Quote:
Originally Posted by Shosta
As you probably know, one reason of this is that this Missa was the 'example' of a 'easy music' where you can understand the words in a time where the counterreform thought the texts had to be understandable. But I don't find it simple, poliphonic textures are rich and it's not easy to follow the words. As you say is 'less intricate' not 'simple'.
|
I don't think I ever suggested anywhere that Palestrina is "simple"-- but
his Missa Papae Marcelli, at least, is not typical of what Renaissance
composers could do with just a few voices. I personally can't care less
if I can understand every single word that is being sung when I listen to
Renaissance vocal music, and actually prefer music that is more virtuosic
or impactful but sacrifices no expressiveness whatsoever for this reason--
Josquin Desprez, Johannes Ockeghem, William Byrd, Orlando di Lasso
and so on so forth. It's a bit like that with German Reformation music, too:
if Bach only wrote four-part, harmonized chorales (as Martin Luther
probably insisted them to be) and never composed those dazzling chorale
fantasias (both instrumental and vocal) I don't believe I would ever like
his music that much.
ps. Talking about Bach's "fantasized" chorales, it is ironic that Mozart's
allusion to this form in the Armed Men's Music in "Magic Flute" is actually
intended to sound extremely austere and solemn rather than extravagant
and grand as it would be in Bach's time.