Hello and welcome to Early music sources. com My name is Elam Rotem and today we’ll talk about Giovanni Maria Artusi and what exactly he was upset about. Towards the end of the 16th century, the theorist Giovanni Maria Artusi had enough of seeing the lack of respect young composers exhibited toward the old and “natural” rules of counterpoint, and wrote a book about it.
There, he quoted some excerpts from not yet published madrigals by Monteverdi, and without naming him, criticized him and his attitude severely. This opened one of the most famous musical debates in music history. It included testimonials by Monteverdi himself, and brought forth the famous dichotomy prima prattica VS seconda prattica.
In this episode we will focus in on what exactly upset Artusi, trying to see it as much as possible from his point of view. In addition, we will debunk some of the misconceptions that surround this discussion. Let’s start!
In the year 1600, Artusi published his book “L'Artusi, overo Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica” - “Artusi, or the imperfections of the modern music”. Its first part is dedicated to problems of tuning in ensembles of mixed instruments. Its shorter second part is the famous critique of some anonymous excerpts we now know were taken from not yet published madrigals of Monteverdi.
Artusi uses the common form of dialogue to present his ideas: on one hand, Luca, an open minded person who tries to defend the “modern imperfections”, and on the other, Vario (from verità - truth), the conservative who seem to speak the voice of Artusi himself. Disclaimer: due to time limitations, the quotes presented in this episode were mostly shortened and rephrased. Like always, viewers are encouraged to read the original text for themselves.
To begin with, Luca sets the scene: “Yesterday, I was invited by some gentlemen to hear certain new madrigals. "The madrigals were sung and repeated, "but without giving the name of the author. "The texture was not unpleasing.
But, as your lordship will see, "insofar as it introduced new rules, new modes, and new turns of phrase, "these were harsh and little pleasing to the ear. "But, in order that you may see and give me your judgment, "here are the passages, scattered here and there through the above-mentioned madrigals. ” Vario answers: “Signor Luca, you bring me new things which astonish me not a little.
"It pleases me, at my age, to see a new method of composing, "though it would please me much more if I saw that these passages "were founded upon some reason which could satisfy the intellect. "But as castles in the air, chimeras founded upon sand, "these novelties do not please me; "they deserve blame, not praise. Let’s check them anyway.
” As you see, the excerpts are very short, without musical context of what comes before and what comes after, and perhaps most importantly, and Artusi was later criticized about this, the excerpts do not include the text. It becomes clear though, that in the opinion of Artusi it doesn’t matter what the text is - according to him no text in the world can justify such errors. Before trying to tackle the first example, let’s change to a modern transcription: still without any context or the text, but with the G in the tenor which is missing in Artusi's excerpt; one wonders whether it was not omitted on purpose just to confuse the readers even more.
There are two “errors” in this excerpt: the canto part’s unprepared ninth, and then, the unprepared seventh. This is how it may sound in the heads of Artusi’s readers, who didn’t have the text of this excerpt. Later in the 17th century, the 7th became an inseparable part of a cadence, prepared or unprepared.
So to us modern listeners, this 7th at least might even sound sweet. But from a 16th-century counterpoint point of view there is nothing sweet about it, it is a harsh error. Luca’s first attempt to explain these errors was to say that if this were the canto part, things would not be so bad; perhaps implying that if the ninth had been approached and left in stepwise motion it wouldn’t have been a grave error, and also that if the seventh was but a little passing note, no one would have complained.
He says, that although the original canto part has a rest at the beginning of the bar, the G is found in the tenor, even if it is an octave lower. Concerning the seventh, he asks: “what difference can it make if we cause a little more harshness "to be heard by converting two notes - a consonant and a dissonant "- into one completely dissonant one. ” Vario is very upset by these suggestions.
He says that “it is no less than absurd to think that "a note of another voice, in another octave, can serve as an excuse for such an error. "Also, it is one thing to hear two notes passing through a dissonance by stepwise motion, "but another to hear a dissonance of a minim that was approached by a leap! "This offends the ear.
” Luca realizes that he could not make Vario approve these dissonance with traditional analysis, and tries another approach: he reports that “they say that all this is called grace "and demonstrates singing with accenti or accented singing” - Musica Accentata. He even supplies some examples showing how instead of singing the notes as they are, singers would sometimes start a third lower and then gracefully ascend to the written note. would become: Vario first says: “never in my life have I heard or read about such a thing”.
This is rather odd because the music example as well as Luca’s explanation is practically copied from Orazio Scaletta’s Scala di musica from 1585. Also Zacconi, in his Prattica di musica of 1596 discusses the addition of graces and accenti. Zacconi gives many examples, one of which goes like that: would become: One modern interpretation of Monteverdi’s excerpt (possible only if one can see the preceding measure as well) is seeing the A in the canto as a Zacconian written-out accento from the held G, that happens to be written with a pause.
Now, if an ornament should merely adorn an already written melody, here we have a case of an ornament that became an inseparable part of the composition: once the ornamented notes gets their own text syllables, it’s hard to treat them as mere ornaments. And if these notes are to be judged as inseparable part of the composition, one may understand Artusi concluding that they are simply unexplainable errors. In any case, this specific interpretation was not meant by Artusi, who purposefully did not include the preceding bar.
Back to Vario. He says that “even if there is such a thing "as accented singing, how should it give the composer license "to employ barbarisms such as are seen in these examples? !
"The composer must supply a correct work, then the performer can, "with discretion and judgement, use ornaments. ” He then refers to a specific excerpt and asks: “Is the thing that the tenor is doing here supposed to be accented singing? "If so, this singer made a grave mistake "and surely acted against the intent of the composer.
” In this example we see the tenor approaching to the seventh by steps, let’s listen It’s not as bad as the leap to the seventh in the former example, but still, there are clear rules about employing disonnaces; just approaching them without preparation is not a valid option. According to the discussion up until now, it is clear that Artusi accepted the possibility that things which until recently were just performance practice - that is, certain ornamental sung notes that were added by the singers in performance - are now written into the compositions, and thus get amplified. Luca now wonders: “How can it be then, that sometimes I hear performances "of singers and instruments playing such written-out “accented music” "and it actually sounds nice?
” To this Vario answers: “There can be only two possible explanations: "First, that intelligent singers realize that "the music is faulty and correct it on the spot. "Or second, that the sensuous excess corrupts the sense. "That is, because of the multitude of voices "the sense fails to perceive the offense committed against it.
"Such is the sense, but not the reason "- reason knows and distinguishes good from bad. ” At this point, Vario starts a full blown rant: “It is my belief that there is nothing but smoke "in the heads of such composers and that they are so enamored "of themselves as to think it within their power to "corrupt, spoil, and ruin the good old rules "handed down in former times by so many theorists and most excellent musicians, "the very men from whom these moderns have learned how to compose. "In the end, since such pieces are built without foundation, "they are quickly consumed by time and cast to the ground, "and the builders remain deluded and mocked at.
” History proved that Artusi ended up being the one who was mocked, but he did have a point: history also proved that the music that came after Monteverdi’s generation is generally much simpler and rarely challenges the basic system it is based on. In the meantime, Luca brings another argument that supposed to explain some contrapuntal errors: “Instead of having all the voices be correct with the lowest voice, "as is the normal way, "those composers make the voices correct with the tenor. "The outcome is a mixture - mistura - of everything together.
” In the case of the first example, indeed, if one performs it on the one hand without the bass, or on the other, without the canto, there is no dispute; the discord only arises from the mixing of everything together. Let’s listen without the bass: fine. And now without the canto: fine.
But now together: mmm not fine. Vario, surprisingly, accepts that argument, and even points out that it fits also to some other excerpts given by Luca. Needless to say, such a phenomenon may happen in the common practice (back then) of improvising polyphony over a cantus firmus: all the voices agree with the cantus firmus but not necessarily with each other.
Vario then finds an example where this explanation does not work: The first part of the example may be explained again with mistura: all the voices either without the quinto or without the canto can somehow work. But now Vario refers to the end of this excerpt: the quick homophonic progression made with chrome - eighth notes. Let’s listen to it slowly.
Indeed, this progression is very dissonant. Luca however says that “with instruments, and since it’s quick, "it does not really offend the hearing. ” As expected, this argument is not accepted by Vario, who says that it’s a “sensuous excess which corrupts the sense.
” Luca then gives a rather funny account: “those composers teach the singers to sing their compositions, "accompanying themselves with many movements of the body, "and in the end they let themselves go to such an extent "that they seem to be actually dying. "this is the perfection of their music. ” After this lovely description, Vario goes back to the examples, and points out a very bad use of a diminished fifth.
Luca justifies this criticism and adds that he “never seen such a use of diminished fifth after a rest”. He suggest that “perhaps those composers consider, wrongly of course, "that the rest is equal to a consonant note. ” He then points out that it’s possible to use such an interval, but as a passing note, and quotes a madrigal by Cipriano de Rore where such a progression is used in a correct way.
Then, a very strong point by Vario is made regarding the seventh, which is found prominently throughout the examples. In his view, those composers regard it as if the seventh were a legitimate consonance, and he cannot grasp why they feel that they can do that. In the rest of the book they mainly discuss the very tricky subject of modes.
They claim that certain madrigals by the unnamed Monteverdi start in one mode and end in another. They wonder “how one who has the profession of an honourable man "allows himself to slip into such imperfections? ” All of what you heard until now was from Artusi’s first book of 1600.
He published a second book in 1603, and in 1605 and 1607, Monteverdi and his brother gave their famous response, which we won’t get into in this episode. In 1608, a direct response to Monteverdi’s writing was published, assumed to be by Artusi. Since we are limited in time, we’ll go slightly more quickly through selected subjects discussed in the other sources.
Let’s see. The second book of Artusi is not in a dialogue form. It does however include fragments of letters by a certain L'Ottuso Accademico, who defended Monteverdi and answered to some of Artusi’s claims from his first book.
Scholars do not know who this Ottuso was, it might have been also Artusi himself, but regardless, it offers us an interesting discussion. Here are some highlights: Artusi objects to a certain melodic interval found quite often in Monteverdi's madrigals, nowadays referred to as a diminished fourth; he says that it is unnatural. Here is a typical use of this interval: Ottuso, however, writes that “it is a new progression (modulatione) "that allows us to find new affetti.
” He even supply examples of how esteemed composers such as Cipriano de Rore and Giaches de Wert already used it in the past. Some years later, in Adriano Banchieri’s treatise Cartella musicale, this interval is called “quarta tritona”, and Banchieri writes that it is difficult to sing. He comments however, that since modern composers use it so often, it is getting easier.
Artusi explained that he opposes following a sharpened note by a descending interval and a flattened note by a rising one; apparently something found quite often in Monteverdi’s music. L’Ottuso writes that all the modern composers are using it, and "most of all those who have embraced this new second practice" - questa nuova seconda pratica. And this is the first time the famous term seconda prattica appears in the world!
Ottuso also had the chance to answer Artusi’s claims about the false use of the seventh: “The seventh, sweetened by the accompaniment of the other parts, "will undoubtedly not only have a good effect but, "being something new, will give greater delight to the ear "than would the supposed octave. "And since you desire a proof, you will draw it very easily from this: "you allow an excellent poet the metaphor when used for a purpose; "similarly the seventh is taken in place of the octave. ” Of course, such an argument would not satisfy Artusi; for him the seventh is by nature a dissonance, and must be treated accordingly.
Lastly, Ottuso tried to explain that such music demands a good performance: “You must remember that the singer is the soul of music, "and it is he who, in sum, represents the true meaning of the composer to us. "In this representation, according to the variety of the subject, "the voice is sometimes reinforced, at other times sweetened. "For this reason you have to hear this manner of clever composition "sung by singers who are out of the ordinary.
"Your Lordship's grounds for criticism would then cease to exist, "in that the harshness of these madrigals would be covered "in such a way that the dissonances would not be heard. ” So finally, Ottuso claims that there is harshness, but it is covered and not heard. We already know that for Artusi this is not good enough; he does not count on the senses alone, he needs also reason.
In other words, a piece should sound good in performance and look good on the paper. So, by now, I think you got an idea of what Artusi was upset about. Unfortunately, there was never a real dialogue with Artusi; the answers of the Monteverdi brothers to his claims are on a different level; more philosophical and general, and do not go into details.
Famously, Monteverdi promised to write a book explaining in detail what the seconda prattica is. but this unfortunately did not happen. What did happen though, was that this juicy piece of music history was amplified by myths.
So before we finish, let’s debunk some of them. Myth 1: “the term seconda prattica was coined by Claudio Monteverdi. ” Wrong: As we saw, it was L’Ottuso Academico, whoever he was, who first used this term, as appears in Artusi’s second book from 1603.
Myth 2: “Prima pratica is the previous polyphonic ideal of the sixteenth century, "with flowing counterpoint, prepared dissonances, and equality of voices, "while seconda pratica is the new style of monody and accompanied recitative. ” Wrong: all along this discussion, the concept of monody does not come up at all. When they talk about specific things, it always concerns counterpoint in polyphony.
Myth 3: “Monteverdi invented the seconda prattica. ” Wrong: Monteverdi’s brother, Giulio Cesare, writes in 1607 that Claudio merely continued the way paved by Cipriano de Rore. This means something like half a century before this famous controversy started.
Apart from this declaration, similar wild counterpoint can be found in music of other composers from that time. milio de Cavalieri even has a passage very similar to the first example of Artusi, with a leap to an unprepared seventh. Check the footnote for more details.
Myth 4: Now that there is a new way to write music - the seconda prattica, all the new music would be crazy and amazing. Not quite: the “problems” that Artusi is referring to are found in a very small slice of the music of that time, composed by a rather small circle of musicians, and not for long. So Artusi was right to a certain extent, saying that such music will not survive for long; already by the end of Monteverdi’s time, music has gone through a simplification process: simple melodies with simple accompaniment.
As we saw, once music departs from a certain frame of norms, all man-made of course, it is quite hard to legitimize or to explain things that defy it. To be fair, even today there are certain moments in Monteverdi’s music that are very difficult, if not impossible, to explain. But in a way, whether we can explain them or not doesn’t matter much; if people like the music, all the Artusi’s of the world would not be able to stop it.
This was our show about Artusi, we hope you enjoyed it! Don’t forget to check the special page on our website with all the footnotes and other extra information. Feel free to comment, share, like and support us on Patreon.
See you next time on Early Music Sources. com!
