A logical leap

I've been trying to trace back through the scholarly arguments for 'a cappella' performance, and finding it frequently takes this form:

1. Such and such an earlier scholar said that one or more lines in some polyphonic musical genre (e.g. ars antiqua hockets, the tenor in ars nova motets, 15th century contratenors) was obviously intended to be instrumental, due to it being untexted and in some other ways different from main vocal line (e.g. slow, ornate, unusual interval jumps).
2. However evidence can be brought forward to suggest it is possible for all lines to be performed vocally. Some evidence is internal (e.g. manuscript details such as indications of underlay), some external (e.g. some literary accounts of performance that don't mention instruments) and some comes performance practice (e.g. flexibility in tuning successive intervals that can be difficult on some instruments). 
3. Therefore it is wrong (inauthentic, not historically informed) to perform this music with instruments on some lines.

Clearly there's a gap between 2 and 3.

The minstrel's life

I've mentioned before the book Menestrellorum Multitudo: Minstrels at a Royal Feast (1978) by Constance Bullock-Davies. This collection of little snippets from the account books of Edward I & II provide all sorts of tantalising insights into the minstrel's life. For example:

[From a wardrobe book of 1305/6] 2s. to Martinet, the minstrel, for making his minstrelsy in the presence of the two young princes and for repairing his tabor, broken by them. By gift of the two princes. 12 July. Ludgershall.

The princes' interest in (and enthusiastic interaction with) drums seems to continue because in an entry on 18 November:

11d. to Martinet the Taborer,  for the repair of the little drums [tymbrium] of the King's sons and for money paid to him for parchment for covering same.

Later it appears Martinet brings along company to keep the princes at bay:

20s. to Martinet the Taborer and William and John the trumpeters, minstrels [of the] 2 [young princes] for making their minstrelsy in their presence on the Eve and the Feast of Epiphany. By gift of the princes. 5/6 January. Windsor castle.

The same Martinet is also mentioned as 'minstrel of hall and stable' when he is allowed 7 ells of cloth and 1 lamb's fur for his outfit.

 

Background chat

To show it wasn't just the lax standards of the 15th century that allowed king and courtiers to talk through someone's song, here is an equivalent complaint from 1210:

..there are those without any consideration who will speak to you [the minstrel] aside and ask you to sing in front of everyone else; and they will not observe good manners nor time nor occasion, and at the third word of the song, whatever you are singing, they will grumble and begin to mutter to someone else, or begin to tell a story...

(from Abril issia, written by Raimon Vidal, translation from C. Page "The owl and the nightingale").

Talking point

 Another interesting quote from a period source courtesy of Chris Page "The performance of songs in late medieval France: A new source". This comes from the 15th century romance, Cleriadus and Meliadice and describes how after dinner, in the great hall:

the minstrels began to play loud wind instruments [commencerent a corner] . A great lord of the court took the fair Meliadice. Cleriadus took one of the ladies and all the men and women began to dance. The entertainment lasted a long time And when they had danced their fill the minstrels ceased and they began to sing. There might you have heard men and women singing well! Now Meliadice was next to Cleriadus and another knight in the retinue of the Count. She said to Cleriadus: 'Pray sing a song from your country; you have heard enough songs from ours'
. . . And then Cleriadus began a song so well that all those who were there listened to him gladly. They all said that they had never heard anyone sing so well. Even the king himself
stopped talking to hear Cleriadus.

Page's main point in quoting this passage is to note that minstrels stop playing when the singing starts, as evidence that singing was (generally) unaccompanied. Although it is apparent that the loud winds being used by the minstrels on this occasion would not be suitable to accompany song in any case, there is also no mention here (or elsewhere) in the romance of other, quieter, instruments being used when songs were being performed (although, interestingly, there is several times mention of dancing to singing; and also a passage in which Cleriadus composes music for a rondeau sent to him by Meliadice, and immediately "put it on the harp" and played it). Rather, there are several explicit mentions of polyphonic music being sung by two or  three people, e.g. Cleriadus calling on a young page to sing with him, and a squire to hold the tenor.

But what I particularly like about the passage is that "Even the king himself stopped talking..." to hear the performance. Suggesting that it was certainly not unusual for music to be occurring against a background of conversation.

Turn up the volume!

This post was sparked both my previous comments on the 'lute in the great hall' problem and also thinking a bit about rebecs - thanks to an earlier comment. In particular, how most reconstructed rebecs I have heard (with a few notable exceptions) sounded very weedy (could even be drowned out by a crumhorn!). Was the rebec a particularly quiet instrument, and the problem is our expectations based on the lush sound of a violin or cello? Or is this an indication that the reconstruction is probably not a good one?

This quiet tendency can be found more generally as a current performance style for medieval music - the gently tinkling harp, the soft breathy voice - but I think might be an aesthetic that owes a lot to modern amplification and recording techniques (and even in the absence of technology, the expectation of rapt silence  from the classical concert audience). The modern musician often does not have to concern themselves over whether their instrument or technique produces sufficient volume. The real medieval musician who played or sung too quietly to be clearly heard would not have been admired.

A little note on this with regard to voices, from Chris Page's 1988 article, 'The performance of Ars Antiqua motets'. Apparently there are many medieval sources praising 'haut' or 'alta' voices. Although the literal meaning is "high", and that has been a common interpretation, it could equally mean "loud": he gives two quotes from a 1340 sermon showing both meanings being used (p.154):

when a brother has a voice so alta and so beautiful it is customary to say that when he sings there is not a corner of the church which he cannot make resound

 It should be noted that any man is said to have an alta voice who sings five notes higher than his fellows

(note that 'five notes higher' suggests a tenor, not a counter-tenor).  Page points out that vocal production generally means 'high' and 'loud' go together. But it is also worth noting that 'loud' in the sense of audible can also be linked to 'high' if the context of performance includes background noise, particularly people talking. A pitch of voice or instrument that sits above the range of normal speech will be more easily heard. I've come across a few period comments about the audience talking while the minstrel performed - perhaps material for another post.

Female musicians

Another misconception I have occasionally encountered is that "of course in the middle ages, women would not have been professional musicians". I'm not sure if this is based on the assumption that women did not have professions of any kind in the middle ages (certainly not true) or whether it is something about the status and nature of performing music that makes people think it an unlikely occupation for women.

In yesterday's post I mentioned the Ypres ordinances, the last one specifying "only two minstrels from Ypres, either men or women, could attend the wedding breakfast." A fairly clear indication that females could have the profession of minstrel, as is the fact of the 37 signatories of the 1321 Paris minstrel's guild statutes, eight were women.

Perhaps when it comes to women playing in a shawm band we are on shakier ground. I am not sure if there is any evidence of female 'town waites', nor have I seen pictures of a shawm band playing at a feast, or for dancing, including females. However there are depictions of women playing the shawm, for example this one:

N.B. I have taken this from the cover of "The Recorder Consort", vol. III, Steve Rosenberg and would be grateful if anyone can tell me the actual source (and apologies if this is a copyright infringement - I will remove it if there is a problem!). From the costume it looks 15th century. And to avoid confusion, I should mention that the picture at the top of this blog was painted by myself, so does not provide further evidence. It is based on a beautiful carved ivory 15th century chessboard, but the musicians in the original were all male.

Minstrels at weddings

It seems that as well as the pesky problem of 'foreign' minstrels turning up uninvited, even 'local' or invited minstrels might have had some sharp practices at wedding feasts. In Nigel Wilkins 'Music in the Age of Chaucer' I found this summary of injunctions issued to minstrels by the Ypres magistrates in 1295:

• minstrels playing at a wedding feast in the town were to pay a tax
• "when playing their instruments they should not approach guests within the courtyard where the ceremony was taking place" [is the implication the minstrels were approaching the guests for tips?]
• the bride and groom should only pay two sous for minstrels arriving on horseback from elsewhere, and 12 deniers if they arrived on foot [implying minstrels were trying extort more money by exaggerating their travel expenses?]
• only two minstrels from Ypres, either men or women, could attend the wedding breakfast.

In Paris, the 1321 statutes of the minstrel's guild (which I am sure I will talk about again) include a fine for any minstrel who touts for custom at weddings, and specifies that minstrels engaged for a feast or wedding must stay till the end of festivities (i.e. not leave early for another engagement).

Of course, we would never do any of these things!