From: inr@eccles.caltech.edu (I. Neill Reid)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: re: Brumel review
Date: 24 Jan 1993 14:03 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: eccles.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

>From: mccomt@aix.rpi.edu (Todd Michel McComb)

>In article <1275@dscatl.UUCP> Mark Gresham writes:
>>While is sounds like the argument is about classification of parts
>>would you both concede the possibilty that the composer was
>>explicitly writing for the particular group singers he had
>>at his disposal, regardless of the classifications, et al.?
>>  Therefore, if you must classify the voices, wouldn't it be
>>most practical, even in modern performance practice, to examine
>>the ranges and tessituras and select singers accordingly?  Assuming
>>that a modern ensemble also has a practical limitation on their own
>>resources, they'd have to make certain compromises in this regard
>>or simply not program the piece.  Simply stated: we do those kinds
>>of things all the time as conductors and vocal ensembles.  I would
>>not doubt that Brumel did too.

>It seems plausible that the lines in question were notated as tenors,
>but that the written ranges differ from high to low among those parts.
>In our ignorance of the source material, we don't know what else to say.

I was simply intrigued by the fact that the Tallis Scholars recording
speaks of an unequal division of parts, while the Huelgas specifically
mentions equal numbers of voices. However, as indicated above, 
all we have to work from are the notes to the cd.

>You bring up two interesting points, though.  First, what is the history
>of the classification of voices into discrete groups?  How well developed
>was it at this time?  Second, it seems unlikely to me that Brumel's
>position in one of the most powerful and musically-oriented courts in
>Europe would entail much in the way of practical limitation in obtaining
>singers.  However, one wonders how voice classes would affect the matter.
>If a singer was hired as a tenor (assuming such things were the case), was
>he expected to be able to sing a specific range?  You are probably right
>in that the wide range in the tenor voices in this mass was inspired by
>the abilities of the singers Brumel knew -- sources actually state that
>Ockeghem was a terrific bass, and conjecture that this contributed to his
>development of bass lines.

 I'd agree that Brumel must have had access to a wide-range of musical
resources - consider that at around about the same time, Robert Carver
was writing a 19-part motet (O bone Jesu - 13 (real) tenors!) and a
10-part mass at the much less well-endowed court of James IV (although
James, too, was a particularly well-read gentleman - pity he was silly
enough to get killed at Flodden). There are several examples amongst the
Scots songs of the period (in the Musica Britannica Vol XV) which 
span ranges close to 2 octaves - probably close to the range in
the Brumel mass. Apparently, this was a characteristic of the Scots songs
of the time - exactly which time is not clear, since most of the
songs are anonymous, having survived the reformation by a lucky accident.
Scotland and the Low Countries had had trading links for at least the 
previous 200-250 years. (In fact, those links continued until
well into the 17th century - Charles II Dutch wars had a much larger 
effect on the economic well-being of Edinburgh than on London.)
All conjecture, of course, but maybe there's some link between these
two sets of music.

 Neill Reid - inr@eccles.caltech.edu

>Does anyone have some concrete historical information on this matter?

>T. M. McComb


Newsgroups: rec.music.classical