One-Voice Counterpoint

the differences between the Flemish school and the Second Viennese School are enormous. The expression Second Viennese School generally refers to Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. In reality, it could also refer to other composers and theorists; Erwin Ratz comes to mind, at least, who took lessons from Schoenberg and edited some of his works. The Vienna school existed because there was a teacher and there were students, there was a strong shared technical background, which sometimes resulted in a shared style and sometimes not, but which led to a substantial "homogeneity" of language. And they were all active during the same period.

The Flemish school, called Franco-Flemish by some and "the Netherlanders" by others, has never been a school. There are no educational centers of any kind, no true leading composers, no recognizable style. There are geographical connections, some teacher-student relationships, and, from what I know, much of the repertoire was all passed down through the same manuscripts. Hence our habit of speaking of this group of composers as a school.

Dufay was from Cambrai, now in France but at the time in Burgundy, but he traveled extensively, especially in his youth. We do not know where Binchois was from and it does not seem he was ever a pupil of Dufay. And he writes mostly secular works, while Dufay writes mostly sacred works. Certainly, the Burgundian court was full of literate professionals and musicians, but I would not define it as a school so much as a court. Simply.

Ockeghem was not born in Burgundy, does not work for the Burgundian court, and we do not know whose pupil he was. His style is very different from that of all the composers before him and many composers after him. And even though half the world wrote him laments for the dead, we really do not know if he was a teacher to anyone, where or how.

From the arrival of Josquin, things become absolutely simpler. Regardless of place of birth, practically ALL composers traditionally called Flemish work in Italy. They have, as usual, all different styles, write different forms, and are active in an incredible number of places (Ferrara, Mantua, Bologna, Naples, Milan, Florence, the Burgundian court, the French court etc. etc...).

I understand the didactic simplification, but only to a certain point. And if Josquin and Lasso are not placed alongside them...

I will try to give my opinion on the Flemish [school], trying to argue as much as possible. I would like those who disagree to argue, perhaps by providing available references to delve deeper into the matter.

Starting from the historical-geographical context, I will begin by saying that by 'Flemish school' one means the musical culture that emerged in the 15th century and dominated all of 15th-century Europe, determining a decisive influence on the formation and development of Renaissance music.

Historical reference: the Hundred Years' War between France and England (1337-1475) indirectly favored the political and economic consolidation of the Duchy of Burgundy under the leadership of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold (which geographically today is southern France, Belgium, and the Netherlands).

This region experienced a period of great artistic flowering (music and figurative arts); even though the division of the Duchy of Burgundy between France and the Habsburgs occurred later, the creative development of music knew no respite, particularly in the provinces of the Low Countries (Flemish); the production centers were: Bruges, Ghent, Cambrai, Antwerp, Utrecht, Liege, Tournai, Brussels, etc.

The premise for this musical evolution was given by the school-musical training of the Pueri-Cantores (Boy-Singers); study of Latin, Gregorian chant, sacred and profane polyphony, and the study of composition.

After the voice change, the educational path continues with university studies oriented towards cultural/humanistic disciplines.

Not to be forgotten is professionalism: following this solid preparation, musicians are ready for professional practice as singers, composers, and chapel masters.

Thus, a series of musicians expanded into nations such as Spain, Italy, and the Austro-German regions of the Empire.

And then patronage: the example of the Dukes of Burgundy (who had favored the development of the arts) was soon followed by the nobility and other clergy throughout the continent.

Culture becomes a tool for refined aesthetic pleasure and a reflection of lifestyles.

Music, emancipated from theological-liturgical constraints, must confront the needs of a new clientele that demands works functional to their own desires for consumption and displays of power.

Although I do not like dividing by generations, I would at least like to mention the first three:

I) 1400-1460:

Gilles Binchois

Guillaume Du Fay (Musical center of Cambrai)

--> John Dunstable

II) 1460-1490:

- Guillaume Du Fay

- Johannes Ockeghem (Musical center of Paris)

- Antoine Busnois

III) 1490-1520:

- Josquin Desprez

- Jacob Obrecht

- Heinrich Isaac

- Ludwig Senfl

- Mouton (Musical center of Paris)

It seems to me that the prerequisites for speaking of a 'school' are indeed present; if they were not, I would like my writing to be decently "dismantled"."}{

Ok guys, as always we are working our asses... off.

Don't stop, please

Define school, then, Frank.

Tell me what Dunstable and Josquin had to do with France and Belgium...

Find differences between the educational training you spoke of and that of, I don't know, your fellow countryman Franchino Gaffurio :-)

I accept a definition of Burgundian court or French court, but from Josquin onwards, I really don't understand what the use is or where it leads to speak of the Flemish school.

thallo wrote:

Tell me what Dunstable and Josquin had to do with France and Belgium...

Perhaps in an unclear way, I included Dunstable in my historical notes. I would reason in a layered way and by "generations," which is didactic but effective.

That is to say, the right question is: what does Dunstable have to do with Du Fay, who as you can notice acts as the glue with the second generation (Dunstable was just a "link" that I noticed was cut from my post).

And indeed, the first period is dominated by the figure of GUILLAUME DU FAY, who initially feels the influence of the French Ars nova tradition and English polyphony, which expands into the continent during the Hundred Years' War, also thanks to the spread of the music of JOHN DUNSTABLE, who in addition to using counterpoint structure also uses the "FALSO BORDONE" technique. This consisted of the improvised addition of two lower voices moving in parallel motion, exploiting third and sixth interval relationships relative to the pre-existing Gregorian melody presented in the highest voice.

In the second period, let's say that at a contrapuntal level, contrapuntal technique reaches significant milestones; sometimes (in large-scale structures) even reducing to a sterile academic exercise, and if you look at the conduct of the parts, many of the canonical techniques well known today are substantially developed.

This is School with a capital "S." Even today, that type of speculation... of musical "discretion" is used.

Practically speaking, JOSQUIN DESPREZ consolidates and tends, from a stylistic aspect, toward greater clarity, simplicity, and transparency of the formal structure, and, at the same time, toward a conscious sonic softness and a sought-after expressive dimension. Therefore, he uses numerous cadences suggested by the meaning of the words and the flow of the phrases, uses parallel motion of the voices, uses simpler melodies and more linear rhythm.

This is a very small excursus that has led to consolidating a certain significant result.

Someone spoke of the Second Viennese School... Surely Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern didn't write the same music? And yet the work of the three was labeled as the Second Viennese School, and it must be said that among the three, only Webern was radicalized by his successors... he was much further ahead than his teacher and Berg, who was a man of the past.

Therefore, the parallelism is entirely appropriate, and in a different way compared to the Flemish, even the Viennese school became a school... like Webern, Josquin set a standard that, thanks to all the elements I put in the premise, was spread to other centers.

Ah, Franchino Gaffurio is indeed referring to the Flemish school (style?), writing the impossible with the intent to simplify ... I don't understand what the problem is with recognizing a school in those centers. His successors took it as a model; it doesn't only exist in the concept of a school like Darmstadt, there are those that exist in fact, and since half a millennium has passed... the methods must necessarily be different to understand a school.

And think, despite everything, Messiaen's music which was there! ... what does it have to do with Darmstadt?

Without going forward, let's try to go backward... let's talk about the Notre Dame School

but I like Dufay and I do not want to contest his importance. Rather than comparing him with the second Viennese school, let's compare him with the first; the term "first Viennese school" hasn't been used for a long time because, in theory, it would group Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven into one school... and I am not fond of that. I am contesting the use of the term "school," especially when talking about a period in which, if we divide into the Flemish school and the Italian school, we have already categorized ALL KNOWN COMPOSERS. What is the point then?!

Rather than school, I would speak of forms and styles. Are there typical forms in Dufay's music that were then taken up by some composers linked to that court? Yes, practically all the mass forms, the isorhythmic motet, the chanson, and other French secular fixed forms. But let us remember that those forms were not a monopoly of the Flemish, just as their writing style was not, and the composers we call Flemish today did not write only those things. So, what is the use of qualifying, I don't know, Willaert as Flemish when he wrote madrigals and stuff with striking choruses? None; on the contrary, it gives you the impression of a world closed into two styles, the Flemish one and the... non-Flemish one, when in fact even before Josquin these composers traveled here and there, listened to music on the street, adapted their style to the requests of patrons and local tastes etc etc

Thallo makes sense, not by chance I wrote (style?) in parentheses

Dilettante wrote:

In this regard

Can this thing be explained better? I mean, for a mere mortal like me who doesn't have De La Motte... or rather, which of his manuals?

maybe a counterpoint to the unison!

just kidding

pianistamaggiorenneDi38 wrote:

maybe a counterpoint to the unison!

... you're joking... well... I almost thought so