Aspects in Early 17th-century Monodies 

i will do

Books, dear friend! I recommend The Performance of 16th-Century Music by Anne Smith

Ludmilla Thompson thx!

Thank you! But I just noticed too that the canto should have a treble clef, not a soprano clef. I noticed these by singing all the staffs--or by trying to.

according to some sources, yes, you could say so.

Fauxbourdon is different, though. It’s a method of producing primitive polyphony from a single line, where one auxiliary voice produces consonances about an octave below the main voice (and jumps around a bit), and the other auxiliary voice strictly doubles the main voice at the perfect fourth below.

I don't think so. The resolution is not the pitch alone, it is the pitch combined with its metrical place - this point is where the A is.

I don't think it's related.

That's interesting since they all mean the same thing literally. One in Italian, one in French, and one in English, but of course you know that :)

They are actually often confused.

The ukulele is more of less a renaissance guitar that survived. The tuning is the same, except that 16th century guitars were strung in double courses with the Gs both high and the Cs in octaves. In the 17th century the most popular size was a 4th lower, with an additional bass course: ADGBEA. And yes, guitars were very popular as accompaniment instruments.

ps. Fantastic video again!

you are right! thanks for noticing. It should stay c1 but the music should be shifted.

Arghh!! I've just noticed the last two notes of the Tenore are one step too high as well! (Currently it's ending on B flat, but should be an A surely?) Sorry to find faults :-) You're quite right about the c1 clef though of course. (For some reason I'd mis-remembered the bassus as being f3 when I posted before.)

thanks, it's completely fine. luckily this example is not about the music, but about the concept.

+Ludmilla Thompson Frottola may be categorized under the term "pseudo monody", as all the parts (typically four) are composed. In practice normally only one voice is sung but the composition is polyphonic.

One thing that puzzles me about Petrucci's publications of frottole is that almost always there are four voices of polyphony presented as separate parts, yet as I understand it, these pieces were frequently performed by one singer with lute or keyboard accompaniment. Yet if this was the case, how could the three lower voices be practically combined directly from the source material, especially without the presence of barlines in mensural notation? This seems completely impractical! Did lutenists (re-)intabulate the lower voices themselves from the published works before learning the pieces, or were the lower voices more commonly played by a small group of monophonic instruments (recorders, for example), where having the parts presented separately would not pose problems? It seems like a very strange way to notate music that was intended primarily for solo voice and lute!

+Andrea Falconiero I think frottola was played and sung by heart

I think that the printing in parts allows the greatest flexibility. You get all the material and you have the possibility to perform it in several different ways. Lute and keyboard instruments made intabulations out of the different parts, this was a standard procedure.

Thank-you both for your replies. I agree that the performance of frottole pieces would probably have been "by heart" and not directly from the publications, since at least in Petrucci's case there are no separate part-books to work from, and the material is not laid out in such a way that performers could easily gather around the books to sing and/or play (as was done later with some of the published works of Dowland, for example). However, to learn the songs one would need to begin from the book, and I thought that would be impractical for the lute and keyboard players using the material as presented by Petrucci. It does make sense then that these players would have to intabulate the works themselves from the separate parts in order to learn them, and I agree that Petrucci's decision to publish the parts separately does provide the greatest flexibility to performers, though perhaps not the greatest convenience! Do you know if any of the tablature manuscripts that must have been made from these books have survived the centuries? If available, they could provide some interesting additional insights into performance practices, or clarify the use of ficta (though from what I've seen Petrucci was quite good at marking important sharps and flats).

this is stil nuovo, not antico, such licenses are alowed

monody

wiled! be good to train it

where is he from?, Germany, France?