1. Notation and Improvisation
The biggest difference between modern notation and 17th-century notation was what it meant or did (or did not) imply for a performer. Today, modern composers typically notate music for performers with the expectation to perform exactly what has been written on the score. Often this practice tries to include all possible details, such as notes, dynamics, tempo, articulation, rhythm, character, etc. Bruce Haynes pointed out the reason behind this modern-day approach to writing for singers:
As musicians, we are as good today as the musicians of the past. But our training has become overspecialized, directed as it is toward playing written music… The separation between composing and performing hasn’t always existed. Before the rise of Romanticism, improvisation and composition were normal activities for a musician.1
In response to the above, it should be stated that most 17th-century music notation was more like an overview or a blueprint of how the piece should sound, and composers thought that including too many details would obstruct the musicians from having a fluid understanding and interpretation of the music. At that time, new pieces were in constant demand, and performers would not have as much time as modern ones have to prepare the music. Most of the time, they were expected to learn a piece of music in a short time and it was also commonly assumed that a performer could improvise by adding ornamentation to the music in a performance. In addition, performers could also be the composer, thereby they were involved in the process of producing music which was seen as nothing special at that time. Composers could also collaborate with performers, telling them how they wanted the music to sound. As Haynes puts it, without this ability performers of the 17th century could not have played the music that was written for them.2
In the 21st century, however, the standard practice of notation does not provide a mere overview, but typically calls for an exact execution of the written composition. For example, present-day performers are frequently expected to perform only what is written and are discouraged to add or subtract anything from the score. Nowadays, the separation between composing and performing is clear, and most classical musicians cannot improvise at all. Personally, I still remember my surprise when I was first told that I had to compose my own ornaments on a Baroque piece that I was singing. All my musical training since I was a child was specific to learning how to play an instrument in a very established way, essentially to read music and to play or sing what was written in a very precise way, but not how to create my own music or variations of pre-existing music.
To conclude, 17th-century notation is more like a ‘shorthand’3. Performers, specifically singers are expected not only to sing what was written, as that would not be sufficient to please the listeners and the composers.
2. The Singer
Bénigne de Bacilly, the author of the earliest and most significant French treatise on singing, Remarques curieuses sur l’art de bien chanter (1668), believed that singers should be able to do more than merely sing. He stated that:
[…] in order to be considered a trained musician a person must know not only how to sing properly, to compose well, and to sight-read pieces of considerable difficulty; but he must also know all the vocal ornaments perfectly, besides everything else which may be considered pleasing to the ear, because aural pleasure is, after all, the main purpose of music.4
As we gather from Bacilly’s description of a singer, knowledge of all the vocal ornaments is one of the most important criteria to become a good singer. It is possible that during the 17th century, there were a lot of singers whom Bacilly considered not knowledgeable nor artistic enough to perform Baroque French airs, which were full of grace and beauty, and meant to be “pleasing to the ear”. His treatise was thus published to provide rules and guidance for singers who were keen on the proper performance techniques.
To be a singer in the 17th century was totally different from nowadays. In fact, many singers in the early Baroque period were also composers, such as Giulio Caccini, Barbara Strozzi, Michel Lambert, and Henry Lawes. As mentioned by Haynes, “improvisation and composition were normal activities for any musician.”5 For example, Haynes describes how singers of the 17th century were expected to be able to sightread a new score and improvise ornamentation, which for all practical purposes, comes down to being able to compose within a style.
Christie mentioned an interesting story in a journal article titled, The elusive world of the French Baroque (1993). In this article Christie suggests that:
[…] there is a big production in Paris with a couple of soloists who do not usually sing this kind of music, and they are so scared of early music specialists that they have had written in their contracts that they will not be required to sing any ornaments and that they can do essentially what they please.6
It is not specifically mentioned by Christie when soloists requested these contractual demands, however, it can be assumed that this happened probably more than 30 years ago. This illustrates the extreme difference in how singers from the 20th century approached this repertoire compared to how it was first performed in the 17th century. Fortunately, due to the Early Music movement, we are generally no longer so ignorant about Baroque ornamentation. Singers are now also required to have some knowledge in ornamentation to be able to add such embellishments when performing a Baroque song.
3. The Sound
Shrock has a full chapter about sound in his book Performance Practices in the Baroque Era. In this chapter he comprehensively discusses the ideal sound during the Baroque era, stating that there were two constituent parts of sound that were important during the 17th century: timbre and volume. The ideal volume, according to Shrock, was soft and the ideal timbre was described with the ambiguous adjective of “sweet”. However, what can be discerned from this description is that singers and instrumentalists in the 17th century were expected to produce a unified volume and an ideal timbre when singing.7 Shrock supports this by stating that different treatises all emphasize the importance of attaining a soft and sweet sound, for instance:
The voices, when they concert with the organ, should be governed by the ear and by good judgement, being careful that one does not overshadow the other; all voices should be sung equally, with sweetness and elegance. (Agazzari 1606)8
I heard a beautiful voice, powerful and sustained, and when he sings on the stage he will make himself heard in every corner very well and without strain. (Monteverdi 1610)9
[A voice should have] sweetness and a certain harmoniousness, on which depends the charms which ravish the hearers… (Mersenne 1636)10
In light of these quotes, it is clear how soft volume was so very much appreciated in high vocal registers, whereas loudness was associated to harshness and a lack of elegance. This preference is also illustrated from the following quotes that are also in Shrock’s aforementioned book:
Let a singer take heed, lest he begin too loud, braying like an Ass, or when he hath begun with an uneven height, disgrace the song. For God is not pleased with loud cryes, but with lovely sounds… (Dowland 1609)11
Let him take care, however, that the higher the notes, the more it is necessary to touch them with softness, to avoid screaming. (Tosi, 1723)12
Thus, it appears that small voices were also appreciated in the 17th century, because an overall vocal refinement was always highly prized, and it was often reflected on small things, as small and delicate things were seen as more agile. For example, we can see from the following passage how Bacilly preferred a small voice over a big one:
Big voices are well suited for ensemble singing, and as a result they do not require so much vocal refinement, in addition to the fact that this type of voice is not capable of a great deal of vocal subtlety… (Perhaps this is why small things are always said to be ‘refined,’ but never big things?)… In regard to small voices, doubtless they have a great advantage over big ones, in that they have a greater flexibility for the performance of vocal agréments [ornaments], since the vocal cords are more delicate and therefore more suitable for slurring over certain tones that ought not to be accented.13
Shrock also reminds us that the physical environment, during the 17th century, was relatively quiet compared to what currently is, he states that it was a world without “white noise created by air circulation equipment, and the roar of traffic.”14 Also, 17th-century instruments were created to produce a softer sound than their counterparts today. Due to this, I personally believe that this partly explains why we now find big voices more impressive than soft ones; we live in a world that is saturated with sound, often with a constant din of white noises and background sounds, as well as a culture which indulges in high-decibel movies, headphone and club experiences, all of which make it hard to focus and listen to small voices as audiences would have done in the 17th century.
Nevertheless, it is impossible for us now to know the precise levels of idealized volume for 17th-century musical performances. This affects how we now interpret what was meant by “sweet” sounds, and how 17th-century singers produced a non-vibrato sound without resulting in poor and unpleasant vocal production. In addition, Shrock suggests that it could be easier to understand what the idealized level of volume was if we look into other elements that collectively characterize the music of this period (e.g. tempi, articulations, and metric accentuation). Taking these elements into account would then make it less challenging for us to understand and to interpret the music of the period.
Part One: Introduction
Singing in the 17th Century
This chapter aims at defining the general difference between 17th-century singing and modern singing. A main difference between the 17th century and Romantic, modern, and contemporary periods, was that during this time text was of equal importance to music and this applied to both how performers performed, and composers composed.
Throughout this chapter the primary references I have consulted include a 1668 singing treatise from Bacilly, as well as contemporary sources on French vocal music from the 17th century. More specifically, the contemporary references include Martha Elliot’s 2006 book Singing in Style and Bruce Haynes’s 2007 book The End of Early Music. My research was also supported by Richard Wistreich’s 2012 article ‘Vocal Performance in the Seventeenth Century’, and Dennis Shrock’s 2013 book entitled Performance Practices in the Baroque Era: as Related by Primary Sources.
Background
During the 17th century, vocal performance was undergoing a major development. The rise of opera, as well as other innovative chamber and theatre music, like French ballet de cour and tragédie en musique, encouraged many singers to become actors, largely so they could reach a broader audience. Recitative, the performance style that imitated a natural declamation of text in singing, was developed in this period, and the importance of text was emphasized in many treatises written during the same time. This era marked the beginning of a revolution in vocal technique, one that encouraged abandoning the old style of complex and intricate Renaissance ensemble singing and advocated for a simpler and more transparent style of solo vocal music, which consisted of a solo voice with a simple chord-producing accompanying instrument, such as the organ, lute or harpsichord.
4. Voice Types
Apart from soft and sweet, another important aspect of the sound in the 17th century constitutes the fact that there were different types of high voices, varying from female sopranos, boy trebles, to the no longer existing castratos. Boy trebles usually performed in liturgical and other sacred works but were also frequently involved in oratorios and operas.
I hope that the use of the false proportions, played and sung without hesitation, discreetly and precisely, being pleasing to men so numerous and so distinguished, may not offend you, especially in the more mournful and serious airs of Orpheus, Arcetro, and Dafne, the part represented with so much grace by Jacopo Giusti, a little boy from Lucca. (Peri 1600)15
The above illustrates that castratos were actually widely used in the 17th century, especially in Italy. In a letter to the Duke of Mantua (1624), Claudio Monteverdi recommended “a young castrato with a good enough voice, capable of suitable gorgie and trilli” and in another letter to Alessandro Striggo (1627) about finding “a really fine castrato soprano”.16 The criteria of a good castrato, as described in his letters, was “to have a pleasing voice”, and being “capable of gorgie and trilli” (diminutions and trills), which he mentioned every time when he talked about a singer. The “soft and sweet” vocal ideal, of course, still applied to castratos.
In his Parallèle des Italiens et des Français en ce que regarde la musique et les operas (1702), François Raguenet described how the voices of castratos resembled that of the nightingales, and their soft and charming yet solid and lively voices could move the soul, as compared to women’s voices. Raguenet stated that Italian castratos had a great advantage over the French singers, whose “hoarse masculine voices ill agree with the fine soft things they are to say to their mistresses.” The castratos also had an advantage because their “piercing voices are to [be] heard clearly in the largest theaters without losing a syllable.”17
This brings us to the next aspect, also the most important aspect of the ideal sound in the 17th century: clarity of text.
5. “First the Words, then the Music.”
During the 16th century, music was mainly polyphonic, and the complexity of the music made it hard for audiences to hear and understand the text. In the 17th century, a revolution in vocal technique began, and the paradigm of Renaissance singing fell out of favour. Music composed for a solo voice, or often with a simple instrumental accompaniment became the most well-liked and idealized form of composition.
But rather to conform to that manner so lauded by Plato and other philosophers (who declared that music is naught but a speech, with rhythm and tone coming after, not vice versa) with the aim that it enters into the minds of men and have those wonderful effects admired by the great writers. But this has not been possible because of the counterpoint of modern music, and even more impossible in solos sung to one or another stringed instrument, wherein not a single word has been understood for the multitude of passaggi [ornamental passages] on both short and long syllables and in every sort of piece. (Caccini, 1602)18
Thus, a new style of music, namely recitative (‘speaking in song’) came of age. It was a style of music written in a way that imitated a natural declamation of text, and this manner of singing soon gained its place in opera, oratorio and other genres.
I have thought it fitting to let you know what led me to seek out this new manner of music… Seeing that dramatic poetry was of concern and that it was therefore necessary to imitate speech in song (and surely no one ever spoke in song) …. [the ancient Greeks and Romans] had used a harmony surpassing that of ordinary speech but falling so far below the melody of song as to take an intermediate form. (Peri 1600)19
Since they could not move the mind without the words being understood – it occurred to me to introduce a kind of music in which one could almost speak in tones, employing in it (as I have said elsewhere) a certain noble negligence of song… (Caccini 1602)20
Wistreich explains that during the revolution of vocal music in the 17th century, “most new kinds of vocal music encouraged singers to convey intense expressions of strong feelings, engage in dramatically convincing and affecting role-play, or to display feats of occasionally staggering vocal virtuosity, and often to combine all of these.”21 In essence, this period of music history implied that without an understanding of the text, it was impossible for singers to convey expressions to, and arouse the affections of, the audiences.
Text was the chief aspect of ideal music in the 17th century, as mentioned in many treatises. It had the utmost importance, and it was also the main goal for the singers – to deliver the message and passion of the text in order to move the affections of the listeners.
Let the singer have a beautiful voice with good intonation, and well supported, and let him sing with expression, soft and loud, and without passagework, and in particular he should express the words well, so that they may be understood… (Guidotti, 1600)22
Try to pronounce every syllable distinctly so the words are understood, and let this be the principal aim of every singer whenever he sings… (Gagliano 1608)23
…sing as if one recited an oration… (Praetorius 1619)24
One of the great perfections of song consists of good pronunciation of the words, and rendering them so distinctly that the auditors do not lose a single syllable. (Mersenne 1636)25
6. Ornamentation
An extremely important aspect of vocal performance in the 17th century was the addition of ornaments in performance. As we have previously discussed, knowledge of all the vocal ornaments is one of the most important criteria to become a good singer. As Wistreich states, “Articulating all these kinds of embellishments correctly is perhaps the main thing which distinguishes seventeenth-century technique from modern art singing.”26
Moreover, 17th-century performers were expected to and praised for their embellishment on the printed score. Unlike modern performers, 17th-century performers would not be accused of violating the composer’s intention. Conversely, it was their inherent duty to make such embellishments, furthermore they would be blamed if they did not do this well:
As can be observed among the majority of ill-trained singers, there are certain vocal qualities which will never sound satisfactory in themselves, no matter how well handled in performance. For example, some of these faults are singing through the nose, bad breath support, bad cadences and accents or plaints, use of inappropriate ornaments at the end of an air or the incorrect placement of ports de voix, making passages with the tongue or in a rhythmically uneven manner… (Bacilly 1668)27
Therefore, an inappropriate usage or the incorrect placement of ornaments was perhaps one of the biggest sins for 17th-century performers. As some of them were mentioned in Bacilly’s quote above, ornaments in the 17th century vary from short and simple ones like port de voix, and tremblements, to long and complex ones like passages. Perhaps the most recognisable ornament for singers in the period, although not used in France, was the trillo, a short burst of repeated articulation on a same pitch, usually applied to a pre-cadential note. To master the trillo was an important standard of a good singer: Monteverdi specifically mentioned in both his letter to the Duke of Mantua (1624) and to Alessandro Striggo (1627) about looking for prospective singers “capable of suitable gorgie and trilli”. Caccini offered a written explanation of the trillo, and he applied this method in teaching his daughters and wife:
I must now first demonstrate first how the tremolo and the trill are described by me, and how I teach them to those of my household who are concerned with such matters, and then in addition to all other most essential effects, so that no exquisiteness observed by me goes without demonstration.
… to begin with the first quarter note, then re-strike each note with the throat on the vowel a, up to the final double whole note; and likewise the trill. (Caccini, 1602)28
Other important ornaments in the 17th century include the accenti (port de voix and tremblemens in French), which requires singers to embellish the line in different kinds of solo songs, and passaggi, the practice of adding melodic passages or diminutions. We will discuss this further in later chapters.
Referring back to the previous discussion about the importance of the clarity of text and a good pronunciation of the words, we can derive that singers should not apply ornamentation that interferes with the clear delivery of the words and the drama. Singers should know all the characteristics of the language: for example, the correct pronunciation of the words, the length of the words, which are the long and short vowels, which is the stressed syllable, etc. We can see how important this is by looking at Bacilly’s Remarques curieuses sur l’art de bien chanter, as he spent two thirds of the book writing about how to attach music to French words. As Christie phrases it:
… the function of French ornamentation is not only to grace or embellish a musical line… Rather, ornamentation is there to signal the presence of strong syllables, to give weight to syllabic symmetry: tremblements, ports de voix and coulés are in effect grammatical aids to good declamation, such that words can be understood more clearly at a distance.29
Therefore, when studying 17th-century French ornamentation, it is important to keep in mind that the ornaments are enhancing the text, instead of hindering the process of transmitting the meaning of the words to the listeners. Music should serve as a channel through which the text is delivered.