Home

Issues with Ornamenting

This chapter aims at describing the potential problems of performing 17^th- and early 18^th-century French vocal music by modern singers.

Throughout this chapter the primary references I have consulted include the 1636 treatise Harmonie Universelle by Mersenne, the 1668 treatise Remarques by Bacilly and the 1736 treatise Principes de Musique by Montéclair. The contemporary reference includes Elizabeth Hehr’s 1985 article ‘How the French Viewed the Differences between French and Italian Singing Styles of the 18^th Century’.

Ornaments were not written out

The first problem modern singers encounter while performing 17^th- and early 18^th-century French vocal music is the fact that the ornaments were not written out, and it is up to the performers to decide where to add the ornaments. Composers thought that writing out all the ornaments would obstruct the singers’ view and thus affect the flow of the melody and the fluidity of the piece as a whole.

The majority of these ornaments are never printed in the music, either because they cannot accurately be reduced to print because of a lack of appropriate musical symbols, or because it may be thought that a superabundance of markings might hinder and obscure the clarity of an air and thus result in musical confusion.1

It is a problem to modern singers, because, like me, we are not trained to improvise and compose as a singer, at least not before I was trained to be an early music singer in the Netherlands. That was the reason why I was so shocked to know that I needed to compose my own ornaments on top of the written notes. We are trained to sing accurately notes written on the score, and only those. It was not only once or twice that I have heard teachers saying this line when a student played the wrong note, “Don’t compose for Beethoven, you are a performer, not a composer!”

Of course, in Beethoven’s time, notation was already much more exact compared to the 17^th century, and performers were expected to be playing and singing the exact notation. But what I mean here is that we are trained differently as a musician. ‘Performance’ and ‘Composition’ are two different subjects in conservatories, and it seems that the two subjects do not overlap.

Therefore, modern singers need to spend extra effort in performing 17^th- and early 18^th-century French vocal music, because they need to also acquire certain skills for composing. If the singer was not at all trained with any composition techniques, then he or she could find it very difficult to compose ornaments.

Moreover, since the ornaments were not written out, nor even marked, it is up to modern singers to decide where to put and where to omit. I have summarized some of the criteria and conditions of when to practice an ornament and when to omit, for example, for port de voix and tremblement, in my previous chapter (‘List of French vocal Ornaments (1650-1750)’), as stated by Bacilly. However, there are always exceptions. Apparently, this had been always a problem for singers:

This is the dilemma that presents the most extreme difficulties to singers who perform according to written notation – deciding when it is necessary to use a true port, and when the demi-port. (Bacilly 1668)2

Although there were certain rules for practicing ornaments, it was always the singers’ final decision that determined how it would be performed. Composers in the 17^th century often expected singers to have a ‘good taste’ to interpret the music, but the sense of ‘good taste’ was not explained clearly and is very confusing to modern singers. This is another problematic issue for modern singers with ornamenting 17^th- and early 18^th-century vocal music.

Inconsistent names and signs

Until now, we have had a brief glance through the 17^th- and early 18^th-century French vocal ornamentation trends. Thanks to theorists like Bacilly and Montéclair, who tried their best to described in words and musical examples how 17^th- and early 18^th-century ornaments were supposed to sound, we could understand more about the non-written-out ornamentation in this period.

However, as Hehr points out, French composers of vocal music were not at all consistent about the notation of the ornaments and the names of the ornaments. It was always up to the singers to decide what to do with the music using their good taste.

Yet despite this surprising exactness, French vocal composers were in no way consistent about whether or not their ornaments were included in their music; some expected the singer to have the necessary ‘bon goût’ to know where they would be appropriate. Not [sic] were they precise about how many varieties of these specific embellishments existed. (Hehr 1985)3

This is the second problem for modern singers: the inconsistent ornament names and signs. In my previous chapter (‘List of French vocal Ornaments (1650-1750)’), I have listed nine ornaments mentioned by Bacilly and eighteen ornaments mentioned by Montéclair. In fact, other French authors in the early 18^th century listed different numbers of ornaments as well, for example, Bérard in his L’Art du chant (1755) listed twelve, L’Ecuyer in his Principes de l’art du chant (1769) listed six, and L’Affillard in his Principes très-faciles pour bien apprendre la musique (1717) listed fourteen.4 The authors themselves were not satisfied with the system of the names and interpretation of the ornaments in their times.

It should be noted that the Maîtres employ different characters to indicate the places and notes where the shakes are to be used… (Mersenne 1636)5

There is no agreement about the signs nor the names of the ornaments… As music is the same for both voices and instruments, one should use the same names for them and unanimously agree upon the proper signs to represent the ornaments of a melody. (Montéclair 1736)6

It is surprising that up until now, one has not found it advisable to determine the exact number of ornaments and their meanings. (Bernard 1755)7

Not only the number of agreed ornaments is inconsistent, but also the number of how many varieties of the ornaments is not precise. Bacilly listed four (or perhaps three) types of port de voix (See ‘Port de voix’), and three types of tremblement, while Montéclair listed one type of port de voix and four types of tremblement. In addition, the realisation of the ornaments was also inconsistent, as we have previously discussed. The way of executing a tremblement is different in treatises by Mersenne, Bacilly and Montéclair.

These kinds of inconsistency confused not only 17^th-century singers, but also modern singers, and we are not sure which instructions and rules to follow. Again, it all depends on the ‘good taste’ of the performer.

Language

The third potential problem for modern singers in embellishing 17^th- and early 18^th-century French vocal music is the knowledge of the French language. Bacilly stated very clearly in his treatise that it was essential to know the length of syllables in order to know how to appropriately embellish the music, because the quality of the syllable, whether it was long or short, determined which ornaments could be used.

For modern singers like me, who was taught the modern French pronunciation, have not much knowledge about old French and not to mention the length of the syllable in old French. The long list of words corresponding to the syllable length in Bacilly’s treatise is extremely useful, but at the same time, requires singers a lot of time and effort to memorise and be able to apply to 17^th-century French songs.

In addition, in my personal point of view, there are not enough teachers who are knowledgeable in old French, and the exact pronunciation were not unanimously agreed within the French community. The lack of resources makes it hard for modern singers to learn the language well and be knowledgeable enough in ornamenting the music.

Expression in Ornaments

The fourth potential problem is the relationship between the ornaments and the expression. Although French by nature is perhaps not the most dramatic language, I believe that it is the singer’s responsibility to bring it alive and passionate. It is in fact my initial motivation in conducting this research. In my personal experience studying Baroque French vocal music, I was told that some ornaments were not suitable in expressing certain emotions, but it was not very clear to me why and how should I decide which to use.

After studying Bacilly’s and Montéclair’s treatises on vocal ornaments, I gained some insights out of them, which I will further explain in the next chapter. However, there was not a lot of expression explained in relation to the ornamentation, and there was not a lot in common about the expression either in the two treatises. Therefore, it might not be convincing enough for modern singers to determine whether the ‘right’ expression was used in a song.

In the follow chapter, I will further discuss the musical expression in 17^th- and early 18^th-century French vocal music in the hope of granting more insights to modern singers including myself on performing ornamentation in French vocal Baroque music.