Question de date

I think it's possible to answer this question in two ways (depending on how one reads it!). If the question is when are we going to stop using the term ars subtilior (a term that was invented in the ?1960s and serves a purely historiographical, musicological purpose), I think the answer might be 'never', because it has become so much part of our periodization. Unfortunately.(I like to avoid speaking of the ars subtilior; I was persuaded by Elizabeth Randell Upton's 2001 PhD thesis that our preconceptions deriving from the modern imposition of periodizations tend ultimately to hinder our understanding of music history.)

If the question is when do the musical-stylistic things that we use the term ars subtilior to describe stop happening, we run into the uncertainties surrounding dating in the 14th and 15th centuries. I'd resist putting a single date on this--and possibly resist any such broad brush periodization altogether. In general these kinds of periodization labels rely (at least tacitly) on a teleological history of musical progress that I think medievalists would do well to reject!

OK, I will take the bait and try to provide a response, written hurriedly so please forgive typos. The question is one that continues to be discussed among musicologists. There are a number of issues of definition that immediately arise.

1. What is the ars subtilior?

This is the most difficult question. A simple response, however, is that "ars subtilior" is a term coined by the 20th-century musicologist Ursula Günther based upon her reading of late 14th-century music theorists who situate notational developments in terms of the adjective "subtilis". Subsequent developments in notation, like those we see in manuscripts c.1400 are considered to possess a greater "subtleness". Anne Stone's revision of our understanding of "subtilis" as "preciseness", so that the ars subtilior can be understood as the "more precise art", also rests upon notational developments which attempt to represent musical acts precisely in terms of rhythmic durations and relationships. Such a definition might also be extended to extended exercises in using accidentals, such as Solage's famous Fumeux fumé, the anonymous Le mont Aon and Matheus de Perusio's Le grant desir. However, as musicologists like David Fallows have argued, rhythmic features like complex proportions are found in music well into the 16th century. On the other hand, how these are written differs over time, and this is a significant indication that we are dealing with changes in musical culture or even different musical cultures. This raises even more questions since the narrow repertoire of music that is regularly terms the ars subtilior involves a great number of different ways of writing the same duration - there are no less than ten ways that the semiminim was written in Codex Chantilly, for example. Can we say that all these differences point to one musical culture, or many? I suspect the latter, which makes me also suspect this terminology and its tendency to simplify what is a complex mixture of musical cultures and individual styles. But some might argue that for music history, convenient handles like ars subtilior (and ars nova for the matter) are needed in order to write history that is more than a collection of disjunct micro-narratives … and so the discussion would continue.

2. Is the ars subtilior a period, a style or something else?

The general consensus today is that the ars subtilior is a style, but based upon what I have stated above which style is it? Is it the style that uses proportional relations between parts? Or does the fact that these proportions written is terribly different ways suggest that we are dealing with multiple styles based on the sociological premiss that writing systems are indicative of culture, and thus different musical writing is indicative of different musical cultures? Or does the ars subtilior consist of all the music composed by individuals who write some of their compositions using more complex notation but elsewhere less complex works? Are these even compositions or are they written-down improvisations (and what is an improvisation)? Some people I have talked to hold the position, for example, that all the compositions of Matheus de Perusio represent the ars subtilior style. Yet can easily perceive no less two rhythmic styles in his music - the complex and polymensural - and the simpler style perhaps influenced by musical developments in France c.1400. Where you stand on this is important, especially if Matheus's Pres du soloil was composed as late as the early 1420s as suggested by Stone. Furthermore, there are some interesting developments in the dating of the Turin manuscript, considered by many as the third principal source of the ars subtilior after the Modena (A) and Chantilly manuscripts, to well into the 1st half of the 15th century. Again, the ground on which we stand is less than sound.

3. Are the elements often associated with the ars subtilior in fact the same across different repertoires and over time?

I've begun to answer this above, so won't repeat what I have said. Let me offer another example of problematic classifications in the case of one of the ars subtilior's most celebrated composers, Jacob de Senleches. The compositions which music historians identify with the ars subtilior are the likes of En attendant esperance and Je me marveil, which both use extended notation/special note shapes. But there also his Fuions de ci which uses no special notes or extended notation, but a terrible lot of delightful syncopation, perhaps taking his lead from Machaut. What are we to call this style from the 1380s as opposed to his other style from perhaps the 1390s? But perhaps he wrote in both styles throughout his life, if the ascriptions in manuscripts are correct?

In sum, if we accept the modern historical terminology – which has its uses – then the ars subtilior can be easily said to have flourished until no later then c.1420–1430, although there are examples which could easily "fit" into the stylistic framework proposed by historians for the ars subtilior written well into the 16th century (by some interesting English composers). Even if, on the other hand, one defines the ars subtilior very narrowly, eg. music whose notation contains specially note shapes, the ars subtilior came to an end no later than c.1430 if the Turin ms dates this late. The proportional notation of Baude Cordier and other Burgundian/Parisian composers certainly marks are change in Francophone musical culture: it is possible that this change occurred in the early 1400s!

These are my slightly rushed and muddled thoughts on this question and clearly provide no definitive answer to this question, I'm sorry to say.

Finally, my Parthian shot consists of noting that "ars subtilior" is just unstylish Latin, especially if, as some suspect, this music was favoured by early humanists in northern Italy.

Some sample literature

Fallows, David. 1996. The end of the ars subtilior. Basler Jahrbuch für Historische Musikpraxis 20:21-40.

Günther, Ursula. 1963. Das Ende der ars nova. Die Musikforschung 16:105-120.

Stone, Anne. 1996. Che cosa c'è di più sottile riguardo l'ars subtilior. Rivista Italiana di Musicologia 31 (1):3-31.

__________. 2005. The Manuscript Modena, Biblioteca Estense, α.M.5.24: Commentary, Ars Nova Nuova serie 1. Lucca: Lim Editrice.

Replies

Elizabeth Eva Leach January 18, 2012 20:16

I totally agree with Jason. I have a lot of sympathy for how early 20thC scholars, getting to know this repertoire through the notated sources, and decoding them with theory treatises, developed taxonomies and periodization based on notational features. What else could they do, really? They had to find some way of grouping and distinguishing a lot of unfamiliar music so they used then-current (i.e. in the early 20thC) ideas of notational development and national style. And this was (and still is) perpetuated by standard textbooks and the way medieval music is taught at university. I think we can now do better by adding nuance to the picture and by treating individual pieces in more depth--but only thanks to Wolf, Ludwig, Günther, and many others. We're back to the idea of being dwarves on the shoulders of giants. Let's hope we see further than they!
Jason Stoessel January 17, 2012 23:00

Merci, Dominique!

I think there is some common agreement here (especially periodisation and teleological approaches to history), Elizabeth, although if we are to question the historiographic construction of ars subtilior, then ars nova is also on the chopping block, at least as a stylistic term and certainly as a periodisation term. Wolf's misuse of what was a technical term for describing new notational techniques as a period designator is up for criticism.

Of course the obvious constructive and pragmatic question that concerns me is how shall future music historians discuss those musical cultures that are all too often lumped together as "French" ars nova?
Dominique Gatté January 17, 2012 20:37

@ Elizabeth

Je n'avais pas pensé à votre première réponse, mais elle est très intéressante !
Dominique Gatté January 17, 2012 20:24

Merci Jason pour cette belle réponse développée !
Elizabeth Eva Leach January 17, 2012 20:19

I think it's possible to answer this question in two ways (depending on how one reads it!). If the question is when are we going to stop using the term ars subtilior (a term that was invented in the ?1960s and serves a purely historiographical, musicological purpose), I think the answer might be 'never', because it has become so much part of our periodization. Unfortunately.(I like to avoid speaking of the ars subtilior; I was persuaded by Elizabeth Randell Upton's 2001 PhD thesis that our preconceptions deriving from the modern imposition of periodizations tend ultimately to hinder our understanding of music history.)

If the question is when do the musical-stylistic things that we use the term ars subtilior to describe stop happening, we run into the uncertainties surrounding dating in the 14th and 15th centuries. I'd resist putting a single date on this--and possibly resist any such broad brush periodization altogether. In general these kinds of periodization labels rely (at least tacitly) on a teleological history of musical progress that I think medievalists would do well to reject!
Jason Stoessel January 17, 2012 13:43

OK, I will take the bait and try to provide a response, written hurriedly so please forgive typos. The question is one that continues to be discussed among musicologists. There are a number of issues of definition that immediately arise.

1. What is the ars subtilior?

This is the most difficult question. A simple response, however, is that "ars subtilior" is a term coined by the 20th-century musicologist Ursula Günther based upon her reading of late 14th-century music theorists who situate notational developments in terms of the adjective "subtilis". Subsequent developments in notation, like those we see in manuscripts c.1400 are considered to possess a greater "subtleness". Anne Stone's revision of our understanding of "subtilis" as "preciseness", so that the ars subtilior can be understood as the "more precise art", also rests upon notational developments which attempt to represent musical acts precisely in terms of rhythmic durations and relationships. Such a definition might also be extended to extended exercises in using accidentals, such as Solage's famous Fumeux fumé, the anonymous Le mont Aon and Matheus de Perusio's Le grant desir. However, as musicologists like David Fallows have argued, rhythmic features like complex proportions are found in music well into the 16th century. On the other hand, how these are written differs over time, and this is a significant indication that we are dealing with changes in musical culture or even different musical cultures. This raises even more questions since the narrow repertoire of music that is regularly terms the ars subtilior involves a great number of different ways of writing the same duration - there are no less than ten ways that the semiminim was written in Codex Chantilly, for example. Can we say that all these differences point to one musical culture, or many? I suspect the latter, which makes me also suspect this terminology and its tendency to simplify what is a complex mixture of musical cultures and individual styles. But some might argue that for music history, convenient handles like ars subtilior (and ars nova for the matter) are needed in order to write history that is more than a collection of disjunct micro-narratives … and so the discussion would continue.

2. Is the ars subtilior a period, a style or something else?

The general consensus today is that the ars subtilior is a style, but based upon what I have stated above which style is it? Is it the style that uses proportional relations between parts? Or does the fact that these proportions written is terribly different ways suggest that we are dealing with multiple styles based on the sociological premiss that writing systems are indicative of culture, and thus different musical writing is indicative of different musical cultures? Or does the ars subtilior consist of all the music composed by individuals who write some of their compositions using more complex notation but elsewhere less complex works? Are these even compositions or are they written-down improvisations (and what is an improvisation)? Some people I have talked to hold the position, for example, that all the compositions of Matheus de Perusio represent the ars subtilior style. Yet can easily perceive no less two rhythmic styles in his music - the complex and polymensural - and the simpler style perhaps influenced by musical developments in France c.1400. Where you stand on this is important, especially if Matheus's Pres du soloil was composed as late as the early 1420s as suggested by Stone. Furthermore, there are some interesting developments in the dating of the Turin manuscript, considered by many as the third principal source of the ars subtilior after the Modena (A) and Chantilly manuscripts, to well into the 1st half of the 15th century. Again, the ground on which we stand is less than sound.

3. Are the elements often associated with the ars subtilior in fact the same across different repertoires and over time?

I've begun to answer this above, so won't repeat what I have said. Let me offer another example of problematic classifications in the case of one of the ars subtilior's most celebrated composers, Jacob de Senleches. The compositions which music historians identify with the ars subtilior are the likes of En attendant esperance and Je me marveil, which both use extended notation/special note shapes. But there also his Fuions de ci which uses no special notes or extended notation, but a terrible lot of delightful syncopation, perhaps taking his lead from Machaut. What are we to call this style from the 1380s as opposed to his other style from perhaps the 1390s? But perhaps he wrote in both styles throughout his life, if the ascriptions in manuscripts are correct?

In sum, if we accept the modern historical terminology – which has its uses – then the ars subtilior can be easily said to have flourished until no later then c.1420–1430, although there are examples which could easily "fit" into the stylistic framework proposed by historians for the ars subtilior written well into the 16th century (by some interesting English composers). Even if, on the other hand, one defines the ars subtilior very narrowly, eg. music whose notation contains specially note shapes, the ars subtilior came to an end no later than c.1430 if the Turin ms dates this late. The proportional notation of Baude Cordier and other Burgundian/Parisian composers certainly marks are change in Francophone musical culture: it is possible that this change occurred in the early 1400s!

These are my slightly rushed and muddled thoughts on this question and clearly provide no definitive answer to this question, I'm sorry to say.

Finally, my Parthian shot consists of noting that "ars subtilior" is just unstylish Latin, especially if, as some suspect, this music was favoured by early humanists in northern Italy.

Some sample literature

Fallows, David. 1996. The end of the ars subtilior. Basler Jahrbuch für Historische Musikpraxis 20:21-40.

Günther, Ursula. 1963. Das Ende der ars nova. Die Musikforschung 16:105-120.

Stone, Anne. 1996. Che cosa c'è di più sottile riguardo l'ars subtilior. Rivista Italiana di Musicologia 31 (1):3-31.

__________. 2005. The Manuscript Modena, Biblioteca Estense, α.M.5.24: Commentary, Ars Nova Nuova serie 1. Lucca: Lim Editrice.

This reply was deleted.

Ars nova et Ars subtilior

Question de date

Replies

Partnership