Nabokov, Nicolas [Nikolay]

(ix) The rhythmic interpretation of polyphonic and monophonic conductus.

The caudas of the more complex Parisian conductus were usually written in the ligature notation associated with modal rhythm. Realization of the syllabic sections, however, is far less certain. As with the texted versions of early motets, the note values set to conductus verses are ambiguous in the major sources; but in contrast to the motet the routine absence of melismatically or mensurally notated forms of the music compounds the problems of interpretation. Often it is presumed that the texts themselves provide clues for performance in a rhythmic mode. However, there are several methodological problems with such a premise. Firstly, datable examples of Parisian conductus indicate that the genre was cultivated from about 1160 to about 1240, well before the codification of the modal system and only briefly coincident with the imposition of its strictures; it is therefore questionable whether modal interpretations of conductus poetry should apply to the entire repertory, if at all. Secondly, the modal system originated as a means of interpreting ligatures; it cannot be assumed that its successive long and breve durations apply equally to syllabic passages before the advent of the motet. Lastly, although the poetry of conductus is ‘rhythmic’ in the specific sense that it relies on lines with set numbers of syllables, the accentual configurations within each line do not approach the regularity of poetic metre and can frustrate a performance that adheres too strictly to a modal pattern.

The series of transcriptions of the opening of Hac in anni ianua (ex.11) reflects the diversity of possible solutions (see also Apel, 1942, p.258). Exx.11a–d treat each syllable as occupying the same length of time. 11a interprets the ligatures in binary rhythm (perhaps the least justifiable) and 11b in ternary, both within the 1st mode; 11c gives a strict reading in mode 1, as if there were no text (compare the treatment of Aquitanian versus in ex.8), and 11d is a strict reading in mode 2. Exx.11e–f abandon the principle of giving equal time to each syllable: 11e interprets the text as in the 1st mode; 11f as in the 2nd. On the other hand, ex.11g gives the closing cauda of the piece; its ligatures suggest the 3rd mode (although the alternative mode 3 could serve equally well), which could influence the choice of rhythm for the rest of the work. Page (1997) has suggested rendering the syllabic portions of all conductus with unmeasured values.

Given the difficulties of transcribing polyphonic conductus, where the rhythm might be expected to be evident from the relationship between the parts, it is not surprising that monophonic conductus presents even greater problems. In several of the more elaborate works, interpretations with equal syllables are often complicated by the presence of compound neumes of six or more notes (these are occasionally present in polyphonic conductus also). As an illustration, ex.12 gives a rhythmic rendition of the opening of one of the most ornate works in the Parisian corpus, Turmas arment christicolas, on the murder of Adalbert of Leuven, Bishop of Liège, by German knights in 1192. The principle of equal syllables has been applied wherever a syllable carries one, two or three notes; where it has four or more its value has been extended to two or more dotted crotchets. If such an interpretation was originally intended, it displays nothing of the regular ligature patterns characteristic of the organa tripla and quadrupla of this period, and the stress of the text is not complemented. Interestingly, the ligatures and melodic content of monophonic conductus often suggest the modus non rectus of organum purum rather than the clearer forms of the rhythmic modes. As a result, transcription in unmeasured values for this repertory, as well as for other types of monophony from the period, has become standard practice.

Notation, §III, 2: Polyphony and secular monophony to c1260

(x) The rhythmic interpretation of secular monophony.

The same cautions exercised in the treatment of conductus rhythm apply to the secular monophonic repertory, but with even more circumspection. The application of modal rhythms before the codification of the system and outside the Parisian orbit is highly questionable (this includes the majority of troubadour and trouvère songs), the texts are non-metrical and therefore not conducive to patterned rhythms, and, except for a handful of songs in F-Pn fr.846 and a few in other manuscripts, mensural notation is not used, even though the bulk of the sources of secular monophony dates from after c1250. In retrospect, the suggestion that troubadour and trouvère melodies might be transcribed in rhythmic patterns resembling those of the rhythmic modes (see Sanders, 1985) seems to have been adopted with excessive zeal, although it still has its adherents.

Yet even with a preference for unmeasured transcriptions, opinions are divided on the fundamental procedures for interpreting the songs. Among recent treatments, van der Werf (1972 etc.) suggested an essential rhythmic equality for each pitch that could be adapted to accommodate rhetorical features of the poem. Stevens (1986) proposed a single elastic rhythmic unit for each syllable, and along with Page (1987) recommended the recognition of various registers (high/courtly versus low/popular styles) among songs – distinctions that could affect the imposition of rhythm as well as the use of instruments in performance. Aubrey's approach (1996) is the most flexible and inclusive, eschewing single, systematic procedures and suggesting that the different contexts in which songs were performed might have significantly altered the presentation of even the same piece by the same executor. This method favours the investigation of each piece on its own terms to uncover patterns of musical structure and emphasis that can inform the rhythmic treatment.

Notation, §III, 2: Polyphony and secular monophony to c1260