Artikel

Nicola Vicentino vs. Ghiselin Danckerts

Or: The Heresy of the Ascending Major Semitone

Anne Smith

> read online

> PDF version

Abstract

In May of 1551, Nicola Vicentino disputed with Vincenzo Lusitano in Rome over whether composers knew in which of the three genres – diatonic, chromatic or enharmonic – they were composing. Since then, although this dispute has been discussed repeatedly through the centuries, nobody has compared the argumentation in the two sources in detail. This article attempts to demonstrate that Danckerts’ arguments were not directed against any specific tuning system, indeed that he did not really even understand Vicentino’s contention as he did not have a true practical comprehension of the significance of distinguishing between a major and minor semitone; instead he was defending himself against what he perceived as a threat to his understanding of his Church’s beloved music and how he performed it, a threat which he compared to heresy. It offers a close reading of Danckerts’ criticism of Vicentino’s proposition, followed by a discussion of Danckerts’ theoretical understanding of the genera and an analysis of his examples in relation to his definitions of the intervals as well as in comparison to those of Vicentino. This information will then be looked at in relation to what Danckerts writes concerning the use of chromaticism by modern composers and evaluated in the context of other theorists of the time.

Schlagwörter

microtonality, meantone tuning, Pythagorean tuning, music theory, 1500-1600

Forschungsprojekt

«Vicentino21»

Quelle

Forschungsportal Schola Cantorum Basiliensis

>> read online <<

>> download the PDF (8 MB) <<

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1          Introduction – p. 1

  1. 1.1       A necessary preliminary question: Does one need to know the
    exact size of an interval to be a good musician? – p. 2

2          Ghiselin Danckerts’ Sopra una differentia musicale sententiata – p.5

3          First things first: A description of the dispute – p. 7

  1. 3.1       General context – p.7

4          The real issues behind the dispute – Sopra una differentia musicale
            sententiata, Part 1, Chapter 7 – p. 10

  1. 4.1       Questions concerning the validity of the documents by Vicentino – p. 10
  2. 4.2       The rules of the three genera – p. 14
  3. 4.3       Singing and progressing with the voci  – p. 18
  4. 4.4       What about the other intervals that are found in diatonic music? – p. 20
  5. 4.5       What rules must be observed in chromatic and enharmonic music? – p. 21
  6. 4.6       And what are species? – p. 22
  7. 4.7       The use of the word “diesis” in 16th-century Italian sources – p. 24
  8. 4.8       Should the semitono in the diatonic genus be maggiore or minore? – p. 25
  9. 4.9       Issues related to the use of the major semitone – p. 27
  10. 4.10     Can music really be written solely in the chromatic and enharmonic genera? – p. 30
  11. 4.11     The application of accidentals – p. 34
  12. 4.12     Danckerts’ verdict on the dispute – p. 35

5          Danckerts’ approach to the genres and their intervals, how to
             experience them, complete with examples – p. 38

  1. 5.1       The signs with which Danckerts designated the chromatic and
    enharmonic steps – Part 2, Chapter 11 – p. 38
  2. 5.2       The ninefold division of the tone from a historical perspective – p.  42
  3. 5.3       Danckerts’ explanation of how one can understand his examples
    in the various genres without an instrument suitable for the
    purpose – Part 2, Chapter 13  – p. 45

6          The monophonic musical examples – Part 2, Chapter 13 – p. 49

  1. 6.1       The monophonic examples – p. 49
  2. 6.2       A long digression on why diatonic compositions are better than
    chromatic or enharmonic – p. 49

7          The polyphonic examples – p. 56

  1. 7.1       In which tuning system should we perform the polyphonic examples? – p. 56
  2. 7.2       Example of the harmony in four voices, using intervals solely from
    diatonic tetrachords – p. 58
  3. 7.3       Example of the harmony in four voices, using intervals 
    solely from the chromatic tetrachord  – p. 58
  4. 7.4       Example of the harmony in four voices, using intervals solely from 
    the enharmonic tetrachord  – p. 59
  5. 7.5       Examples which exhibit a mixture of the three genera – p. 60

8          Of the errors of modern composers – p. 62

  1. 8.1       Opinions on the errors which many new composers encounter
    in the new style – Part 3, Chapter 2 – p. 62
  2. 8.2       Of the errors those make who entitle their songs as 
    being Chromatic – Part 3, Chapter 3  – p. 71

9          Conclusions  – p. 77

10        Appendices  – p. 80

  1. App. 1 Comparison of the various manuscripts containing Danckerts’ Sopra una differentia musicale sententiata  –  p. 81
  2. App. 2.1 Essempio de la Tirata di semiminime ascendendo et discendendo gradatamente  – p. 83
  3. App. 2.2 Essempio della Harmonia da 4 voci pari per intervalli de i tetrachordi del solo genere DIATONICO  – p. 84
  4. App. 2.3 ESSEMPIO della Harmonia a 4 voci, per intervalli de i Tetrachordi Del sol Genere CHROMATICO  – p. 86
  5. App. 2.4 ESSEMPIO della Harmonia a 4 Voci per intervalli de i Tetrachordi del solo Genere ENARMONICO  – p. 87
  6. App. 2.5 ESSEMPIO della Harmonia a tre voci: Mista de tutti tre i Generi in tre diversi Voci   – p. 88
  7. App. 2.6 ESSEMPIO della Harmonia a 4 voci, Mista de tutti tre i Generi per li Tetrachordi et intervalli loro, sparsi per tuttequattro le voci  – p. 89
  8. App. 3 Preface to Ghiselin Danckerts’ Sopra una differentia musicale sententiata  – p. 91

END – p. 98

Gefördert durch die Maja Sacher Stiftung