MTO 23.2: Zayaruznaya, Intelligibility Redux

Intelligibility Redux: Motets and the Modern Medieval Sound * Anna Zayaruznaya NOTE: The examples for the (text-only) PDF version of this item are available online at: h&p://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.17.23.2/mto.17.23.2..ayaruznaya.php /E0WORDS: intelligibility2 polytextuality2 motets2 ars antiqua 2 ars nova 2 acousmatic2 live performance2 Auditory Scene Analysis2 Coc6tail Party Problem A7STRACT: The medieval composers of polytextual motets have been charged with rendering multiple texts inaudible by superimposing them. 1hile the limited contemporary evidence provided by 8acobus9s comments in the Speculum musicae seems at :rst sight to suggest that medieval listeners would have had trouble understanding texts declaimed simultaneously2 closer scrutiny reveals the opposite: that intelligibility was desirable2 and lin6ed to modes of performance. This article explores the ways in which 20th-century performance aesthetics and recording technologies have shaped current ideas about the polytextual motet. Recent studies in cognitive psychology suggest that human ability to perform auditory scene analysis—to focus on a given sound in a complicated auditory environment—is enhanced by directional listening and relatively dry acoustics. 7ut the modern listener often encounters motets on recordings with heavy mixing and reverb. Furthermore2 combinations of contrasting vocal timbres2 which can help di=erentiate simultaneously sung texts2 are precluded by a blended2 uniform sound born jointly of English choir- school culture and modernist preferences propagated under the banner of authenticity. Scholarly accounts of motets that focus on sound over sense are often in?uenced2 directly or indirectly2 by such mediated listening. Received March 2016 Volume 232 Number 22 8une 2017 Copyright © 2017 Society for Music Theory B0.1] The growth of commercial aviation in the 1950s brought with it a new problem for air-traﬃc controllers. Presented with the voices of multiple pilots emanating from one loudspeaker2 they had trouble segregating these simultaneous streams of information2 and found themselves at ris6 of misunderstanding important messages. Their diFculties led to the :rst research on what has since been termed the G3oc6tail party e=ect” or G3oc6tail party problem”—the isolation of one sound- source in the presence of many. The brains of most humans2 and many animals2 are able to 1 of 22 navigate complex social soundscapes without much conscious e=ort. That is the e=ect. 7ut how exactly we do this2 and why it should have been diFcult for those air traﬃc controllers—and later for computers—constituted the problem. 1) B0.,C For music historians2 a parallel e=ect—or perhaps problem—is inherent in polytextual motets2 whose superimposition of multiple strands of texts has led us to inIuire whether audiences could have a&ended to2 or ever been meant to understand2 any of the words during performance. Scholars have answered this Iuestion in various ways2 and their stances about intelligibility have in turn shaped their views of the genre2 the compositional priorities of its composers2 and the role of text in its aesthetics. 2) The present study focuses on an aspect of the problem that has not been foregrounded in existing discussions: the roles played by modern performance aesthetics and listening conditions—and especially by recorded sound—in shaping these views. As a case study2 I focus on Christopher Page9s wor6 with Gothic Voices and his own arguments about how motets would have been heard by their medieval audiences. I then return to the coc6tail party e=ect and to theorizations of acousmatic sound to see what cognitive science and sound studies can tell us about the listening conditions under which the words of polytextual motets might be intelligible. B0.-C I o=er two caveats before proceeding. First: in exploring the acoustics of ideal listening conditions2 I do not imply that those conditions ever existed2 or were the conditions under which motets were heard. It is undoubtedly the case that some singers or listeners might have had motet voices or even entire compositions memori.ed 7usse 7erger 2005 )2 rendering the whole intelligibility issue moot. Furthermore2 the freIuent use of refrains and other Iuotations in French motetes from the thirteenth SalKstein 2013a 2 2013b ) and fourteenth centuries 7oogaart 2001 2 Layaruznaya 2015b ) would have rendered some text immediately intelligible2 even upon :rst hearing. And it seems clear that the poetry of polytextual motets was sometimes experienced in monotextual contexts. For example2 the early 14th-century 7odleian manuscript Douce 308 transmits 64 motet texts without notation Atchison 2005 ). For a later generation2 the literary circulation of motet texts by Philippe de Vitry2 as documented by 1athey 1993 2 1994 )2 must have accorded some listeners and patrons the opportunity to study the poetry on the page2 and perhaps to commit it to memory. It is also clear from a comment in the Speculum musicae 2 as well as from fourteenth-century literary and musical sources that motet voices were sometimes sung separately. 3) 7ut references to voices sounding on their own do not obviate Iuestions about intelligibility: fourteenth-century motets not by Vitry seem to have been transmi&ed as poetry very rarely2 and it is unli6ely that all listeners would have had access to all motet texts ahead of hearing the wor6s performed. Polytextuality is a de:ning aspect of the medieval motet genre2 and it is worth as6ing what listeners might have heard might have been expected to hear2 might have been able to hear2 or might have chosen to hear) in a tui performance. B0.MC A second caveat concerns the oft-Iuoted evidence that medieval listeners might have had problems with comprehension when motets were sung. This stems from an anecdote in the Speculum musicae in which a listener at a “gathering of discerning people . as6ed what language the singers were using: Pebrew2 Gree62 or Latin.” If this person could not even identify the language2 it seems impossible that s/he could have understood the words2 and accordingly this passage has been used to support the claim that “the very nature of double motets with their simultaneous presentation of two texts jeopardized the Rmessage9 of either BtextC” Pesce 1986 2 91–92). 7ut a contextual reading of this comment gives an entirely di=erent impression of its meaning. The passage is accordingly worth Iuoting in full: In a certain gathering in which s6illed singers and discerning laypersons were gathered together and where modern motets were sung according to the modern manner2 and some old BmotetsC as well2 I observed that the old motets and also the old manner of singing were more adeIuately pleasing2 even to the laypersons2 than the 2 of 22 new. And even though the new manner BinitiallyC pleased in its newness2 this is no longer the case2 for it begins to displease many. Therefore let the old songs and the old manner of singing and notating be called bac6 to the native land of singers. Let these things come bac6 to use2 and let the rational art ?ourish once more. It has been exiled2 along with its BcorrespondingC manner of singing2 as though violently thrown down by the fellowship of singers. 7ut the violence need not be perpetual. Why does such wantonness of singing give pleasure— this curiosity in which2 as may be seen by anyone2 the words are lost 2 the harmony of the consonances diminished2 the length of notes changed2 perfection disparaged2 imperfection elevated2 and measure confoundedT I saw how in a great gathering of discerning people2 when motets were sung according to the new manner2 it was as ed what language the singers were using, Hebrew, Gree , or Latin, for it was not understood what they were saying. Thus the moderns, although they write many beautiful and good texts in their songs, lose them in their manner of singing, since they are not understood . 4) B0.EC In context2 the meaning of the :nal sentence is unambiguous2 serving as a summary of what we should get from the anecdote: it is unfortunate that the well-wri&en texts of the moderns are mas6ed by the new manner of performance. The implication is that if the same good texts were delivered in the old manner of singing2 they would not be lost . In complaining that texts are obscured2 8acobus tacitly ac6nowledges that the clear projection of text is a merit of the older repertory that he champions. Far from proving that medieval listeners could not understand the words of motets in performance2 then2 this passage in fact suggests that there was an expectation that text would be intelligible. B0.OC Furthermore2 there is an element of humor here Pentschel 2001 2 120). As Suzannah Clar6 has pointed out2 G8acIues9s complaint that they could be singing in Pebrew or Gree6 is2 of course2 spurious2 for the upper voices of motets were either in Latin or French or both” 2007 2 32n6). Pence the observer is making fun of a delivery of Latin text which was2 to his mind2 muddled by the new manner of singing. Pis moc6ing observation would hardly make any sense unless understanding the text was a recognized aspect of listening to motets. B0.+C 8acobus9s comments are useful in part because they bridge the two repertories—French ars antiqua and ars nova —that contain the bul6 of surviving polytextual motets2 signaling that the same or similar Iuestions might reasonably be as6ed of both. 5) And while he is not a trustworthy source for reporting on ars nova performances in any but a negative way2 8acobus tells us some useful things about contemporary performance contexts and expectations. On the former front2 his recollection provides evidence that it is not anachronistic for us to speak of an “audience” for motets2 using the word in a sense not very di=erent from our modern one: there were listeners distinct from the singers themselves who aended to motet performances.

Load more