Expert: Marbeth - 11/19/2008

Question
QUESTION: Hi,

I've been fascinated with early music for quite some time now - everything from Perotin to Gesualdo.  I've looked at a few sources on medieval music, but I'm still frustrated by the mystery of these "rhythmic modes."  Every time I find an explanation of how they were used, I end up even more confused.  

I (sort of) understand that they were defined by the context of the music, and that they were derived from classical poetic meters...but I still don't understand how a singer could have possibly used these modes to determine the rhythm of a piece.  I can never see the connection between a ligature/neume and the transcribed modern notation.  Ah!  I'm so confused!  Thanks for your help!

ANSWER: Because Greek names are used to identify the different "modal rhythms," it was thought for some time that their origin was also Greek (poetry).

Here are the most common modes (the numbers represent how many counts per note).
Trochaic (1st mode): 123 - 1  ("long – short")
Iambic (2nd) :  1 – 123 ("short – long")
Tribrachic (6th):  1-1-1 (equal values)

You are correct that the type of box/dot/blob/squiggles of ink (neume) indicates which rhythmic mode is to be used.  

This notation is very non-specific, but it was fine for what it was meant to do:  jog Brother Timothy's memory when he traveled from his monastery to the new one being established down the road so he could teach the new monks the tunes they needed to sing the Divine Office  (9c-10c).  

Then they added letters to the dots and squiggles (11c), but this addition wasn't a great improvement.

Eventually, the major failings of such imprecise notation became apparent, and the dots and squiggles were placed on lines.  There were two of them, and they designated F and C.  F was the lower one and C the higher.  Later a G line was added above C for even more accuracy (accuracy being a relative term here!).

G-----
C-----
F-----

Guess what?  These letters, which were placed at the beginning of the line, became our clefs:  "F-clef" or "bass clef."  "G-clef" or "treble clef."  These two are the most common, appearing in vocal, keyboard, and most instrumental music.  The "C-clef" is called "alto clef" and is used today by viola, sometimes by cello and bassoon.  

The idea of clefs is to keep as many notes as possible within the confines of the 5-line staff., as this simplifies reading (as anyone who has looked bleary-eyed at a fleuressence of notes on leger lines above or below a staff will appreciate!).  Using different clefs is convenient.  The clefs are actually fancified versions of the letters F, C, and G.

Okey-doke.   Then the blobs/etc. were placed on or around the lines.  This helped some.
         o
G--o---o  ---- -----o---
         o


C--\ -- o --- -- ------o-o-
         o       o
         o

F -- o -- o – o -----------

(How do you like that ASCI modal notation?  Pretty inventive, huh?  Actually, this gives you a good idea why this method did not endure.)

The G line represents (roughly) G GF [2-note compound neume] A or B maybe then G again.  

The C line might represent DCB [ 3-note maybe compound neume shown here as \ ]  A maybe, G or F maybe, then a repetition of whatever "A maybe" is.

The F line shows a series of Fs.

By about the 13c, the staff consisted of 4 lines (or fewer).

Compound neumes were associated with a "melisma" in the music, a string of notes on a single syllable.  Think of the "Amen" chorus in Handel's "Messiah."   In fact, go to Amazon or somewhere and listen to a clip to see what I mean.

Some of the blobs then became connected; these groupings are called "compound neumes", mentioned earlier.

For example, the two o thingies in the G line of music - - one below and to the right of the other - - represents two squares neumes, drawn touching, one lower.  This probably would be two adjacent notes, but we don't know with absolute certainty.

The \ represents a compound neume (more than one pitch shown in one shape).   These generally are curved.   

When the blobs were connected in a certain sequence the rhythm was shown, as well as the pitch.  This modification came somewhat later.

Further down the road (about 13c), there was "cum littera" ["with a text"] notation, in which the blobs pretty much followed the syllabification of the text.  This primarily used square noteheads (the o in my drawings, above).  This is the notation used by your buddies, Leonin and Perotin (late 12c).

Note:  In a later use (about 1850), the square noteheads were given the same note value.  This is called Solemnes notation, after the Benedictine Abbey in France, and is the basis for one interpretation of Gregorian chant:  each note gets the same value, though it is common for the last notes of a phrase to be extended slightly.  This means the music is non-metrical (not like a poem, but free-flowing) because the texts of the Mass/Divine Office/etc. do not contain a fixed number of syllables that recurs in the text.  Recent scholarship states that equal notevalues is incorrect, and therefore a Solemnes reading of the neumes is incorrect.  Nevertheless, the Solemnes interpretation is the one people are familiar with.

Back to the notation.  The curved marks are called "ligatures" and represent more than one note.  Another kind of ligature is two boxes stuck together, one higher than the other.  Or three boxes.  

Neumes are read L-to-R.  In cases where several boxes are stacked upward, the neumes are read from bottom-to-top.

This site:

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2006/10/graduale-romanum-1961-roman-gradual

has a nice picture of this notation for the Kyrie (first part of the Mass).  Notice the C-clef.  What are the pitches of notes for each syllable of the word "Kyrie"?  

Your next question is how do these rhythms translate into written notation.  Answer:  with difficulty.  How are they interpreted:  with difficulty.

Musicologists (of which I am one) fuss about stuff like this.  In fact, my dissertation was on this very topic!

Based on my study, my interpretation is as follows:

(1)  A three-note neume (such as the DCB one I used as a previous example) followed by one or more 2-note neumes (the "boxes stuck together idea," one lower than the previous) indicates Mode I (trochaic – "long short"; written in modern notation as half-note and quarter-note).

(2)  A string of two-note neumes indicates Mode II (iambic – "short long"; quarter-note and half-note).

(3)  A string of three-note neumes not interrupted by any two-note neumes or single notes is Mode VI (trabrachic; equal values, such as all quarter-notes).  

Yes, the Solemnes reading of equal note values in chant is application of Mode VI.

You may bend my arm, but I'm not going to address "fractio modi," imperfect ligatures, "cum opposita proprietate," and other such minutia of medieval notation here!  (It took me over 500 pages to cover all that.)

Note:  There are other modes, alas, in music.  These deal with unusual scales, such as Dorian and Lydian.  Anyone for some more confusion?!

mb






---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thanks!  

I take it that the scale modes are easier to understand(although I'm not well acquainted with them...I'm a drummer!)  But the rhythmic modes always seem foreign to me...like most people, I'm very accustomed to the modern, standardized system of notation, so comprehending "modes" in rhythm tends to bend my mind!  But it still interests the drumming side of me, I guess.  

My follow-up question has little to do with the rhythmic modes.  I'm curious about performance practice.  How would you say Perotin's organum might have been performed?  Soloists & a choir for the plainchant?  Was there a significant difference between the performance of organum & conductus?  And this may be venturing a bit too far into the realm of conjecture, but: what could have possibly compelled Perotin to "edit" the Magnus Liber Organi?  I'm desperately trying to flesh these 800-year-old, mysterious composers...it really fascinates me that we can hear their music - the creations of their souls/emotions - and yet know next to nothing about their lives!  All we have is some anonymous English student's class notes from the 13th century...

You don't have to answer this - feel as though I've already gone a bit too far in my questioning - but: do you have any preferences when it comes to an "accurate" recording of this music?  I have the Hilliard Ensemble's album and cherish it dearly, but I've read that their "modern" approach (rhythmic regularity, no ornamentation, etc.) may not properly reflect historical performance practice.  
Thanks for all your help!  

-Eric

Answer
Look into the Indian traditional drumming if you want complexity!

Just choir.  Well, a bunch of monks.  Men only.  Later men + boys (but this was about 1500s).  

There's a well-known picture of a bunch gathered around a stand on which rests a giant book of square notation.  Search on Binchois and/or Okeghem.  Books were very expensive, so one large book was useful so everyone could see the music.  

There are two schools of performance for chant.  One is the Solemnes, where every note is given equal value; except for the last one, which is held a little.  The Mensuralists attempted to vary note values.  As I think I noted above, the Solemnes school is most often practiced today bcs it's easier and also more "familiar" and "sacred."  If you are Episcopalian, you know how the chants have different values; some notes move quickly to "fit" and other syllables have their own notes; this is sort of Mensuralist.

Editing the Liber may have been clarification, correction, or emendation.  Or it have documented local practice there in Notre Dame.  Since Paris, and ND in particular, was the center of musical learning, the Liber represented "accepted practice."

mb