number of concords
stays
at seven. Both old and new
listings
are found
in the Ars
contrapuncti
secundum loannem de
Muris,27
the older one first.
The newer
listing:
unison, third, fifth, sixth, octave, tenth,
and
twelfth,
remains standard
through
the
Renaissance,
altered
only by upward
ex-
tension.
The
specification
of intervals
larger
than the octave also needs more
discussion than we can here afford. In
passing
it is
interesting
to observe
what the
Compendium discantus,28 (ascribed
to Franco but
possibly
later)
says
about these
larger
intervals:
And note that when
you
wish to ascend above the
diapason, you
will
imag-
ine
yourself
to be in unison with the
tenor,
and
you
will discant in the same
way you
would over the tenor in the lower
register,
because there is
really
no
difference
except
that
you
are
higher
in
pitch.
Such elevation
[of
the
discant]
can be
repeated indefinitely
(multiplex
est in
infinitum).
The
phrase
"in infinitum" connects these remarks
solidly
with the doc-
trine of
John
of
Garland,
but the word
"imaginabis,"
and the
procedure
designated thereby,
is identical with the
I5th-century English principle
of
"sights."29 Perhaps
this modest
Compendium
is the link that connects
the doctrine of
sights directly
to traditional discant.
The second
principle
of discant
requires contrary
motion between the
two
parts, using
the concords
already
described.
This,
of
course,
is the
catch: it would be
simple
to write two
parts
in
contrary
motion if all in-
tervals were
permitted;
it would be
equally simple
to use the concords if
contrary
motion were not
required.
Western
part-music,
from then until
now,
depends upon
a delicate balance between the demands of vertical
sonority
and those of
voice-leading.
Sometimes the balance is threatened
by
too much attention to the vertical or the linear
dimension,
but
equi-
librium is soon restored with the realization that each dimension is mean-
ingless
without the other.
The linear
interpretation
of medieval music
depends
for much of its
evidence on the instructions for
composing
found in the discant treatises.
These instructions are intended to
produce
the desired concords
through
contrary,
or at least
oblique
motion.
They
are
apt
to take the
following
form:
When one
part
ascends a
step,
the
other,
beginning
at the octave above,
may
descend two steps and be at the fifth.
It is
argued
that the stress on
contrary
motion in such instructions reflects
an
emphasis
on the linear dimension. It is further
argued
that such instruc-
25
CS
III,
28.
26
CS III, 36.
27
CS
III,
59f.
28
CS I, I56.
29
See
Kenney, "English
Discant,"
pp.
33ff.
DISCANT, COUNTERPOINTI
AND HARMONY
9
tion
implies
two simultaneous but
independent
melodies in the mind of
the
composer
and also in the ear of the listener.
The discant teacher
does, indeed,
stress
contrary
motion,
but so does
the teacher of traditional
four-part harmony,
and to the same
degree; only
here the result is not so
apparent
because in
four-part writing
there is
necessarily
more
parallel
and similar
motion,
there
being
still
only
two
directions in which to
go.
As a further
rebuttal,
let me
point
out that the discant treatise does not
describe what the listener
hears,
any
more than does the treatise on tradi-
tional
harmony.
In both cases the teacher tells the student how to
pro-
ceed;
he does not
analyze
the result as it strikes the ear. The
typical
discant
treatise is a collection of
practical precepts
on how to make
music,
not
a
theory
of aesthetics. The instructions of
discant, therefore,
do not im-
ply
that the listener hears two
separate
melodies;
at
most,
these instructions
imply only
that the
composer proceeds by combining
two melodies.
Do the instructions
imply
even that? I think
not,
for it seems to me
that the
assumption
that discant
taught
how to write a second tune over
a first is
open
to
question.
Consider the
typical
instruction
again:
note
that while it
may
be taken to
regulate
the
leading
of one voice
contingent
upon
the
leading
of the
other,
the same instruction also
regulates
the
progression
from the vertical
sonority
of an octave to one of a fifth.
Now this
ambiguity
arises
only
in
describing two-part progressions;
in
triadic ones the vertical
sonority
is identified as
something
distinct
(a
"triad")
from the intervals
(a
"fifth" and two
"thirds")
that describe the
location of its constituent tones. In other
words,
terminology
does not
permit
a distinction between the location of one note an
octave
away
from
another,
and the interval of an octave that these two notes form.
Hence we can
speak
of a
progression
of two
triads,
one on
g
and one
on
c,
or over a bass that moves down a
fifth,
or a dominant triad followed
by
its
tonic,
and no one
suspects
us of
describing
linear
counterpoint.
But when we
speak
of an
octave
followed
by
a
fifth,
with the lower
part
ascending
one
step,
then we
may possibly
be
describing
two melodic
pro-
gressions;
and then
again
we
may
not. Assume for the sake of
argument
that the medieval teacher does mean to describe a
progression
of vertical
sonorities,
each
consisting
of two notes: how else could he describe it
but the
way
he does?
Just
as
I3th-century
discant
lays
down the basic doctrine of concord
and
discord,
subject only
to
slight
modification in the centuries
following,
so does it
present
rules of
voice-leading
that
govern
both the later Middle
Ages
and the Renaissance. These rules are discussed and illustrated
by
I3th-century
writers in a
bewildering variety
of
ways, yet
as rules
they
are broad and
simple.
The first rule
is,
of
course,
the basic
principle
of con-
trary
motion. The second
(the
order is
mine,
not
theirs)
is that one should
begin
with a concord and end with a
perfect
concord. This
permits
thirds
IO JOURNAL
at the
beginning
but not at the end.
John
of Garland extends this rule to
include the
beginning
of modal
feet,30
while
Franco,
carrying
out the
implications
of his mensural
theory, applies
the rule to the
beginning
of a
"perfection;"31
both authors are
speaking
of
imperfect
as well as
perfect
concords.
A third rule tolerates similar
motion, without, however,
precise
dis-
tinction between similar and
parallel
motion,
and without
specifying per-
fect or
imperfect
concords. Franco
says
that one can use
parallels
for
beauty, "propter pulchritudinem,"
which should not cause our
eyebrows
to rise even if consecutive fifths are in
question.
Parallel
motion,
prop-
erly
handled,
can indeed be
beautiful,
as will be
apparent
to all but the
most academic observers.
It should also be
apparent
that music cannot consist
entirely
of con-
cords,
but must also include discords. A fourth rule of
I3th-century
dis-
cant
says
that discords should be
mixed in with the concords at the
proper
places;32
these
places
are sometimes described as
being
before or between
concords,
but are not otherwise located.
Here,
more than
ever,
it is im-
portant
to remember what discant aims to do: it
gives systematic
instruc-
tion in
writing
two
parts.
If a
technique
cannot be
presented
with at least
a semblance of
system,
discant does not treat that
technique.
Concords are
the substance of
two-part writing
and can be treated
systematically;
dis-
cords are the
accidents,
to
speak
in Aristotelian
terms,
and
13th-century
discant found it hard to treat them
systematically.
For this
reason,
not be-
cause the discant teacher
disapproves
of
them,
discords are
passed
over
in the
typical
treatise. There is no
gap
here between
theory
and
practice,
save that
imposed by
the needs of rational discourse.
During
the
i4th century
the name "discant" was
gradually changed
to
"counterpoint."33
There
was, however,
no
change
in the basic
princi-
ples; they
were
merely applied
in a more
specific
and refined
way.
This is
best illustrated
by
the
i4th-century
treatment of
parallel
motion,
of which
the first
example
is in the little-known
Compendium
of Petrus "dictus
palma
ociosa"
(I336)."3
An
interesting
and well-written
work,
it sets
forth near the
beginning
an informative discussion of discant.
Song
(cantus)
is an inflection from one
pitch
to another. Discant is sweet
melody
made
up
of different
songs,
with two or more
pitches reaching
the ear
in combinations
governed by
modus and
tempus.
It is called "discant" as if it
were diverse
songs,
because the
songs
out of which discant is made
ought
to
differ so that when one
goes up
the other
goes
down,
and
conversely.
But both
can ascend or descend
together
for the sake of the
song's beauty,
or because of
30
Cserba, Hieronymus
de
Moravia,
p.
211.
a1
Cserba, Hieronymus
de
Moravia,
p. 254;
Strunk,
Source
Readings,
p. I55.
32
Loc. cit.
33
See
Kenney, "English
Discant,"
p.
43.
34
Edited
by
J. Wolf;
see note
19.
The
passage
translated starts on
p.
507.
Ascent
"in the same
way"
means
by
the same
interval;
"division" means
diminution,
as in
diminished or florid
counterpoint.
AND HARMONY I I
limitation of
range
or some other
necessity.
Such ascent or descent should
not
be made in the same
way;
rather it should be as
elegant
and as
graceful
as
pos-
sible. I
allow, nevertheless,
ascents and descents in the same
way
either
by
means of some division of the intervals or
by imperfect
intervals,
such as minor
third,
major
third,
and
major
sixth. I do not advise
using
two or more
conso-
nances
repeated
in the same lines or
spaces,
either in
perfect species
of musical
intervals or
imperfect
or middle ones.
That
finished,
let us see
briefly
of which musical
species
discant should
be
composed. Concerning
this
you
should know that all
simple
discant
(which
is
nothing
but
punctum against punctum
or one note
produced by
natural instru-
ments
placed against
another)
can be
composed
and ordered
simply
with
unison,
minor and
major
thirds, fifth,
major
sixth,
and octave.
After
stating
the
principle
of
contrary
motion,
the author allows similar
motion for the sake of
beauty,
as did Franco. Then the author
goes
on to
admit
parallel
motion in thirds and
major
sixths,
and
this,
it
seems,
is new.
Of
greatest
interest is the
way
in which the instruction is
phrased:
its
novelty
lies not in the banishment of consecutive fifths and
octaves,
but
in the tolerance of consecutive thirds and sixths. Consecutive fifths and
octaves had been banned
categorically
from the moment when
contrary
motion became
obligatory;
consecutives of all kinds were tolerated
only
as
exceptions.
Now,
in the
I4th century,
the musician seems
to
reason:
"Some kinds of
parallel
motion are
acceptable,
other kinds are not. Those
intervals which are not
perfect
concords and
yet
not discordant seem
to
permit parallel
motion without
upsetting
the delicate balance of
polyphony,
whereas consecutive
perfect
concords are too
striking
in their
effect."
Incidentally,
it is
interesting
that discant authors
frequently ban-
not
parallel
motion-but consecutive
perfect
concords,
a clear indication
of the medieval concern for the
progression
of vertical sonorities.
The real
importance,
however,
of the
imperfect
concords at this time
has to do with
contrary,
not with
parallel
motion.
Tempting
as it is to
seize
upon
consecutive thirds and sixths in older music as evidence of
progressive
tendencies,
these consecutives have but little
significance
for
the future
development
of musical
style.
Parallel motion does not
produce
the basic structures of
part-music,
as
any authority
on triadic
harmony
will
testify. By
an accident of
history,
consecutive thirds and sixths re-
mind us of traditional
harmony,
which causes us to
apply
the labels "har-
monic" or
"functional;"
but in medieval times as well as
modern,
paral-
lelism is the antithesis of
functionality.35
On the other
hand,
the
placement
of thirds and sixths within
contrary
motion leads us to the center of
14th-century
discant,
and
ultimately
to
the foundations of triadic
harmony.
At this time the
progressions
major
sixth to
octave,
major
third to
fifth,
and minor third to unison take on
more and more
importance
as the
building
blocks of
counterpoint.
These
35
Cf. H. Besseler, "Tonalharmonik
und
Vollklang,"
Acta
musicologica
XXIV
(0952),
pp. I35f-
12
JOURNAL
progressions acquire
the force of
necessity:
their conclusion becomes ob-
ligatory.
"The sixth seeks out the
octave,
and this rule
always
holds,"
says
the author of the Ars
contrapunctus
secundum
Philippum
de
Vitri-
aco.38
Viewed from this
angle,
a succession of consecutive sixths or thirds
is the
interruption
of
expected
resolution--of
"function,"
if
you
will.
14th-century
writers
specifically
allow several
ascending
or
descending
consecutive sixths
(or thirds)
on condition that
they
are followed
by
an
octave
(or
fifth or
unison).3
The
parallelism
allowed here is less
signifi-
cant than the resolution
required.
The
importance
of these
progressions
is
great enough
to demand al-
teration of the written
pitches through
musica
ficta.
If a sixth that
pro-
ceeds to an octave is written as a minor one because of its
position
in the
scale
(for
example,
a-f
proceeding
to
g-g),
then
according
to
i4th-century
writers this sixth is to be made
major by raising
the
upper
note.38 In the
I3th
century
musica
ficta (falsa)
was used
chiefly
to avoid tritones and im-
perfect
octaves,
that
is,
to ensure that the intervals of discant would be
concords. This use of musica
ficta,
declared
by
Lambert and
Philippe
de
Vitry
to be not false but
necessary,39
is another clear indication of the
medieval concern for vertical
sonority.
But the alteration of sixths and
thirds reveals the
equally important
concern for
progression
that
emerges
during
the
i4th century.
Perhaps
the
strongest argument
advanced on behalf of the linear inter-
pretation
has been based on the
technique
of "successive
composition."
After
two-part writing,
some discant and
counterpoint
treatises
go
on to
describe the addition of a third and even a fourth
voice.?
It is
argued
that since the medieval
composer
added his voices onto the tenor "suc-
cessively,"
rather than
conceiving
of his vertical sonorities all at
once,
he is
writing
linear
counterpoint.
But
if,
as I tried to
show,
the
two-part
framework was not linear
counterpoint
in the first
place,
then the third voice
may
not be either.
Here we must avoid the false
dichotomy
between linear
counterpoint
and
(triadic) harmony;
we must think in terms of those two-note
sonori-
ties called concords or
accords--terms
not far from "chord." If the first
step
is the
composition
of a
progression
of two-note chords, then the
third voice is added not as a third
melody
but as enrichment of those
chords. The medieval writer
says:
"When
adding
the third voice,
pro-
ceed as in
discant,"
meaning
that the third voice will
proceed through
the
proper
concords in
contrary
motion with one of the other two. For
while the discant teacher can think in terms of two-note entities, his com-
s6
CS
III, 27.
3
For
example,
CS
III, 40.
8s
For
example,
Wolf, "Ein Beitrag
zur
Diskantlehre,"
pp.
513ff,
esp.
p.
515.
39
CS
I, 258;
G.
Reaney
et
al.,
"The 'Ars Nova' of
Philippe
de
Vitry,"
Musica
disciplina
X
(1956), p.
22.
40 For
example, John
of Garland:
Cserba, Hieronymus
de
Moravia,
p.
225.
AND HARMONY
13
prehension
seems to
stop
there;
he can
explain
a three-note
progression
only
as the summation of two-note ones-much as traditional
harmony
explains polychords
as
complex
or modified triads. But if this is
true,
then
medieval
composition
is not more successive than our own. The
really
im-
portant
difference is that the medieval
system
uses a basic unit
consisting
of two
notes,
whereas we use a unit of three notes. And successiveness
in both cases is a feature of
teaching
rather than of
listening.
Particularly
in the
I3th
century
the authors find little new to
say
about
three-part writing, having
said it all in connection with normal
discant.
They
sometimes
add,
with the
brevity
it
deserves,
the maxim
that the third voice
may
ascend or descend now with the first
voice,
now
with the
second,
but not with both at
once.41
But the
i4th century
once
again
offers more
specific
instruction: the
Quatuor
principalia (1351)
refers to the
principle
that the
upper
voices must concord with the
lowest.42
The author describes how to discant below the
tenor,
using
the same concords and
procedures
as in
discanting
above,
then adds
the
proviso
that while
improvising
below,
no one else should discant
above unless he knows what tones are
being sung
below,
"because all
the
upper parts
must be in concord with the lowest voice in order to
make
good
consonance." The Ars discantus secundum loannem de Muris
contains a
passage
on the
composition
of two
counterpoints
over one
tenor;43
the author advises
against
two similar concords over the same
note at the same time
(that is,
a fifth and a
twelfth,
an octave and a fif-
teenth,
a third and a
tenth)
because in these there is no
diversity.
He also
cautions
against
a fifth and a sixth at the same
time,
but recommends a
fifth and a
tenth,
for if the tenor were to
rest,
these two
counterpoints
would still be in concord with each other.
Immediately following
this
passage
in the Ars discantus
(but
not
necessarily by
the same
author),
is a
description
of
three-part writing
for
tenor, carmen,
and contratenor. For each concord of tenor and carmen
(unison, third, fifth, sixth, octave, tenth,
and
twelfth)
the author
gives
all
possible
concords for the contratenor below. Some of these are described
as
sweeter,
some not so sweet. It should be noted that the
procedure
is
completely
vertical: there is no mention of
progression
from one
sonority
to the
next,
progression being
treated in the
exposition
of discant
proper.
The third voice is understood
by
the author to be an
expansion
of the
vertical
sonority.
This
helps
to
explain
the curious matter of the Renaissance bass. It is
frequently pointed
out,
with solid textual
support,
that the
early
Renais-
sance teacher reckoned his bass notes down from the
tenor,
rather than
the other
way
around. It is concluded from this that the
early
Renaissance
41 For
example,
Franco:
Cserba, Hieronymus
de
Moravia,
p.
254; Strunk,
Source
Readings, p.
155.
42
CS
IV, 292, 294.
43 CS
III, 92f.
14
JOURNAL
bass was
"non-functional,"
which seems reasonable.
But,
the
argument
continues,
if the bass is
non-functional,
then
everything
over it must be
linear,
and this is where I think the
argument
runs off the track. The
medieval sense of function
resides,
as we
saw,
in the
progression
of con-
cords,
especially
in the
progression
sixth-to-octave. These
progressions
are
interrupted,
obscured,
all but obliterated in the
Renaissance;
yet
somehow
they
continue to function.
Example
I
shows how the sixth-to-octave
(in
whole
notes)
can be enriched
by
a third voice
(in
quarter
notes),
which is
below the tenor in the first
chord,
and either above or below it in the
second.
Ex.
I
11 low
In the first case this third voice is
clearly
non-functional in its
progression:
it
merely
enriches the first
chord,
then the second. It cannot be said to
progress
from one to the
other,
either
harmonically
or
melodically.
But the
same is true in the second case:
here, too,
the third voice
merely
enriches
the
sonority.
It cannot be said to have
any
function-save from an
I8th-
century point
of view. The functional
parts
of the second case are still
the sixth and
octave,
even
though
masked
by
the bass. Such
masking
of a
progression,
however,
is
very
different from
complete independence
of
voices.
It is also
argued
that since discant was reckoned
up
or down from the
tenor,
the tenor was never a foundation in the same sense that the
17th-
century
bass
was.
The "fundamental bass" is described as
being
invented,
or
discovered,
by
the late Renaissance and
early Baroque.
But we
already
saw in the
Quatuor principalia
(mid-i4th
century)
that concords were
reckoned in some sense from the lowest
sounding part.
Indeed,
14th-
century
discant describes
primarily
the construction of intervals over the
tenor. If we were to
survey 14th-century
music we would find that in mo-
tets a
3
the tenor is
usually
the lowest
part,
hence the foundation in
every
conceivable sense. In motets a
4 (with
a
contratenor)
it sometimes seems
as
though
the
contratenor,
when below the
tenor,
is the lower
part
of a
standard discant
progression.
Perhaps
this is what
Anonymous
XI means
when he
says:44
Another
general
rule: contratenor can well descend with the tenor in im-
perfect species, ending
in a
perfect species;
and
similarly
the tenor with the
contratenor. And
you
should know that the contratenor is said to be the tenor
when it is lower than the tenor.
In other words: in the
i4th century
the lowest
part
is the
foundation;
to-
gether
with one of the
upper parts
it forms the basic
two-part
framework.
44 CS
III, 466.
AND HARMONY
15
In the
early
Renaissance this framework is masked
by
other
voices,
above
and
below;
the lowest
part
is no
longer
the foundation. Then in the later
Renaissance the lowest
part
is once
again
described as the
foundation,
first of individual
sonorities,
and-much later-of
progressions.
Two-part writing
remained the basis for instruction
straight through
the Renaissance. But in
response
to
contemporary practice,
teachers be-
gan
to offer additional instructions for
composing
in three
parts,
that
is,
they
described certain
stereotyped
formulas for
masking
discant. These
solutions to the
three-part problem
were,
in the
early
Renaissance,
neces-
sarily
crude and
pragmatic: they
involved a
good
deal of
parallel
motion
and
sequence,
and lacked the
economy
of classic
14th-century progres-
sions. But
they
did
manage
to
produce
that
full,
rich
sonority
so much in
demand at the time. The treatise of William the Monk
provides
us with
a
catalogue
of such
instructions,
summarized as
follows:45
I.
The
English
"modes"
(formulas): Fauxbourdon,
a
3,
Gymel,
a 2.
2. Another formula a
3,
"non
mutatis."
3.
Discant
(here
is the
logical beginning
of the treatment of
composition).
4.
Table for
finding
concords to notes in the c and
g
hexachords.
5.
Fauxbourdon and
Gymel (alternate rules).
6. The low Contratenor for No.
5 (hence
a
4).
7.
More
rules,
and two
exceptions.
8. Another formula a
3.
9.
And another.
The
only
formula of real
importance
for the future is contained in
No. 7
(Ex. 2).
Ex. 2
SC in CS.
The
strength
of this formula seems to lie in its avoidance of
parallel
mo-
tion
while
producing
a series of
imperfect
concords. Like the "clausulae"
of the
I6th
century,46
this formula
taps
the resources of traditional dis-
cant.
The
counterpoint
treatises of the
i4th
and
early
I5th centuries,
when
taken
seriously
and in
order,
provide
a wealth of material and a fascinat-
45
CS
III, 273; 288ff;
Example
2 from
p.
296.
The treatise had been
ably
described
and
analyzed by
Brian
Trowell,
"Faburden and
Fauxbourdon,"
Musica
disciplina
XIII
(I959),
pp. 64ff.
46
See B.
Meier,
"Die Harmonik im cantus
firmus-haltigen
Satz des
15. Jahr-
hunderts,"
Archiv
fiir
Musikwissenschaft
IX
(1952),
pp. 27f.
See also A.
Schmitz,
Oberitalienische
Figuralpassionen
des
z6.
Jahrhunderts (Mainz, '955),
Vol.
I, p.
5".
16
JOURNAL
ing variety
of detail. It is remarkable that so little attention has been
paid
to these treatises since the
indefatigable Hugo
Riemann described them in
his Geschichte der Musiktheorie in
i898.
The condition of the sources
being
what it was
(and
still
is),
Riemann did not
get
them
entirely
in or-
der,
but he did take them
seriously.
His
seriousness, however,
was one that
looked forward to the Messianic
appearance
of the Dual Nature of Har-
mony
in the
Major
and Minor
TRIADS,
the
glory
of whose
coming
blinded him to the actual
meaning
of the medieval authors.
Nevertheless,
many
who are scandalized
by
his
speculations
could benefit from his
knowledge
of the sources.
The more one becomes
acquainted
with these authors of the
i4th
and
early 15th centuries,
the more one sees how
dependent
the Renaissance
authors are
upon
them. Tinctoris's
rules,
for
example,
reveal no basic
novelty
when
compared
to earlier
sources.47
The most
important
differ-
rence is the insistence on
variety,
with
urgent prohibitions against repeti-
tion. This seems to be related to a
greater
number of
imperfect
concords,
and a relaxation of the
procedures governing
their use. No
longer
does a
composer
resolve thirds and
sixths,
but leads them in
unending
chains of
suspended
functions. It must be this that
gives
Renaissance discant its new
sound, since,
as we
saw,
the sound of
imperfect
concords is as old as dis-
cant,
and a mere increase in their
frequency
seems a weak basis for a new
style.
But this
variety, being
an avoidance of the
obvious,
can find no ex-
pression
in
general principles.
Therefore the old
principles
are surrounded
in Renaissance treatises
by
an endless number of
provisions against
the
obvious,
and an even
greater
number of
examples showing
borderline cases
of similar motion and
ways
of
exploiting
discords.
Composition
becomes
the skill of
producing
continuous
variety
while
avoiding
on the one hand
the barbarous and on the other the too familiar.
It is
frequently
said that in the
three-part
formulas of
I5th-century
counterpoint
one can hear "a real
feeling
for functional
harmony."
While
naive,
this observation is not without
foundation-only
we must disen-
tangle
the
meanings
of the terms involved. We use the term "functional
harmony"
so often that we
say "functionalharmony"-one
word with the
accent on the fourth
syllable.
We
forget
that there are two words with
two different
meanings;
that there
might
be "non-functional
harmony,"
or even "function" in the absence of
"harmony."
Now it seems clear that
"function,"
since
Riemann,
refers to
relationships
between triadic
chords,
relationships
that
may
be actual or
implied.
Armed with a more
compre-
hensive view of
history,
we can
proceed cautiously
to
speak
of functions
between two-note entities instead of between
triads;
I
have
tried,
through
a discussion of discant,
to show how this
might
be done. We
might
even
47
CS
IV,
I47ff.
G.
Reese,
Music in the Renaissance
(New York,
1954), p.
i44.
AND HARMONY
I7
speak
of functions in
monophony,
if we could find the
appropriate
terms
-but that is another matter.
The formulas of the
I5th
century,
then,
are indeed functional:
they
depend upon
the two-note
progressions
of discant.
They
also sound like
the familiar
progressions
of
"functionalharmony,"
which
simply
means
that triadic functions and
progressions develop
in unbroken
continuity
out of discant. The difference between discant and
"functionalharmony"
has to do not with "function"
(although
the
specific
functions are
slightly
different in the two
systems)
but with
"harmony."
The search for the
meaning
of this term takes us into
quite
another
part
of the
forest,
far
from the
counterpoint
teacher and his
practical precepts.
We must at
long
last take on the
speculative
theorist and his intricate calculations. In com-
pensation
for the
thorny
mathematics the theorist offers us
explanations
about the
very
nature of musical sound.
The term
"harmony"
is not unknown in the Middle
Ages,
whose
writers
got
it from the Greeks. In order to understand its use we must re-
mind ourselves that it is an
everyday
word for the marvellous
quality
that
characterizes a
great painting,
a successful
piece
of
architecture,
a
happy
family,
and that for which the
peoples
of the world
yearn.
As musicians
we tend to
forget
this more basic
meaning:
our books on
harmony
do
not
usually
tell us
why
their
subject
should be so named.
The Middle
Ages
as well as the Renaissance
approached
this marvel-
lous
quality by paradox, explaining
it as the "concord of discords." This
inscription finally
turns
up
on the title
page
of Gaffurio's De harmonia
musicorum
instrumentorum
(
518).
Not that
"harmony"
meant
"poly-
phony"-far
from it-but in
polyphony they
saw
yet
another manifesta-
tion of that
quality
that ran
through
the whole creation.
Indeed,
polyphony
becomes the most
tangible
manifestation of
harmony:
in the
Renaissance,
the Promethean musicus
speculator
seizes
upon
the Idea of
harmony
and
fixes it in the matter of
counterpoint.
Not
long
after the
counterpoint
teachers tackled the
three-part prob-
lem-around the end of the
15th
century--certain
theorists were
ponder-
ing
the same
problem
from a different
point
of view. These theorists were
not so much concerned with how to
produce
three-note
chords,
but
rather
why
some chords sounded
better,
more harmonious than others.
Their attention was focussed
upon
the chord itself as a vertical
sonority;
they sought
some tool for
explaining
its nature.
The tool had been at hand for some time.
Every
theorist in the West
had
presumably
read
Boethius,
and thus knew about the several kinds of
"mean"
or division of a
proportion.
Boethius described three means:
arithmetic,
geometric,
and
harmonic,
as
follows:48
48 De institutione musica
II, I2 (Friedlein
ed.,
p. 241).
Eleven kinds of mean were
known to
antiquity;
see P. H.
Michel,
De
Pythagore d Euclide (Paris, 1950),
pp. 365,
369ff.
18
JOURNAL
Arithmetic
2:3:4 (3
-
2)
=
(4- 3)
Geometric
2:4:8 4:2
=
8:4
Harmonic
3:4:6 (4
-
3):(6
-
4)
=
3:6
The arithmetic mean divides the distance between the
extremes into
two
equal parts;
the
resulting
ratios, however,
are not
equal
(2:3
--
3:4).
In the case of the
geometric
mean,
the ratios are
equal,
but the middle
term does not divide the distance into two
equal parts.
In the harmonic
division neither the
parts
nor the ratios are
equal,
but the ratio of the
parts
is
equal
to the ratios of the extremes. This curious
affinity
of the
division to the whole is the
special property
of the harmonic mean.
Its
very
name,
"medietas
harmonica,"
must have
caught
the
fancy
of
the Renaissance theorist. The
application
to vertical
sonority
is
striking,
and the theorist must have
pondered
the result with excited satisfaction49
Ex.
3
i) 2)
2
3)
1VIw 'I?
In this
example
the numbers to the
right
of the notes
represent string
ratios: thus
strings
in the arithmetic
proportion
(2:3:4)
sound a fifth with
a fourth
below;
those in the
geometric proportion
(2:4:8)
sound an oc-
tave with another octave
below;
those in harmonic
proportion
(3:4:6)
sound a fourth with a fifth below. It is characteristic of the arithmetic
mean that the
larger
ratio occurs between the
smaller
numbers,
hence
the
larger
interval
(the fifth)
comes at the
top,
between the shorter
strings;
the harmonic
mean,
on the other
hand,
has the
special property
of
placing
the
larger
interval between the
longer strings,
hence below the fourth.
When
judged by
a
5th-century ear-perhaps by any ear--the
three
pitches produced by
the harmonic division of the octave have a much
more
balanced,
euphonious sonority
than the others.
Having
reached this
conclusion,
the theorists reserved the term
"harmony"
for a chord of three
pitches;
chords of two
pitches
were concords or discords. And it was the
harmonic
mean-O
happy
coincidence-that
produced
the
truly
har-
monious division of the
octave,
that chord which for a
long
time had been
most
worthy
to end a
song.
For reasons that the subtle reader
may
ferret out for
himself,
the har-
monic mean cannot be
applied
within the
"Pythagorean" tuning beyond
the division of the octave. But at the moment when theorists were
making
this
application, they
were also
busily engaged
in
modifying
the
system
49
All
this and the
following
is available in Riemann's Geschichte der
Musiktheorie,
Ch. XII: "Die Revision der mathematischen
Akustik,"
pp.
318ff;
in addition to
clarify-
ing
the
material,
my
aim is to
put
it in a
slightly
different
light.
The first theorist
actually
to
apply
the
harmonic
mean to
sonority
seems to be Gaffurio (Riemann,
p.
324).
Walter
Odington
does not
say exactly
what Riemann
suggests.
AND HARMONY
19
of
tuning.50
This dislocation of traditional
concepts
resulted in consider-
able
controversy;
when the dust had
settled,
the issue seemed
decided,
at
least
temporarily,
in favor of those
advocating
a
"pure"
third. One conse-
quence
of this was an endless series of discussions about the "least" inter-
vals,
the commas and their
kind,
which are
apparent
to the reason but
not the ear-this in an
age
which
allegedly
trusted in the sensible.
Another
consequence
more
germane
to our
topic
was this: the
pure
thirds
5:4
and
6:5,
by replacing
the old ratios
81:64
and
32:27,
could now
take their
rightful positions alongside
the
perfect
concords of octave
(2:I),
fifth
(3:2),
and fourth
(4:3).
Of course the discant teachers had
grouped
the thirds with the concords ever since
John
of Garland in the
I3th
century,
but the Renaissance theorist
provided
the mathematical
jus-
tification. And
now,
reasoned
Zarlino,
the
principal
concords of counter-
point
can be derived from the ratios of the first six
numbers,
the
senaria.51
Surely
a remarkable demonstration of the rational nature of music! A
demonstration as well that the moderns had
surpassed
the
ancients,
who
had used
only
the
tetrad,
or first four numbers.
If the
major
and minor thirds are
expressed by
these
ratios,
another
application
of the harmonic mean is
possible.
Gaffurio had
perhaps
al-
ready
made this
application,
but in
passing;
Zarlino takes it
up
with more
decision
(Ex. 4).52
Ex.
4
II I
Here are two more sonorities that are formed from
concords,
have three
pitches,
and fill the ear with sweet
harmony.
In the first a fifth is divided
arithmetically, placing
the
larger
interval at the
top;
in the second the
fifth is divided
harmonically, placing
the
larger
interval at the bottom.
Once
again
reason coincides with the
judgment
of the ear in
declaring
the
latter to be more harmonious. Because it consists of three different
pitches
it is called a
"triad;"
because it uses the harmonic mean it is the "har-
monic triad." For Zarlino and the
I6th
century
this
triad,
of all sonori-
ties,
manifests most
clearly
that marvellous
quality, harmony.
It is
important
to observe that such
analyses
in no
way
conflict with
discant. In the third
part
of the Istitutioni
harmoniche,
Zarlino discusses
discant in the traditional
fashion,
and
quite consciously
so,
for he refers
frequently
to the
ancients,
meaning
the earlier discant
authors,
and shows
5o Although
treated
by
Riemann and
others,
this
chapter
in the
history
of
theory
also needs
rewriting.
J.
Murray
Barbour's
analysis, (Tuning
and
Temperament [East
Lansing,
Mich.,
1951])
while
authoritative,
wants
sympathetic insight;
according
to
Barbour,
"just
intonation" is
something
that can and should be "confuted."
51 Istitutioni
harmoniche
(Venice, 1573), I,
Cap.
xiiiff.
52
Ibid., I, Cap. xxxix,
xi;
III,
Cap. xxxi;
Strunk,
Source
Readings,
p. 242.
20
JOURNAL
little inclination to
depart
from their
principles.
But one should not con-
clude from this that Zarlino is a dual
mentality,
half medieval and half
modem,
unaware of a contradiction between linear
counterpoint
and
functional
harmony.
As I have tried to
show,
he discusses neither of these
things;
the two
subjects
he does
discuss,
counterpoint
and
harmony,
are
in no
way contradictory.
His
precepts
of
counterpoint,
like those of his
predecessors,
teach how to
get
from one concord to the
next,
and how
to
expand
this
progression
of concords into three or more
parts.
His the-
ory
of
harmony analyzes
the nature of
three-part
sonorities. This
theory
of
harmony
does not
treat,
in
principle,
the
progression
from one har-
mony
to the next: the harmonic triads have no
systematic
relation,
and
therefore no
function,
one to another. His
theory
is about
harmony,
but
not about functional
harmony.
A word
might
be said
comparing
Zarlino's
theory
of
harmony
to
Rameau's. Zarlino demonstrated that the
principal
concords could be de-
rived from the ratios of the first six
numbers,
and that the
principal
harmony
was formed from these concords
arranged according
to the har-
monic
proportion.
Rameau
showed,
in
effect,
that the
principal
con-
cords could be derived from the intervals in the natural
(that is,
physical)
series of
partials
or
overtones,
and that the
principal harmony
was formed
by taking
certain concords in the order in which
they actually appeared
in this natural series. The one demonstration seems
just
as
valid,
and no
more
so,
than the
other.53
The
I6th-century
theorist believed that if he
could find the form of music in the realm of
number,
he somehow made
music more real or more
true;
the
I8th-century
theorist believed the
same,
only
he looked for his
proof
in the realm of
physical phenomena.
And the Creator in his Wisdom made the universe
big enough
so that
perhaps
both are
right.
Granting
that Zarlino's
arguments
are
cogent,
it is still difficult to rec-
oncile oneself to his allotment of
space among
various
topics.
The senaria
by
no means dominates the
scene,
while the harmonic
division,
consider-
ing
its
implications,
seems
actually slighted.
The "least
intervals,"
here as
in other Renaissance
theorists,
get
the
largest
share of
space,
which in-
clines one to
reject
the whole tedious discussion of commas as
hopeless
5
The
frequency
ratios of the
ascending partial
series of course
produce--or
are
produced by-the
series of whole numbers:
1,2,3,4,5,6
.
.
.
Strings arranged
so as to
yield
these sounds will have
lengths corresponding
to the series:
I,
1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5,
I/6 ...
Any
three consecutive terms of this latter series
yield
a harmonic
proportion;
in fact this series (the
reciprocals
of the whole numbers) is the
only
continuous
harmonic
proportion,
since all cases of the harmonic
proportion involving
whole
numbers
(e.g. 2:3:6)
come to an end. See P. H.
Michel,
De
Pythagore
a
Euclide,
PP.
3
94.*
If
string
ratios are
used,
therefore,
the harmonic triad must be
explained by
the
harmonic
proportion;
if
frequency
ratios,
by
the whole-number series, that is,
arith-
metic
proportion.
Not without
logic
is the whole-number series called the "harmonic
series" when it refers to
frequencies.
AND HARMONY 21
pedantry,
remote from musical art. Yet
perhaps
when an art is
drawing
to an
end,
when all the
ways
out have been
explored,
all limits
reached--
perhaps
in this moment of
closure,
the
investigation
of the whole tonal
system,
all its cracks and
crevices,
becomes a matter of
great importance.
Perhaps
we will come to understand this in our own time.
Yale
University

University of California Press American Musicological Society

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

University of California Press American Musicological Society

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Discant, Counterpoint, and Harmony

Author(s): Richard L. Crocker

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi