Talk:Isorhythm

Reference.com

This is just a straight up copy of Reference.com's article on this. This article is not SO good that there is any need to copy it from someone else. - Rich

You don't mean the reference.com article that's, er ... sourced from Wikipedia, do you? 87.115.228.253 06:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Burned !!! 17:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Date?

"Friedrich Ludwig applied it again in 1910, still for the 13th century"

The first paragraphy refers to the 14th and 15th centuries. Is this a typo in the second paragraph or is the word "still" possibly misused? MarkBuckles 09:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

The "Isorhythm composing game" external link is dead. It is also dead on the parent page, http://www.londonsinfonietta.org.uk/birtwistle-online/learning/index.html EEye 12:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed it. MarkBuckles (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Philippe de Virtry

It is still unclear, who composed the early Fauvel motets, like "Garrit gallus/In nova fert", etc. Life and work of Philippe de Virtry are uncertain, so i changed the sentence "motet, composed by Philippe de Virtry". (see Sarah Fuller: A phantom treatise, Daniel Leech-Wilkinson: The emergence of ars nova, Edward Roesner: Preface to the facsimile of "Roman de Fauvel", etc.) 91.61.74.36 (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This is true, but adding weasel language does not help the article. Could you insert proper references with page numbers, please?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily a fixed pattern of pitches

The opening sentence says, "...a musical technique that arranges a fixed pattern of pitches with a repeating rhythmic pattern," but as is plain in the notation example shown, only the rhythmic pattern is fixed. The pitch pattern is not fixed. It seems the opening sentence is misleading. The Harvard Dictionary of Music, 4th Edition, 2003, defines isorhythm as: "The repetition of a rhythmic pattern throughout a voice part." It explains further that "An isorhythmic voice normally contains two patterns that are repeated, a rhythmic pattern or talea and a melodic pattern or color. The two patterns need not be of the same length, however, with the result that successive statements of the rhythmic pattern may occur with different pitches." Accordingly, the current opening sentence of the article is misleading, if not incorrect, and should be revised to make it clear that isorhythm specifically describes a repeating rhythmic pattern only. Although many examples exist that also contain a repeating pattern of pitches, that is not definitive of isorhythm. I suggest the opening sentence should read, "Isorhythm is a repeated rhythmic pattern in a part or voice in music. Isorhythms may contain two repeating patterns: a repeating melodic pattern of pitches or color, and a repeating rhythmic pattern or talea." - Jacques Bailhé 22:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly correct. The problem, I think, was not so much inaccuracy as poor phrasing. I have taken your suggestion as a model, but modified it somewhat. See what you think, and feel free to improve it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Jerome, excellent solution. Below is a proposed rewrite of the body of the article. I would keep the existing final bit about Sub Arturo plebs by Johannes Alanus, but narrow the discussion of it to diminution. Comments?

Isorhythm consists of a repeated rhythmic pattern called a talea ("cutting", plural taleae), commonly in the tenor voice, whose melodic content, called the color may vary as the rhythmic pattern ("talea") is repeated. The technique first appears in the 13th century and became a significant organizing principle of much of 14th-century French polyphony, characterized by the extension of the “talea” of an initial section to the entire composition in conjunction with variation of a corresponding “color”.” [REF https://www.britannica.com/art/isorhythm 2007 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc.] Although theorists of the age discussed “talea” and “color,” the term “isorhythm” was not coined until 1904 by Friedrich Ludwig (1903–04, 223) to describe this practice in 13th century polyphonic and its use as an organizing structural element in 14th- and early 15th-century compositions—in particular, motets.(Bent 2001)[REF See Taruskin, Western Music, Vol. 1, 266, and Bent, Margaret. "Isorhythm." In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd ed.].

Isorhythm is a logical outgrowth of the rhythmic modes (fixed patterns of triple rhythms) that governed most late medieval polyphony, first appearing in 13th-century motets such as the “Monpelier Codex” (fascicles 2-5), primarily in “cantus firmus” or tenor parts but occasionally in other voices as well. Discarding modal limitations, the isorhythmic motet of the 14th century gained significant structural benefit from the application of fixed rhythmic patterns. [REF https://www.britannica.com/art/isorhythm 2007 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc.] The first great master of the isorhythmic motet was Guillaume de Machaut (c. 1300–77), but examples occur in the works of 15th-century composers Guillaume Dufay and Johannes Alanus., as well as later composers Anton Webern, Milton Babbitt, Olivier Messiaen, [REF Lanford 2011, A Reevaluation of Isorhythm in the "Old Corpus" of the Montpellier Codex, DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.18177/sym.2011.51.sr.13] and others. As an analytical concept, isorhythm has proved valuable to understanding musical practices in other cultures, for example the peyote cult songs of certain North American Indian groups [REF https://www.britannica.com/art/isorhythm 2007 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc.] and the music of India. - Jacques Bailhé 18:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful Lanford's oblique mention of Milton Babbitt actually would be for the general reader. While serial rhythmic practice can be seen as related to isorhythm (and this connection is made explicitly by Messiaen and some of his students), it would take some considerable explanation to make any connection to Babbitt's music clear. In the case of European serialists, it is usual to find constant permutation of rhythmic sets rather than constant repetition (plausibly the precise opposite of isorhythm), so once again the reader will be misled unless a long and not particularly relevant discussion is added. As for the rest of your suggested revision, it looks good on first glance, but I should like to consider further before endorsing it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Jerome, I agree mentioning Babbit is a bit arcane here. That was in the original body so I left it, but probably better without. Webern and Messiaen make the point well enough. Please do consider all further and let me know any ideas for improvement, then I'll post a draft on Talk incorporating your thoughts/revisions before revising the article. BTW, I'm disappointed by the state of the Music Theory article. Something has to be done. Made some suggestions on the talk page. - Jacques Bailhé 20:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can tell me something about Webern that I don't already know, mention of him would seem to be just as arcane as Babbitt. Although Messiaen did use the principle of isorhythm on occasion, I think the rather hermetic mention of him in Lanford is meant to refer to the separation of pitch and rhythm streams (or "parametrization"). This is certainly the way Stockhausen interpreted Messiaen's reference to color and talea, and European serialism normally sets pitch and duration series in permutational flux, rather than repeating them. As such, this can be seen as the opposite of isorhythm.

I have seen your renewal of the discussion on the talk page for the Music Theory article. So far, I have not felt the urge to contribute but, as soon as I have sometging to say, I will not hesitate to say it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Jerome, see if this is suitable.

Lede:

Isorhythm (from the Greek for "the same rhythm") is a musical technique using a repeating rhythmic pattern called a talea. Taleae are typically applied to a repeating melodic pattern of pitches or color, which may be of the same or a different length than the talea.

Body:

In Western music, isorhythms first appear in motets of the 13th century such as the “Montpellier Codex” (fascicles 2-5 in tenor parts (“cantus firmi”) [REF Lanford 2011, A Reevaluation of Isorhythm in the "Old Corpus" of the Montpellier Codex, DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.18177/sym.2011.51.sr.13 page 9]. Although theorists of the age discussed “talea” and “color,” the term “isorhythm” was not coined until 1904 by musicologist Friedrich Ludwig (1903–04, 223) to describe the practice in the 13th century polyphonic and its use as an organizing structural element in 14th and early 15th century compositions—in particular, motets. (Bent 2001)[REF See Taruskin, Western Music, Vol. 1, 266, and Bent, Margaret. "Isorhythm." In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd ed.]. Some of the earliest works organized around isorhythms are early 14th century motets in the “Roman de Fauvel” by Philippe de Vitry. The first great master of the isorhythmic motet was Guillaume de Machaut (c. 1300–77). His Motet No. 2 “De souspirant/Tous corps qui de bien amer/Suspiro” is an example of typical 14th century use of isorhythm [Harvard Dict Music p423].

During the decades following, upper voices became increasingly involved in isorhythmic organization. In the late 14th and 15th centuries many compositions were isorhythmic in all voices, a practice known as panisorhythm, as found in motets and Mass movements by John Dunstable, Johannes Ciconia, and Guillaume Dufay [Harvard Dict Music p423]. Isorhythm is a logical outgrowth of the rhythmic modes (fixed patterns of three note rhythms, see “ordines”) that governed most late medieval polyphony. Discarding modal limitations, isorhythm became a significant organizing principle of much of 14th century French polyphony by extending the “talea” of an initial section to the entire composition in conjunction with variation of a corresponding “color”.” [REF https://www.britannica.com/art/isorhythm 2007 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc.] "The playful complexity of taleae that mix mensuration and undergo diminution by half became a typical, even a defining feature of motets in the 14th century and beyond." [REF Taruskin, Western Music, Vol. 1, 266 ??].

INSERT existing notation analysis of Sub Arturo plebs.

Structural plan of the tenor of a late medieval isorhythmic motet with threefold diminution, Sub Arturo plebs by Johannes Alanus. There is a color of 24 longae (48 bars in modern notation), divided in three taleae. The color is repeated three times, each in a different mensuration. Its length is subsequently diminished by the factors of 9:6:4. The graphic shows (a) the preexisting Gregorian cantus firmus; (b) the tenor as written in mensural notation; and (c) a partial transcription of the beginnings of each of the nine taleae in modern notation.

As an analytical concept, isorhythm has proved valuable to understanding musical practices in other cultures, for example the peyote cult songs of certain North American Indian groups [REF https://www.britannica.com/art/isorhythm 2007 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc.] and the music of India. - Jacques Bailhé 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, with just one tiny correction needed: rhythmic modes are fixed patterns, all right, but not necessarily of "three[-]note rhythms". The number of notes in a pattern is actually determined not only by the mode but also by the ordo (mode 1, for example, in perfect ordine has 3, 5, 7, etc. notes in the pattern). The cited source says "fixed patterns of triple rhythms", which is closer, though still not quite accurate, since (1) it could imply three-beat bars and (2) is not a good fit for (unmixed) mode 5 of the usual schema.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Jerome - Thanks very much for your help with the rewrite. If you get a chance to have a look, please let me know any errors or corrections you'd like me to make. - Jacques Bailhé 19:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. So far the only problem I have encountered is the ambiguous statement about Gervais de Bus, which I have tagged for clarification. As far as I am aware, no one has seriously considered him to be the composer of the motets in the Roman de Fauvel, as your revision to the text seems to imply.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I corrected that issue, but restored Phillipe de Vitry as a contributing composer based on further reading. Some sources are hesitant about this, but Harvard Dict of Music is unequivocal. What do you think? - Jacques Bailhé 20:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I wish I knew who actually wrote that article in the Harvard Dictionary, and how long ago. The attributions to Philippe de Vitry are by no means secure but, in the absence of any competing names, tend to remain in general reference books. The New Grove article on Vitry, by Margaret Bent and Andrew Wathey, is more generous with space and reflects recent research more accurately, I think. As you are probably aware, the attribution of some of the Fauvel motets depends in part on references in the Ars nova notandi. Since Vitry's autorship of this treatise (or, to be more accurate, these two treatises) is no longer regarded as certain—current thinking holds that it is probably the work of two anonymous authors reporting ideas attributed to Vitry, possibly in the form of lecture notes, or even at second hand—then the attribution of the motets also is less certain. I think for our purposes "attributed to Philippe de Vitry", with a citation to Harvard or New Grove (or both) should be sufficient. Extended discussion of the authorship of the Fauvel motets belongs in the article on the Roman, not here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn’t get mired in the complicated discussion of the Roman’s music and have revised that in the article as well as the uncomfortably hyperbolic reference, “The first great master” was Machaut. Much as I love Machaut, the hyperbole hasn’t sat well with me since I read it. Looking back over my sources I suggest we not discuss the music in the Roman de Fauvel except in the most general way, and as you say, leave particulars to the Roman’s article. Harvard Dict doesn’t mention de Vitry at all in its article on isorhythm. His name does appear in Harvard’s article on the Roman, “…works by Phillipe de Vitry and others deriving from repertory of Notre Dame.” (p. 309) I hoped I might be able to find an author’s name for either of those articles to satisfy your curiosity (and mine), but no luck. The Oxford Companion, however, does name Vitry in its isorhythm article, “Two of the most important composers … were Phillipe de Vitry and Machaut.” (p. 618) In their article on the Roman, they are as unequivocal as Harvard, “…includes pieces by Phillipe de Vitry and from the Notre Dame repertory….” (p. 447) Wikpedia’s article on the Roman wisely says, ‘…piece are linked to Phillipe de Vitry…” in its lede and discusses further under the Music section, always with tenuous connection to Vitry. So, I suggest the whole thorny issue should read: Some of the earliest works organized around isorhythms are early 14th century motets by various composers in the Roman de Fauvel, an illuminated manuscript attributed to Gervais du Bus (dates uncertain). Two of the era's most important composers of isorhythmic motets are Phillipe de Vitry (1291-1361) and Guillaume de Machaut (c. 1300–77). If you agree, you need not reply. And thank you again for your thinking and guidance on this article. It’s been a great help. - Jacques Bailhé 17:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you added "in one voice part throughout a composition" to the lede. I'm not sure about that, but you know far more than I do. However, since we have many examples of isorhythm in multiple voices, is that perhaps confusing? Would it be better to take a swipe with Occam's razor and keep the definition as simple as possible? I defer to you. - Jacques Bailhé 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am pleased that you fixed the hyperbole about Machaut. The problem of course is that he is the earliest significant composer of practically everything, if for no better reason than nobody before him is anywhere near as well documented. I am still a little concerned about attributing the Fauvel manuscript to Gervais de Bus in a way that suggests he may have had anything to do with the music contained in it. Similarly, I explained the reason for my modification to the lede in my edit summary: without specifying "throughout a composition", any brief rhythmic repetition (as for example in the first six notes of "Three Blind Mice") might be misunderstood as an example of isorhythm. It is true that there are examples of isorhythm applied to two or more voices simultaneously, and this should probably be made plain in the article somewhere. It may also be a good idea to explain Apel's coinage of "panisorhythm" to describe the situation where taleae occur in all the parts of a composition. Do keep in mind that the Harvard Dictionary is what it says it is: a dictionary. That means the entries in it are necessarily brief. Margaret Bent's article on Isorhythm in the New Grove is considerably longer, and not only mentions Vitry, but also discusses at some length Johannes Boen's citation of isorythmic examples from Vitry. This is obviously beyond the scope of a reference like the Harvard Dictionary. In fact, I notice that we do not even have an article on Boen on English Wikipedia yet.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've re-worded the Roman de Fauvel mention, keeping it as simple as possible. Hope that works. I understand the "three Blind Mice" problem. Expanded discussion of panisorhythm with an example and brief explanation of synchronization. I don't find a Wikpedia article dedicated to panisorhythm, which may be useful since it gets fantastically interesting. My additions here hopefully avoid going overboard with details on hockets and canonic procedure, etc. but give enough to make the distinction between pan and normal isorhythm clear. - Jacques Bailhé 18:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I have added a few items to Further reading, including the source for the term "panisorhythm". It is beginning to appear that the article in the Harvard Dictionary 4th edition was carried forward from an earlier version, probaly written by Willi Apel, or under his instruction. This would explain the aroma of antiquity.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The further reading references are an excellent addition. I still wonder if the lede needs further clarification. The 3 Blind Mice issue is what concerns me. If I have it right (??), isorhythm isn’t just a matter of a repeated talea. Doesn’t the pattern also have to be used as a structurally organizing element to qualify as isorhythm? Maybe the lede should read:

Isorhythm (from the Greek for "the same rhythm") is a musical technique using a repeating rhythmic pattern, called a talea, in one or more voice parts as an organizing structural element of a composition. Taleae are typically applied to a repeating melodic pattern of pitches or color, which may be of the same or a different length than the talea.

Of course, I defer to you. - Jacques Bailhé 18:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I notice "Categories: Rhythm and meter" is the only category for the article. Would it be appropriate to add "Form" or "Structure and Form"? I don't know how these categories work. - Jacques Bailhé 18:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the lede still needs some work. While my first impulse is to accept the idea of "organizing structural element", on second thoughts I wonder how exactly one determines such a thing. For that matter, what exactly is a "structural element", and what is the difference between one that organizes and one that does not. This question is made even more slippery by the fact that current scholarly opinion is somewhat divided on the application of the term. Margaret Bent begins her New Grove article, for example, with the caveat:

A modern term applied with varying degrees of strictness to the periodic repetition or recurrence of rhythmic configurations, often with changing melodic content, in tenors and other parts of 14th- and early 15th-century compositions, especially motets. Since its introduction, however, the term has been more widely applied than is warranted, often with conflicting meanings. It belongs to a family of descriptive terms including 'isomel(od)ic', ... 'isochronous', 'isosyllabic' and 'isometric'; for 'isoperiodic' and 'panisorhythm' (where all voice-parts of a composition participate in rhythmic repeats) see below.

You may notice, for one thing, that this excludes 13th-century motets, even though she later concedes that Ludwig originally coined the term to describe "exact rhythmic repeats, to different melodies, in the 13th-century motetus part of On parole/A Paris/Frese nouvele'. She goes on, however, to explain, "Short repeating rhythmic-modal units ... in 13th-century pieces are occasionally superimposed on non-coincident melodic units. Despite such repetitions, the status of ‘isorhythmic’ is now usually reserved not for the 13th-century repertory that prompted it ... but for later motets where such repetition extends to parts other than the tenor, ... or to more ambitious schemes of a kind of 'developing variation'." Lanford's 2011 CMS article, which we cite here, is a deliberate attempt to re-incorporate that earlier repertoire under the term, as well as to challenge a distinction Langford perceives as too strict, between the Ars nova and the Ars antiqua. It is still too early to assess what effect Langford's article (published in a journal which is frankly not of the first rank in academic circles) might have on what Bent described (in 2001) as being the generally accepted position. So, you see, the issue is not quite as simple as it may at first appear.

I hadn't gotten around to considering categories yet, but I had noticed that this area seemed a bit deficient. I will give this some thought.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have come across the points you make about the unresolved definition of the word and have to say, your trepidations make me feel a lot better about my own inability to get this sharp and clear in my mind. I hope we might find a way to solve the issue without falling prey to over-complication.

It seems natural that the state of affairs in 13th century motets would be one of messy development and evolution. They were trying to get the hang of it. Accordingly, there are undoubtedly examples that would contradict or just flat out confuse. But that’s not the point for us. Our task is to write a definition that makes the fundamental idea of isorhythm clear—as simply as possible. And so, my hesitation about adding the structural aspect. Like you, I have questions about what exactly is meant by “organizing structural element.” Motiv, theme, or what? But I think (??) I’m confortable with idea that it means a repeated rhythmic pattern, not necessarily in sync with the melodic pattern it carries, that is used as significant organizer of the structure of the piece. By comparison, a motiv or theme can be used without effect on, or significance to structure. For example, a sonata allegro movement that does indeed have a theme on which exposition, development, and recapitulation are structured, but also subsidiary themes/motivs that have no structural effect or significance.

Having said that, please remember I have only the most naïve acquaintance with 13th and 14th century motets and masses. I do think the History and Dev section helps explain the evolution and more formalized conception of the technique. We could, of course, include a couple sentences describing the varied opinions on definition, but I suggest that would over-complicate things for most readers (if not confuse the hell out of us!). The disagreements seem to be about academic details that, in my mind, don’t really effect the definition as we have it—assuming the addition of the structural aspect.

I think the structural aspect is important because otherwise we’re back to 3 Blind Mice. - Jacques Bailhé 21:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't vouch for the authority, but maybe this paper will help you think about the structural aspect. http://kevinmwilson.com/writing/kw_isorhythm.pdf - Jacques Bailhé 21:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is precisely the danger of making things overly complicated that concerns me. On the one hand, we have the model of the Harvard Dictionary: "keep things simple". On the other hand, we have the New Grove: "keep things honest", and this can easily go far beyond what Margaret Bent describes. In one sense, we have already ventured beyond the flat earth's edge by citing Lanford's article, but let us not fall into the trap of assuming that the 13th century was simply a failed attempt to reach the perfection achieved by the 14th century! (I am confident that reliable sources will restrain us on this point.) The issue I have been trying to address is that the historiography is as important here as the history. This is scarcely the only Wikipedia article where this applies. Naive readers are prone to assuming that "facts is facts", and they just want to be told (in the present instance) exactly how isorhythm operated in the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries, in as few words and as plainly as possible. Unfortunately, things are not that simple. History is written by historians, and different historians write different histories. For some periods and subjects, there is plentiful evidence; for others it is thin on the ground, and it is up to the historian in these cases to fill in the gaps. In our case, if we are perfectly honest, we have to admit that the real "history" of isorythm begins only in 1904, but tracing that path is almost certainly the quickest way to overcomplicate this article. What we are left with is the job of explaining how the most respected scholars today view the 13th to the 15th century, and to a lesser extent, how the music of that bygone age (filtered no doubt through the writings of modern scholars) has influenced more recent music.

I agree that the structural issue is not merely important, but crucial. As Wikipedia editors, however, we cannot just voice our opinions, however well-formulated they might be. We are obliged to cite reliable sources. The paper that you have linked appears to me to be an undergraduate term paper, or perhaps a first-year postgraduate one. Since it is self-published on the web and without a provenance, it cannot be considered reliable in itself. As far as the historical material is concerned, it rests entirely on two perfectly reliable sources, Leech-Wilkinson 1990 and Leach 2003. It should not take long to discover whether either of these provide us with what we seek. On the other hand, the school paper seems primarily concerned with 20th-century composers (Messiaen and Xenakis), so we should not expect the historical aspects to reach very deeply into the subject. Part of the problem with even so careful a source as Margaret Bent's NG article is that it tends to rely on pointing to examples, and then saying, "See? There's one now", assuming that a sufficient number of such instances will eventually build up a picture in the reader's mind. This is a little unfair, since Bent guides the discussion very well, and develops these conceptions along the way. The problem, though, is that isorhythm remains a modern interpretation of both theoretical writings and surviving musical compositions, so we can only truthfully say that the historical evidence says a, b, and c, and then leap to the retrospective analysis of 14th- and 15th-century music to interpret this evidence (and, in the process, try to avoid giving the impression that this explains what 13th-century composers might have been trying to achieve). I think this may be the best reason for sticking with Bent's position, that we are talking primarily about a technique used by 14th- and early 15th-century composers, never mind that they may have been developing ideas that already had a history in the 13th century, and never mind also that the term was originally proposed to describe that earlier repertoire. Today is today, and who knows how opinions might change in the future? Even when we know how they have evolved from the past, explaining this remains a secondary matter, and I think we are still speaking here of the lead paragraph, not the afterthoughts that belong (if at all) toward the article's end.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I hope you didn’t mistake the intent of my forwarding the “Isorhythm and Musical Identities” paper. I sent it not as a quotable source, but because it’s one of the few discussions of isorhythm as structure I can find. A I said, “I can’t vouch for the authority.” My hope was it might be some aid to your thinking and research on the structural question.

As you point out, Bent writes, “‘…isorhythmic’ is now usually reserved not for the 13th-century repertory that prompted it….” Although this seems largely true regarding modern academic usage of the term, it’s not universal as she makes clear by “usually.” Additionally, the fact remains that the person who coined the term referred specifically to a 13th century compositions. In the WP article, I don’t see that Bent’s distinction about current usage, valid as it may be, is useful, although I have no objection to including it in the History Dev section. I think (??) we don’t violate the goals of accurate scholarship by using the current usage of the term in the lede, then briefly explaining caveats in the body. For example:

Isorhythm (from the Greek for "the same rhythm") is a musical technique using a repeating rhythmic pattern, called a talea, in one or more voice parts as an organizing structural element of a composition. Taleae are typically applied to a repeating melodic pattern of pitches or color, which may be of the same or a different length than the talea.

Then in the body, explain that use of the term of “‘isorhythmic’ is now usually reserved not for the 13th-century repertory that prompted it ... but for later motets where such repetition extends to parts other than the tenor….” (Bent)

[added as an afterthought] Proofing what I've written here, I notice that the Bent quote immediately above is specifically referring to the term "isorhythmic motets," which does seem to be reserved for post 13th century works by most authors. The WP article does explain this step in development, but does not currently get involved making a distinction between "isorhtymic motet" and the simpler concept of "isorhythm." Thinking about it, I'm not sure Bent is entirely accurate in her wording because, of course, we have examples other than motet that are considered "isorhtymic": Masses, etc. we do mention in the article. Re-reading this section of the WP article as it stands, I think it's about right without further explanation or making the distinction between the technique of isorhythm and what are known as "isorhythmic" compositions, motets or otherwise.

My own understanding of what’s meant by the structural aspect is murky, to say the least, but I suggest we’re on solid ground including that aspect because authoritative sources do so without equivocation. Adding a discussion of how isorhythm is used as organizer may not be not necessary, although again, I defer to you. The great hurdle would be to find a way to do so without over-complexity, and although I’ve seen you wrestle thorny issues into concise statements before, I doubt that’s possible in the this case. Without explanatory discussion of form and structure, and analysis of an example, I don’t see how it can be done. We might however, consider the Hoppin quote in Lanford’s paper as a model: “The least common procedure divides a long melody….” and following to “Diminutions…constitute the third way of organizing ….”

I’d cut the last few words of the last sentence because, unless I’m mistaken, aren’t there are examples of diminution in voices other than tenor? - Jacques Bailhé 17:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Do not worry: I do not mistake your bringing that school paper to my attention for a recommendation to use it as a source. My criticism of it was solely intended as an indication of the level of content, which is suitable for that paper, but not deep enough to help us much here.

I think you may have a good point about why more recent scholarship emphasizes the 14th and 15th centuries at the expense of the 13th, though of course the 13th-century examples are also motets. It is sometimes uncertain with modal-rhythm examples whether we are actually dealing with isorhythms, or just a series of ordine that happen to be of the same length, or fall into alternating pairs. This seemingly casual usage is undoubtedly part of the reason that there was no unified conception of "isorhythm" in the theoretical writings of the 14th century, but rather just discussion of talea and color. Your observation helps make it easier to reconcile the problem of 13th-century vs 14th-/15th-century focus, I think. We can explain the shift in focus in the body of the article (with appropriate citation to Bent, though perhaps this historiographical issue is dealt with more directly by Planchart and others now in the Further reading section), and then amplify the lede accordingly. I think any citation of Hoppin should come directly from that source, especially as I am beginning to perceive Lanford as a little less reliable than at first I took him to be. For example, he does not cite Harbinson's 1966 Music & Letters article, which basically goes over the same ground more than forty years before Lanford suddenly noticed this "discrepancy". Sanders also dealt with this issue back in 1980, and Planchart does so again more recently (in 2013).

As I'm sure you know, that word "structural" is often thrown about rather carelessly, with the implication that "everybody knows" what it means. And, of course, "everybody" is too embarrassed to admit they really do not know, nor how could they, since it is a term almost as badly abused as "tonality". I need to re-read a lot of literature that I have not visited for a long time, but I am certain that, somewhere, this is dealt with more adequately than by mere hand-waving. If you happen across a really good source before I find it, please do not hesitate to make the appropriate adjustment to this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Great. Over the next days, I'm sure we'll get this sorted out. Had a good laugh over "everybody knows" what "structure" means. Man, oh man, is this an endless problem—not only in reading about music, but in my own often glib assumption that I know what something actually means. Thus my obsessive attitude toward definitions. I do think the Hoppin quote gives enough explanation to understand the basics of how isorhythm can organize without having to delve into what constitutes "structure", but since many of the intricacies we're discussing are well beyond my pay grade, I ain't changin' nothin' without your agreement first. - Jacques Bailhé 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I just today discovered another recent item I overlooked before, which I have now added to the Further reading list (though I have not yet seen it myself). If an article titled "What Is Isorhythm?" doesn't give us a straight answer we can use, then I think we can safely identify the author as a master politician, or the script writer for one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Lord. The mere mention of politics jacks my blood pressure these days. In a futile effort to find Bent's "What is Isorhythm" somewhere on the web, I came across http://machaut.exeter.ac.uk/?q=node/2150. Again, I can't vouch for the authority. It's just the clearest explanation I've found about how structuring based on isorhythmic technique works. Bent's will hopefully be better.

Beside our other concerns, something just doesn't sit right with me about the current overall form of the article, so I’ve been stewing over how we introduce the major points. If you can overlook my hasty wording, would the the following basic outline help?

Lede:

Isorhythm, as originally defined, described the use of repeated rhythmic patterns in the tenor voice of certain 13th century motets. Today, the term “isorhythmic” has come to be used to describe more sophisticated uses of isorhythms, as found in 14th and 15th century compositions.

History and Dev:

The word isorhythm was coined by. ...in 1904 to describe repeated rhythmic patterns used in the tenor voice of certain 13th century motets. During the 13th and early 14th century, theorists discussed the elements of the technique only in terms of the talea (rhythmic pattern) and color (melody). In some examples, the talea and colorae are of different lengths, causing melodic patterns to shift in relation to their underlying rhythmic patterns. (brief explanation) The beginnings of the move away from ordines.

In later motets, masses, and other compositions (??) from the 14th and 15th centuries, isorhythms appear in upper voices as well and are used as an organizing structural element of these compositions. (brief explanation of construction, diminution and sophisticated techniques that cause talea and colorae to move in and out of synchronization)

In the 20th century, the term "isorhythmic" came into use to describe this expanded use of the fundamental technique where isorhythms appear in all voices and serve to organize the composition structurally. (brief explanation) - Jacques Bailhé 20:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to have mentioned the P word. It has done bad things to my own blood pressure for more than fifty years now. What I really meant to say (with heavy irony) is that such a question, used as the title for a scholarly article of that nature, cannot possibly offer the sort of glib and obvious answer that it suggests is to be expected. The article is not available online, so I shall have to venture out through the hostile weather of the forbidding northlands to visit my local institutional library in order to consult this particular article, which I suspect will draw us even deeper into the quagmire.

I'm sorry to say that I don't think your suggested revision is actually going to make a lot of difference. The lede could be changed as you suggest, which would shift the emphasis onto the historiographical aspect. I don't have any serious problem with that. However, in respect to your further suggestions, you may not be aware that the wording of the phrase "Although 14th-century theorists used the words talea and color" is carefully chosen (by the quoted source), especially because those medieval theorists do not use the term color exclusively in the sense modern scholars employ it in the context of isorhythm. In other words, it is not exactly true that "theorists discussed the elements of the technique" in these terms. While it is literally true that theorists of the 14th century used both words, their use of color in particular had multiple meanings, including (for some) the sense of what we today call talea. Here we come up against that problem of simplicity versus honesty. Scrupulous honesty demands that we name the theorists who actually used the term color in the sense meant here (Johannes de Muris and Coussemaker's Anonymous 5—see Ernest Sanders's article "Talea" in New Grove 2), and this is probably a complication too far. Better to keep the present wording, in my opinion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the varied use of color presents any great hurdles or needs overly-complex explanation. For the sake of simplicity, the lede could say they used "the terms of talea and color, the latter with various meanings." And, if you think it's important to veracity, we could expand this in the body with a couple sentences of detail, i.e. who used the word in what sense. - Jacques Bailhé 18:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I now have Margaret Bent's 2008 article and, as I suspected, it is honest rather than simple. I need to read it more carefully, but you may be please to learn that it supports your idea to start this article with Ludwig's original definition, which Bent concludes is the only truly accurate use of the term. I don't see that adding "the latter with various meanings" would help, unless those meanings are explained, at least in part, and this I think would quickly become far too complicated for this article. New Grove solves the probelm with separate articles on talea and color. Perhaps we should follow that lead.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Terrific. Hope your travel in the weather wasn't too daunting. In whatever revision we draft, I'm not opposed to trying to include the varied use of color. Maybe we take take a crack at it and see how it works. Perhaps briefly mention in the Lede and a couple explanatory sentences in the body. If it gets cumbersome, then we could consider a separate article on color and talea, but at the moment anyway, I have the feeling a separate article would be overkill on what to me is one topic: what is isorhythm. As always, I defer to you. - Jacques Bailhé 18:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The term "color" can be exasperating, especially in a context of American English. I think perhaps you are right, though, that we can briefly hint at the ambiguity of the word in medieval Latin, perhaps simply by saying it can refer to several different varieties of "repetition". That much, at least, can be cited to Sanders and Lindley's NG article "Color" (for which I see I got the title wrong—I'll correct this now, while I am thinking about it).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think your changes are good. I still have some hesitation about the lede. Is "Taleae are typically applied to a repeating melodic pattern of pitches or color" precisely correct? I thought a given talea could be applied to one or more melodic patterns or colorae, not necessarily a "repeating" melodic pattern and also not necessarily only one melodic pattern. If you think that's correct, the lede might read:

Isorhythm (from the Greek for "the same rhythm") is a musical technique using a repeating rhythmic pattern, called a talea, in at least one voice part throughout a composition. Taleae are typically applied to one or more melodic patterns of pitches or colorae, which may be of the same or a different length than the talea. - Jacques Bailhé 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely clear in my own mind whether there must be at least two statements of the color. From memory, I think there are 13th-century motets with only a single pitch sequence (but multiple occurrences of the talea). I think that, provisionally, we could make the change you suggest, only with the correct plural form colores, instead of colorae (I take it that your Latin is even less robust than my own).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Will do. - Jacques Bailhé 00:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice a citation needed note after "each note is shortened by a factor of 2/3." That's taken from the details that accompany the image posted on WP at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sub_Arturo_(In_omnem_terram)_isorhythmic_tenor.svg which were cited as coming from Gunther. If this is not in her article, or obvious from the illustration shown, please delete the sentence in the isorhythm article. Otherwise, perhaps move the Gunther citation to the end of the paragraph as it appears with the source of the image on WP. - Jacques Bailhé 00:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to be as indulgent as possible when I placed that "citation needed" tag. The Günther item is not an article, but rather the editorial report in her edition of the motets from the Chantilly and Modena manuscripts. It is possible to extrapolate the diagram from her notes, but the diagram itself does not appear there. She does give a diagram showing the mensuration and proportion signs for the three main sections of the motet, but that is all. I'm afraid that the degree of interpretation required to produce that diagram may amount to Original Research, but I would prefer not to make a judgement myself. Even with the diagram, it may or may not be "obvious" that each note is so shortened. This is, after all, a fairly technical matter that may require more expertise than the average reader is likely to bring to the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for noticing and the explanation. I've deleted the diminution line from Gunther's analysis. - Jacques Bailhé 17:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice the citation to Gunther appears as (Günther 1965, LI). Is "LI" intended and if so, what does it mean? - Jacques Bailhé 17:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"LI" is the page citation. The editorial report appears at the front of the volume, and the pages are numbered with capital Roman numerals ("LI" is the Roman numeral for "51"). The notes for Sub Arturo plebs are on L–LV . The pages of the edition proper are numbered with Arabic numerals, and the score of the motet is found on pages 49–52.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference to the "Old Hall" MS. There is NO English "town" known as "Old Hall" There are "Old Halls" in (quite possibly) a majority of English towns. The MS belonged to a Catholic school(St Edmunds) which traces its descent from the famous exiled Post-Reformation seminary at Douai, and eventually found its way to OLD HALL GREEN, a hamlet in Hertfordshire, in the general area of Ware, though it later moved to Puckeridge. The MS is of immense historical significance for English music. and could only have been referred to in this way by a writer ignorant of anything to do with it. As for its acceptance under that description by an editor............Delahays (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite?

I'm not keen on the article as it stands. Isorhythms are a nice but super simple concept, but here dressed in impenetrable jargon, finished off with a weird colonialist sentence at the end. Like, here's something that people do in music all round the world, lets talk about a couple of obscure dead white guys in weird academic code, and then make some weird blanket statement about the culture of massive continents.

Would a ground-up rewrite be a good idea? I can see that quite a lot of discussion above to get the article to this point.. Yaxu (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)