Music in the renaissance

In the renaissance, building from the previous generations of music and continuing in their paths to give each of the parts of music a more individualistic personality. That is to say, that each part of the four parts in the range of the vocal resulting in polyphony in contrast to the more homophonic texture of the baroque. From Monteverdi’s 8 books of madrigals we see a change from stile antico to stile moderno, which gave more emphasis to the text than to the music. This gave way to the idea that text was king from which sprung the ideas of single affect, which so pervaded the compositions of the 17th century that baroque music is easily distinguished. Pieces such as the , Marais’ painful look at a gall bladder operation, and certain Scarlatti works all demonstrate how music could be used to describe words, feelings, emotions. Emotions of the 17th century were known as affects.
Instrumental music of the 17th century was heavily influenced by vocal music. Froberger took lute music and transcribed it for harpsichord at a time when stile brise was popular and the fashionable ‘in’ music thing of the day was to play the harpsichord like a lute.
The echo effect found in Biagio Marini’s echo tunes from Willaert, Monteverdi, and Gabrielli’s use of St. Mark’s Cathedral the idea of choir against choirs or in other terms what we can call the echo effect, influenced much of the instrumental music of the 17th century.
Dancing is also, and has been since the foundation of human recreations, being an inseparable part of music gave way to comparisons in the suite style found so often in music of this period. The ouverture or opening being stately and pompous, with the lilted dotted eighths connected to a 16th note was followed by fugal imitative sections born from the ricecare of the old style. The musical form of the sonata developed from the divisive sections of the canzona becoming a cantata to be sounded. The concerto in the same vein, was born out of a desire to bring diverse factors,… together, a tutti.

hypothetical paper about Oedipus... poor guy

Brett McCluskey 5/21/03

The board’s proposal is preposterous! Banning Oedipus from the reading list(s) of our high schools (for any reason) is not only unconstitutional, but it would end up doing more harm to our youth, than good. It is erroneous to think that the ancient Greeks are irrelevant to contemporary American society. Let me remind the board of some of the important contributions given to the human race by the Greeks. Epic poetry, history and drama; philosophy in all its branches, from metaphysics to economics; mathematics and many of the natural sciences – all these begin with the Greeks. Such a decision to exclude Oedipus from required high school reading will have far reaching and dire consequences. Just imagine the catastrophic effects of excluding the like of the great men of ancient Greece. Without Archimedes and his ideas on fluid statics where would we be? Without Zeno and his paradoxes where would we be? Playwrights Euripides, Aeschylus, also wrote song. Music, also owes a great deal to theses two men. It was Boethius’s writings that Pope Gregory, Guido D’arezzo, Hucbald amongst many others who read their accounts of music thus transferring them to us.
If the board is considering banning Oedipus Rex from our schools, then we ought to consider banning the show “Cops”, from appearing on our TV’s. While we are at it, we might as well get rid of the Old and New Testament too. Finally, if the Greeks have nothing to do with modern day society then neither does the Jews. The board cannot possibly think that since the Oedipus plays deals with subjects such as incest, and self-mutilation, that it does not reflect the values of San Bernardino. I feel as if Socrates is on trial again. It would be better to propose the removal of the Maccabbees from the Catholic Liturgy.
How could the ideas of the Greeks be detrimental to our youths or to us in any way? Besides, I was under the impression and have taken for truth that we, civil America, lived in a land where all of its inhabitants presumably had the freedom of religion. I had also assumed that the aforementioned human race had freedom of the press. The ideas and philosophies of Greece have become our own. They have become one with the thoughts of modern day man. So much has the influences of ancient Greece been felt and have been integrated into modern day civil society that we take their omnipresent contributions for granted are so plays by Sophocles as well as other Greek writers, and philosophers show us catharsis, and filial piety.
Oedipus wants to know just one thing; he wants to know who he is. If you are banning the Oedipus plays because they contain too many references to the consultations with the oracles, then I still cannot see the point of banning it from the reading lists because it ‘may contain material unsuitable for children’. Consulting the oracles at Delphi is similar to consulting Madame Cleo and all of our friends at the ‘psychic friend’s network’.
The Oedipus plays do not undermine family values, instead attempts to portray them. Take for example Oedipus’s shows compassion for the fate of his own children. His sincere desire for his children to be looked after and cared for, once he became exiled, shows how much love a father in any situation can have for his children. Oedipus examines many of life’s common dilemmas. In wanting to know whom he was. Are not compassion and the seeking of the truth concepts that contemporary American society deem valuable?

Music in the court of Louis the XIV

Like other rulers of nations, Loius XIV wanted a more united kip-[oooooooooooooooto rule over, that had as little threat of insurrection as possible. King Louis often used music and dance to his advantage. We see this from the fact that he required the members of his court to be skilled in both music and dancing. By keeping the nobility engaged in aesthetical endeavors such as dance and music, he also knew that this would keep at least his upper class from forming rebellious or non-loyal parties that detracted from his overall power as king.
Jean Baptiste Lully was in charge of all aspects of music while alive during the reign of Louis XIV. All of the composers within France were responsible for the strong heritage which they carried down from the many musical forefathers, carrying the tradition onward of Leonin and Perotin was no small feat. The composer’s works had to be inspected for content in regards to the French state. Lully himself was afforded more freedom in his own compositions due to his closeness to the king.
During the reign of Louis the 14th, the violin consort became most eminent. The king had in his personal orchestra exactly 24 violins. This in itself is proof as to the importance of music in French and this king’s sphere of influence. Upon the death of Lully, who died after accidentally stabbing his foot with his conductors stick which turned gangrenous. It was Michel Laland who succeeded Lully, and who also served the king being accountable for the music of the court.
The problem was to make French operas. To give French pride in their language. To use the recitative like the Italians, and make it their own. The recitatif. What the French did was to change meters occasionally to emphasize the text so that important syllables of important words came on te down beats correctly, thus the music changed meter accordingly 4/4 to ¾. Since Louis XIV himself was also a part of plays, dramas, skits etc, we can see how important he viewed music as pertaining to his kingdom and nobility.