instruments of music theory - dash home
TRANSCRIPT
Instruments of Music TheoryThe Harvard community has made this
article openly available. Please share howthis access benefits you. Your story matters
Citation Rehding, Alexander. 2016. "Instruments of Music Theory." MusicTheory Online 22, no. 4.
Published Version http://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.16.22.4/mto.16.22.4.rehding.html
Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34391750
Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASHrepository, and is made available under the terms and conditionsapplicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
1
AUTHOR:Rehding,Alexander
TITLE:InstrumentsofMusicTheory
KEYWORDS:HistoryofMusicTheory,CriticalOrganology,SoundStudies,Acoustics,EpistemicThing,Pythagoras,Gaffurius,Vicentino,Cowell,monochord,archicembalo,siren,rhythmicon.ABSTRACT:Thisarticleexploresmusicalinstrumentsasasourceforthehistoricalstudyofmusictheory.ThefigureofPythagorasandhisallegedpenchantforthemonochordoffersawayintothisexplorationofthetheory-bearingdimensionsofinstruments.
Musicianstendtothinkofinstrumentsprimarilyintermsofmusic-making,butinothercontextsinstrumentsare,morebroadly,tools.Inthecontextofscientificexperimentation,specifically,instrumentshelpresearcherscometotermswith“epistemicthings”—objectsunderscrutinythatcarryspecific(butasyetunknown)sourcesofknowledgewithinthem.Aspectsofthisexperimentalpracticecanproductivelybetransferredtothestudyofmusictheoryandareexploredinatwotestcasesfromdifferentperiodsofmusicaltheorizing(andinstrumentbuilding):NicolaVicentino’sarchicembalofrommid-sixteenthcenturyItaly,andHenryCowell’srhythmiconfromtheearly-twentiethcenturyAmerica.
AUTHOR AlexanderRehdingHarvardUniversityDepartmentofMusicCambridgeMA02138arehding@fas.harvard.edu
ACCOMPANYINGFILES:10jpgimages(9Figures)havebeenincorporatedinthistext.2videofilesareaddedtothetextashyperlinks.2soundfiles(tobeembedded)willbeaddedtothefinalversion.
2
InstrumentsofMusicTheory
1.Pythagorasmusicus
[1.1]WithhisemblematicmonochordPythagorasruledmusicandthecosmos.1As
itsnamesuggests,themonochord(monos=single,chordê=string)isaverysimple
instrument,consistingoflittlemorethanastringstretchedoutfromonesideofa
woodenplanktotheothersoitcanfreelyvibrate.Thelengthofthestringcanbe
dividedbymeansofamoveablebridgetoeffectchangesinpitch.Inthecollective
imagination,PythogorasofSamos,themythicalphilosopher,mathematician,and
founderofareligiouscult,whomay(ormaynot)havewalkedtheearthfromc.
570–c.495BCE,hadlongbeenassociatedwiththisinstrumentandwasoftenhailed
asitsinventor.2Thisconnectionbetweenthephilosopherandhismonochordonly
grewstrongerovertime,somuchsothatthelateRomanstatesman,philosopher,
andmusicalthinkerCassiodorus(c.485–c.585CE)awardedtheGreekphilosopher
thehonorific“Pythagorasmusicus.”3Despitehisundeniablystrongaffinitieswith
arithmetic,Pythagoraswasparticularlyassociatedwithmusicthroughoutthe
MiddleAgesandintotheearlymodernperiod,inwaysthatparalleltheastronomer
Ptolemywithhisemblematicplanetaryrulers,orthegeometerEuclidwithhis
compass.1AnearlierversionofthisarticlewaspresentedasthePeterLeHuraylectureatthe50thRMAconferenceinLeedson4September2014.SpecialthanksgotoJosephAuner,BevilConway,EvanMcCarthy,AlexanderNikolaev,StevenRings,DanielWalden,andtheanonymousreviewerswhosecarefulreadingofthisarticlehasgivenmetheopportunitytosharpenandclarifymypoints.2TheiconographysurroundingPythagorasandthemonochordisexploredinBarbaraMünxelhaus,Pythagorasmusicus(Bonn:VerlagfürsystematischeMusikwissenschaft,1976).3Cassiodorus,Variaeepistolae,1.45.4.
3
Fig.1.Mythicalacousticexperimentsonavarietyofinstruments.FranchinusGaffurius,Theoricamusicae(1492).
4
[1.2]Thusitisnottoosurprisingtoseeadetailedfour-panelwoodcutgiving
prideofplacetoamusic-makingPythagorasinFig.1.Thisimageappearsinthe
Theoricamusicae(1492)bytheNorthItalianhumanistFranchinusGaffurius(1451–
1522),oneofthefirstmusictheorybookstoappearinprint.4Whatwesee,
however,takessometimetodecode.IfwedidnotknowthatPythagoras’emblem
wasthemonochord,itwouldbehardtorecognizethemusicalinstrumentinthe
bottomleftpanel.Thesix-stringinstrument,whichPythagorasplayswithtwo
sticks,resemblesmoreazither-typeinstrument,apsalteriumorahammered
dulcimer,thanthetraditionalancientinstrument.Isthisreallystillamonochord?5
Atamoredetailedlevel,thePythagoreanimplicationsoftheimage,however,are
clearbeyondanydoubt:theweightshangingdownontheleftsideoftheinstrument
followaseriesofnumbersthatcanberecognizedasPythagoreanwithoutproblems:
4–6–8–9–12–16.Itseemsthesix-stringmonochordrepresentsthetechnological
andlogicalextensionoftheprinciplethatPythagorasdiscoveredinancienttimes,
accordingtolegend.
[1.3]Weremember,thelegendinquestion—aprimalsceneofmusic—
originatedwiththeGreekphilosopherNicomachusofGerasa(c.60–c.120CE),and
hasPythagorasliftthesecretofsoundserendipitously,ashewalkspastasmithy
andhearstheharmoniousclangingoffourhammersonanvils,weighing6,8,9,and
4FranchinusGaffurius,Theoricamusicae(Milan:FilippoMantegazzaforG.P.daLomazzo,1492),tr.byWalterKurtKreyszig,TheoryofMusic(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1993).5BytheRenaissance,awidevarietyofinstrumentscouldbecalled“monochord,”irrespectiveoftheactualnumberofstrings,includingevenkeyboards.SeetheletterscollectedbyBonnieBlackburnandEdwardLowinsky,eds.,ACorrespondenceofRenaissanceMusicians(Oxford:Clarendon,1991).
5
12unitsofweight.6Thisstory,whichdeterminestheratiosofconsonantintervalsof
theoctave,fifth,andfourthat2:1(=12:6),3:2(=12:8and9:6),and4:3(=12:9and
8:6),wastransmittedthroughouttheMiddleAgesandwellintothemid-sixteenth
century,primarilyinBoethius’sinfluentialvariant,andneednotbefurther
rehearsedhere.7ForallthenumericalbeautyofthePythagoreanratios,weknow
thattheaccountisapocryphal,astheunderlyingphysicsarenotwatertight:the
relationshipbetweentheweightofahammerandthepitchitproducesthatis
suggestedbytheillustrationdoesnothold.Itisnowwell-known,too,thatthestory
inthesmithyneverhappenedinthisway.ItisveryunlikelythatPythagoras—or
anyoneintheancientworld—evercaredtocarryoutthisexperiment.Noristhere
anyrealreasontoassumetheyshouldhavedone:Pythagoreanismisbest
understoodasareligion,notasanempiricalscience.8Infact,itwouldtakeuntilthe
sixteenthcenturyforsomeoneto“fact-check”thisstoryandtocorrectthephysical
basisoftheclaim:VincenzoGalilei(1520–1591),fatherofGalileo,firstconducted
acousticalexperimentstotestthePythagoreanclaimsthathadbeenperpetuated,
unchallenged,formorethanamillennium.Forinstigatingthisgroundbreaking6AndrewBarker,GreekMusicalWritings:Volume2.HarmonicandAcousticTheory(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989),256-8.7SeeBoethius,FundamentalsofMusic,tr.CalvinBower(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1989),17-19(Bk1.10-11).DanielHeller-RoazenhasrecentlytakenupthemedievalPythagorasmyth,inTheFifthHammer:PythagorasandtheDisharmonyoftheWorld(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2011).Gaffurius’understandingofancienttheorywasclearlychanneledbyBoethius,notearliersources.HeincludesaparaphraseofBoethiusinBk1.8:4-16(Kreyszig,TheoryofMusic,46),includingtheadditionalhammer.8AsAndréBarberasuggests,Pythagoras’standingwassuchthattheratiosnotworkinginpracticemayevenhaveheightenedthemystiquesurroundinghim:“Afterall,theexperimentsdidworkwhenheperformedthem.”Seehis“TheConsonantEleventhandtheExpansionoftheMusicalTetractys:AStudyofAncientPythagoreanism,”JournalofMusicTheory1(1984),200.
6
changeinscientificthoughtandpavingthewayforaturntoempiricism,Galilei
senior,notjunior,hasbeenhailedbysomescholarsasthefirstmodernexperimental
scientist.9
[1.4]Pythagoreans’primaryinterest,asfaraswecanascertainfromthe
historicalrecord,wasnotinmusicassuch,butinthatwhichliesbeyondthe
soundingphenomena.Aristotlewrote,derisively,thatthePythagoreansunderstood
eventheheavensintermsofmusicalscales[harmoniai]andnumbers.10Butthisis
nomereempty,dismissivehyperbole:Pythagoreanswereprimarilyinterestedin
musicinsofarasitwasanexpressionofthenumericalrelationsthatheldthe
cosmostogether.Musicwasfortheminextricablyconnectedtoastronomy,via
arithmeticandgeometry—thesubjectsthatweretobejoinedinthemedieval
quadrivium.Thesoundsandtheexperienceofmusic,aslaterancientcommentators
suchasPtolemynevergottiredofcomplaining,weresecondarytoPythagoreans;
soundingmusiconlygotinthewayoftheperfectionandbeautyofratios.11The
attributionofthemonochordtoPythagoras,asitsinventor,didnotcometothefore
untilthemuchlateraccountsbyDiogenesLaertius(3rdcenturyCE),Gaudentius
9ThereisasizeablebodyofliteraturesurroundingthequestionofwhetherVincenzoGalileishouldcountasanexperimentalscientistornot.SeeStillmanDrake,“RenaissanceMusicandExperimentalScience,”JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas31(1970),483-500,D.P.Walker,StudiesinMusicalScienceintheLateRenaissance(Leiden:Brill,1978),14-33,H.F.Cohen,QuantifyingMusic:TheScienceofMusicastheFirstStageoftheScientificRevolution1580–1650(Dordrecht:Reidel,1984),andClaudePalisca,“ScientificEmpiricisminMusicalThought”inStudiesintheHistoryofItalianMusicandMusicTheory(Oxford:Clarendon,1994).10Aristotle,Metaphysics1.986a.11Ptolemy,HarmonicsBk.1,Ch.5(Barker,GreekMusicalWritingsII:284-6).Tobesure,thisshouldbetakenwithagrainofsalt.Aswitheverythinginthisdiscussion,manyofthepositionsrelyonlatertestimoniesthatareprojectedbackwards.
7
(prob.4thcenturyCE)andBoethius(480-524/5CE).12BythetimeGaffuriuspicksup
thetopic,inthecontextoffifteenth-centuryhumanism,hecanmakeanelegantpun:
Inthisway,Pythagorasdiscoveredthemonochordrule[regula],whichgetsits
name“rule”fromtheobjectnotbecausearuleismadeofwoodorbrassandwe
measuresoundsandmagnitudeswithitbutbecausearuleisacertainfixedand
stableobservationthatleavesthejudgmentinnodoubt.Itissonamedfrom
“ruling”[regendo],asifitruledusinsuchawaythatwecannotfallintoerror.13
Themonochordisalsoknownaskanônorregula(whichmeansruleorrulerin
GreekandLatin),Gaffurius’statement“regulaminvenit”canmeaneither:he“found
therule”orhe“inventedthemonochord.”Bothversionswouldbeequallytrue.
[1.5]Returningtotheinitialimage,whatkindofinstrumentisPythagoras’six-
stringmonochord?Whilethepresenceofmultiplestringswouldnotinitselfhave
beenasstrikingatthetime,wearenowinapositiontodigalittledeeperwith
regardtothenumbersix.WhatappearsunusualinGaffurius’versionisthatthe
numberofstringsonwhichPythagorasplaysisexpanded.Butingoingbeyondthe
numberfouroftheoriginallegend,Gaffuriusweavesaninterestingnewtwistinto
thestory.Byaddingthe4andthe16,heexpandstherangeoftheinstrumentto2
octaves(8:4,16:8),andconsiderablyexpandsthepossibilitiesofPythagorean
intervalsbetweenpairsofstrings,whicharelaidoutinthetablebelow.(Theratios
12SeeDavidCreese,TheMonochordinAncientGreekHarmonicScience(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2011),90.13Gaffurius,Theoricamusicae,Bk.1,Ch.8:34-35.(Kreyszig,TheoryofMusic,48.)
8
insquarebracketsmarkcompoundvariantsofthesimpleintervals.)
Octave 8:4 12:6 16:8 [16:4]Fifth 6:4 9:6 12:8 [12:4]Fourth 8:6 12:9 16:12 [16:6]Whole-tone14 9:8 [16:9] [9:4]
[1.6]OnwhatauthoritydidGaffuriusmakethesechanges?Gaffuriusoffersa
disarminglysimpleexplanationinthetextofhistreatisewhyhebelievedthat
Pythagorashadextendedtherangeofhismonochordtosixnumbers.Tounderstand
thisbetter,wehavetogobacktoBoethius’powerfulretellingofthestory,onwhich
Gaffuriusbasedhisowntheorizing.InBoethius’variantofthesmithymyth,
Pythagorasencountersnotfour,butfivehammers.Thisfifthhammerisdissonant,
Boethiusexplains,inwaysthatcannotbereconciledwithPythagoreanprinciples,
andPythagorasquicklydiscardsit.Inthisway,byaddinganewhammertothe
storyandimmediatelydiscardingitagain,Boethiusfurtherunderlinesthenecessity
forperfectnumbersandforeliminatinganyelementthatmightdisturbtheir
harmony.Boethius’srhetoricalflourishseemstohighlight,aboveall,thatexactly
fourhammersareneeded,notmoreorless.ButGaffuriusturnsthisrhetorical
maneuveragainstitselfbymakingexplicitreferencetothe“fifth”hammer.15Onthe
basisofBoethius’influentialvariant,Gaffuriusconcludes:
WemaysupposethatPythagorashimselfentirelychangedtheinconsonantfifth1416:9isanoutlier,asitdescribesnotthewhole-tonebuttheminorseventh,whichIhaveincludedhereforthesakeofcompleteness.Gaffuriusdoesnotcommentonthisscenario.15Tobesure,GaffuriusaddsfurtherlateRomansources,notablyCalcidius’CommentaryonPlato’sTimaeus(c.321CE)andMacrobius’DreamofScipio(early5thcentury).BoththeseauthorsallowformorethantheorthodoxPythagoreanratios,thoughneitheroffersadirectmodelforGaffurius’expansion.
9
hammerintoanotherandaddedasixthabovethefifth,whichhasbeen
establishedinthenumber4,whichwouldsurpassallothersinsmallnessof
weightandalsoasixthhammer,whichwouldexceedalltheothers,thatis,inthe
number16.16
ToparaphraseGaffurius:if,asBoethiusrelates,Pythagorastemporarilyexceeded
thenumberfour,evenonatrialbasis,hemustsurelyhaverealizedthataddingtwo
morehammerswillgreatlyincreasethenumberofpossibleintervals.Gaffurius
blithelyoverlooksanynewcomplicationsthathisadditionsintroduce;heseems
mainlyexcitedabouttheextendedrangeofintervalsthatafifthandsixthhammer
wouldallow.
[1.7]Nolongerdoesthefifthhammerfunctionasamarkerofanouterboundary
thatcannotbeexceeded,asitdidforBoethius,butratheritbecomesthebasisof
furtherexperimentation.Whatismore,Gaffuriusmanagestogivethisoldstoryits
newtwistwithouteversomuchasquestioningBoethius’supremeauthoritybut
ratherbuildingonit:GaffuriuseffectivelyarguesthatifPythagorasheardafifth
hammerandrealizeditwasnotquiteright,hewillhaveappreciatedthatwhathe
neededforgreaterperfectionwasnotonlyafifthbutalsoasixthhammer.“Inthis
manner,”GaffuriussumsuphisexcursionandexpansionofthePythagorasmyth,
“hefoundoutthatwhenthesedifferentweightswerelaidout,allthemusical
consonanceswerecontainedsolelyinthemultipleandinthesuperparticularratios;
andtheheavierhammerssoundedagainstthehigherinacertainmutually
16Gaffurius,Theoricamusicae,Bk.1,Ch.8:20.(Kreyszig,TheoryofMusic,47.)
10
correspondingorder,sothatbothreturnedtothesenseofhearingwithan
establisheddimensionbypresentingoutofthedifferentblowsasingleconsonant
sound.”17InGaffurius’shands,Pythagorasrepresentsnothingsomuchasthespirit
ofperfectibilityintherealmofnumbers.Gaffurius’sPythagoras,inaword,offersan
improvedandperfectedversionofthecosmos.
[1.8]GaffuriusemphasizesthewideapplicabilityofthisuniversalPythagorean
principle.IntheremainingpanelsofFig.1heshowstheGreekphilosopherina
numberofdifferentmusicalsituations,whichallcloselyreflectBoethius’sretelling
ofthemyth.InthebottomrightcornerPythagorasisjoinedbyhisdisciple,the
philosopherandmathematicianPhilolaus,inplayinganumberofpipes.Evengiven
thescantreliablebiographicalinformationwehaveaboutthesetwofigures,it
seemsveryunlikelythatPhilolaus(c.470–c.395BCE)wouldhaveoverlappedwith
Pythagoras,butinthiscontextweprobablydonotneedtolosemuchsleepover
suchdetails.Thelengthsofthepipesareinthesameproportionsashissix-fold
monochord.Theimagesareveryexplicitabouttheratios,allunitscarrynumbers.In
thetoprightcornerofthewoodprinttwoPythagoreanfigurescanbeseenstriking
bellsandtappingglassesofwater,accordingtothesameproportions.ClaudePalisca
haspointedoutthattheseimages,despitethedisplayofmathematicalrigor,are
mostlyphysicallyfalse:infact,theintervalsformedbythebottlesandbellsarenot
governedbytheratiosoftheirdimensionsinthesimplewaysuggestedbythe
numbersinthewoodcut,justastheweightofthehammerswasfoundtobe
unrelatedtotheresultingpitches.Onlythepipesactuallycorrespondtoacoustical
17Ibid.,Bk.1,Ch.8:26.
11
reality.18
[1.9]Finally,themoststrikingpanelofthewoodcutisthetopleftimage.Thisis
probablythefirstpaneltheviewerwilllookat,itthereforecarriesparticular
rhetoricalweight.Weseethefamoussceneintheblacksmith’sworkshop,the
hammerscarrythesamenumbers.Butthepersonlisteningtotheanvilsbeing
struckisnottheancientGreekfigureofPythagoras,butthebiblicalfigureofJubal,
the“ancestorofallwhoplaytheharpandflute,”19andwhoisoftenregardedasthe
inventorofmusicinbiblicalchronology.
[1.10]Thisdisplacementmightseemsurprising,particularlysincethe
accompanyingtext,BookIofTheoricamusicae,isprimarilyconcernedwith
Pythagoras,andonlybringsinJubalfleetinglyattheveryendofthisdiscussion,
almostasanafterthought.Itisnotuntilmuchlaterinthetreatise,inBookV,that
GaffuriuscomesclearaboutJubal’sfoundationalroleinhistext.20Tobesure,there
isnoprecedentfoundintheever-authoritativeBoethius.Butitispossibleto
reconstructthereasonsforthischoice.Thequestionofprimiinventores,orprôtoi
heuretaíastheywerecalledinGreek,the“firstinventors”oftheancientworld,
cametotheforeagainduringthehumanistrevivalduringthefifteenthcenturyasa
centralquestion.Ancientculturaltechniques—suchasfire-making,agriculture,
18SeeClaudePalisca,HumanisminItalianRenaissanceMusicalThought(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1985),229.19Genesis4:21.TheconnectiontothePythagorasinthesmithyisnotamillionmilesaway:Jubal’shalf-brotherTubal-Cainis“theforgerofallinstrumentsofbronzeandiron.”SeeJamesMcKinnon,“JubalvelPythagoras:Quidsitinventormusicae?”inMusicalQuarterly64/1(1978),1-23.20SeeGaffurius,Theoricamusicae,Bk.5,Ch.1:4(Kreyszig,TheoryofMusic,144.)NotethatGaffurius’textofBk1,Ch.8:4(Kreyszig,46),confusingly,assignsthesmithystorytoPythagoras,evenwherethepicturedoesnot.
12
ship-building,bronze-casting,andmusic-making—hadtobeexplainedbycreatinga
firmassociationwithafigure—mythical,divine,orheroic—whocouldcountasits
firstinventor.21Inthecontextofhumanism,however,suchquestionsofprimacy
becameacontestedspacebetweenontheonehandancientsources,thatistosay:
paganmyths,andontheotherbiblicalauthority.ByoptingforJubalastheultimate
inventorofmusic,Gaffuriusmanagedtopassthecrowntobiblicalauthority,even
thoughthereisnothinginthetexttopreparethereaderforthismaneuver.22
[1.11]Butthisdisplacementalsogivesrisetoanotherpossibleconclusion,
whichispossiblymoretroubling.ThewoodcutinGaffurius’Theoricamusicae
visuallyseparatesofftheprimalsceneinthenoticeablydisorderlysmithyfromthe
otherscenes.Jubalislookingon,quiteliterallyoverseeingthesixblacksmithsas
theyhammeraway.Meanwhile,themultiplePythagoraiinFig.1areseentoexplore
themorestrictlymusicalimplicationsofthediscoveryofthemathematicalsecrets
ofsound.Pythagorasisactivelyengaged,playingthebells,akindofglass
harmonica,theflutes,andthesix-stringmonochord.WhereJubalexaminesnoise,
Pythagorasperformsmusic.
[1.12]WeknowthatGaffuriusfollowedBoethius’leadinvaluingthemusicus,the
scholarlymusician,overthemerecantor,whomerelyperformsmusic,bysingingor
21SeeAdolfKleingünther,ΠρῶτοςΕὑρετής:UntersuchungenzurGeschichteeinerFragestellung(Leipzig:Dieterich’scheVerlagsbuchhandlung,1933).SeealsoCreese,Monochord,85.Theconceptof“culturaltechniques”hasrecentlybeenforegroundedbyGermanmediatheoristssurroundingSybilleKrämerandBernhardSiegert.SeeGeoffreyWinthrop-Young,“CulturalTechniques:PreliminaryRemarks,”Theory,Culture&Society30/6(2013),3-19.22GaffuriusisnotthefirsttomakethisconnectiontoJubal.ThistraditioncanbetracedbacktotheRomanhistorianJosephus.SeePalisca,HumanisminRenaissanceMusic,227,andMünxelhaus,Pythagorasmusicus,46-50.
13
playing,withoutreflectingonit.23Indrawingsuchaclearvisualdistinctionbetween
JubalandPythagoras,andbetweenthescienceofsoundontheonehandandthe
practiceofmusicontheother,theimagefromGaffurius’Theoricamusicaeactually
presentsuswithaproblem:themusic-makingPythagoraiofFig.1appearmoreas
cantores,thatis,theywouldseemtofallwrongsideofthescholar/performerdivide.
Fromthisperspective,thezither-likesix-stringmonochordwithwhichwestarted,
andwhichisrathermoreversatilethanthetraditionalone-stringedversion,would
servetounderlinethisimpression.Thistechnologicallyimprovedinstrumentseems
toallowPythagorastoperformmusic,andheseemstorelishhistaskasamusical
virtuoso.HasPythagorasmusicusreallybecomePythagorascantor?Hashebeen
degradedtoamereperformer?Oristhisallamistake?
2.TheMonochordasInstrumentandSystem
[2.1]HowfarcanwetakethisideaofPythagorasasapracticingmusician,against
anyBoethianadmonitions?Weknowthemonochordwasusedasameasuring
deviceinancientGreece,butwasitinfactusedasamusicalinstrument?Theidea
itself,strangeasitseems,isnotwithoutprecedent.Anearly-twentieth-century
studentofclassicalphilology,SigfridWantzloeben,advancedthethesisinhis
Germandoctoraldissertation,DasMonochordalsInstrumentundalsSystem(1911),
thatPythagoraswasactuallyaperformerofthemonochord,whichheregardedasa
23Boethius,Deinstitutionemusica,Bk.1,Ch.34,tr.CalvinM.Bower,FoundationsofMusic(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1989),50-51.
14
musicalinstrument.24
[2.2]Wantzloeben’sExhibitAispreciselythepassagefromNicomachusthat
beganthePythagoreanmyth:Pythagorasrusheshomefromthesmithytotesthis
newlyfoundknowledgeaboutmusiconanumberofdevices:“cymbals[krousin25],
flutes[aulous],panpipes[syringas],monochords,triangularharps[trigona],and
otherslikethem.”26WantzloebennotesthatNicomachusmentionsthemonochord
amongalistofotherinstrumentsthatcouldbeusedinmusicalperformance,and
concludesthatthemonochordmustitselfhavebeenaninstrumentonwhichmusic
wasperformed.27(Likemanyothercommentators,Wantzloebenisrelatively
indifferenttothecomplicatingfactorthatNicomachuswrotethissomesixcenturies
afterPythagoras.)OtherpiecesofevidenceWantzloebenoffersarehighly
questionable;hisinterpretationsoftenhingeondistinctlydubioustranslations.28
24SigfridWantzloeben,DasMonochordalsInstrumentundalsSystem(HalleanderSaale:EhrhardtKarras,1911).Helaterallbutadmitsthathisdocumentaryevidenceisratherthin.25Itisunclearwhatexactlythiswordshouldmeaninthiscontext.IntheirauthoritativedictionaryLiddellandScotttranslatekrousisas“thetappingofearthenvessels,toseewhethertheyringsound.”AndrewBarkerrendersthis,somewhatcautiously,as“beatenpots,”whereasWantzloeben—whotendstothrowinterpretivecautiontothewind—suggestscymbals.Giventhiscontext,Ifollowthosewhouseaslightlyboldertranslationthatforegroundsthemusicalaspects,thoughroomfordoubtremains.26Barker,GreekMusicalWritings,II:258(tr.modified).27Wantzloeben,Monochord,2.28ExibitBisafamouspassagefromAristidesQuintilianus,Demusica(ΠερὶΜουσικῆς)Bk,3,Ch.1:97.4.(Barker,GreekMusicalThoughtII:497):“Attheendofhislife,itissaid,Pythagorasadmonishedhisfriendstoplaythemonochord.”Wantzloeben’sGermantranslationrenderstheunspecificverb“μονοχορδίζειν”(literally“tomonochordize”)tendentiouslyas“toplaythemonochord,”nodoubttounderlinehishypothesisofPythagorasasamusicalperformer.Thebroadertranslation,“usethemonochord,”or“workatthemonochord,”whichcouldalsoincludemeasurementsofintervals,wouldbemuchclosertotheflavoroftheoriginal.(Thismistranslationhasoftenbeenaccepteduncriticallyintheliterature,
15
[2.3]PerhapsthebestevidencethatWantzloebencouldhavemarshaledfrom
ancientGreektextsinsupportofhisboldhypothesisareafewnegativecomments
fromlatercommentators,suchasPtolemy,whoarguesthatthemonochordmakesa
ratherlousymusicalinstrument.ThefactthatPtolemyfeltmovedtoincludethis
passagesuggeststhattherewereindeedsomeeffortstousethemonochordasa
makeshiftmusicalinstrument.29Thereisnoreason,however,toassumethatthis
hadanythingtodowithPythagorasatall.
[2.4]Forallitsobviousproblems,however,thereisakernelofagoodideain
Wantzloeben’shypothesis,whichisthesamethesisthatwejustreadoutof
Gaffurius’sillustration:musictheoristsdowelltotakemusicalinstruments
seriously.Theyareembodimentsoftheoreticalideasaboutmusic.Allmusical
instrumentscarrytheoreticalproperties,anditcanbeinstructivetoconsiderthem
intermsofwhattheycantellusaboutmusiconamoreabstractlevel.Fromthis
angle,Wantzloebengetsonethingexactlyright:“themonochordasaninstrument
andasasystem,”asthetitleofhisthesisrunsinEnglish.Thespecificquestionof
Pythagoras’sroleasaperformerissomethingofaredherring(aseven
Wantzloebenseemstocomeclosetoadmittingoccasionally)thatinfactdistracts
fromamoreimportantpoint.Themaininterestisonthedoublefunctionofthe
instrumentitself.
[2.5]TheideathatIwanttopursuehereisnothingotherthantheliteral
meaningof“instrument”—or,forthatmatter,organon,astheGreekhasit.Atthe
seeAdkinsandMünxelberg.)OthersuchtendentiousinterpretationscanbefoundthroughoutWantzloeben’sthesis.29SeeBarker,GreekMusicalWritingsII:341and497,n.14.
16
heartofourconceptoftheinstrumentistheLatinverbinstruere,toconstructor
equip,justasergon,orwork,isthecognateoftheGreekorganon.30Thatistosay,an
instrumentisadevicethatallowsustoaccomplishsomething,towork;itisan
implementoratool.31Inourcase,musicalinstrumentscanbe,quiteliterally,
instrumentalinshapingthoughtsandideasaboutmusic.
[2.6]Inamusicalcontext,thisleadsustoadoublemeaningoftheterm
“instrument.”Ontheonehand,wehavethetool,orindeedthe“measuringrod”32
thatPythagorassoughtinNicomachus’story—inaword,adevicethatcantellus
somethingabouthowmusicasasystemworks.Inthiscase,thedevicetellsusabout
howsomeofthemostfundamentalmusicalintervalscanbederivedandquantified.
Ontheotherhand,wehavethemusicalinstrumentonwhichcompositionsor
improvisationscanbeperformed.Inthecaseofthemonochord,thisperformative
functionisatbestrudimentary(andatworstfanciful)—whichisexactlythereason
theearlymodernrepresentationsofPythagorasinGaffurius’workpiquedour
interestinitially—buttheprincipleofperformance,ofengaginginmusicalactivities,
isclearlyachiefaspectofmusicalinstruments.Instrumentsarethesiteof
performanceaswellasoftheorizing.
[2.7]ToreturntotheBoethiandistinctionwithwhichweendedtheprevious
section:wecanputasideourworriesaboutthemusicus/cantordivision,wedon’t
needtodecide—itisnotaneither/or.AsWantzloebencorrectlypointedout,the30Andforfriendsofetymology:thearchaicformofergonbeganwithadigamma,*werg-,whichisunmistakablyrelatedtotheGermanicWerkandtheEnglishwork.31Gaffuriusseemsveryconsciousofthisetymology:inBk.1,Ch.4:7(Kreyszig,39)hegoessofarastocalllung,throat,palate,tongue,lips,andteeth“instruments”—where“organs”(eventheLatinizedorgana)wouldseemamoreapparentchoice.32Barker,GreekMusicalWritings,256.
17
monochordservesasbothinstrumentandmusicalsystem.And,asGaffuriusknew,
regulaorkanônmeanssimultaneouslytherulethatgovernsmusicandthe
instrumentfromwhichitisderived.Ourinvestigationofinstrumentswillcheerfully
explorebothaspects,andtheinteractionsbetweenbothsides,whichcanbeattimes
intricate.
3.Music-TheoreticalInstruments
[3.1]Musicologyhasrecentlyrediscovereditsinterestinmusicalinstruments.
EmilyDolanandJohnTreschrevivedthevenerabledisciplineoforganology,the
studyofmusicalinstruments,bycallingfora“NewOrganology.”33Asthemoniker
“New”underlines,themaininterestisnotclassificatoryortaxonomic,whichwas
oneofthechieftasksofthe“Old”organology,butratherexploratoryand
interpretive.Whatexactlyisaninstrument?FollowingBrunoLatour’sclarioncallto
rethinkthesociologyofscience,TreschandDolan,ateamconsistingofahistorian
ofscienceandamusicologist,proposethatinbothmusicandscience,instruments
arenotpassiveortransparent,butthattheypossessagency,takinganactivepartin
socialnetworks.Myambitionhereisalittlelesswide-rangingthantheirs,thoughit
sharessomeoftheircentralconcerns.Iamspecificallyinterestedinexploringwhat
instrumentscantellusaboutthemusicalsysteminwhichtheyoperate,inother
words,theepistemicaspectsofinstruments.Whatcaninstrumentstellusabout
musicalknowledge?Howcanwe“read”aninstrument?Howdoinstrumentshelpus
understandwhatmusicis?Withoutofferingspecificanswersfornow,instruments33JohnTreschandEmilyI.Dolan,“TowardaNewOrganology:InstrumentsofMusicandScience.”Osiris28(2013):278-298.
18
areusefulobjectsforthiskindofinquirybecausetheycanworkontwoepistemic
levels,whichwecouldvariouslycontrastusinganyofthefollowingpairs:hearing
andcounting,sensingandcogitating,empiricismandlogic—or,toreturntoour
earlierdistinction:cantorandmusicus.
[3.2]Sincethe“musical”aspect(inthemodernexperientialsense)ofthe
instrumentismorelikelytobeself-evident,itisperhapsusefultotakeacloserlook
atthe“scientific”senseinwhichIamthinkingofinstrumentshere.Several
influentialfiguresfromthestudyofscienceprovideimportantimpulses,historianof
SimonSchafferandsociologistStevenShapin,whobothfundamentallyre-examined
thecreationandcommunicationofknowledgeduringthescientificrevolution,
highlightingthespecificroleoftheinstrumentwithinscientificexperimentation
duringthatperiod.
[3.3]Inseveralgroundbreakingstudies,focusingonsuchcentralfiguresfrom
theScientificRevolution,asIsaacNewton(1642–1727)andRobertBoyle(1627–
1691),inotherwords,areasthatseemedtobeexhaustivelyknown,Schafferand
Shapindrewattentionnotsomuchtotheresultsofthescientists’work,buttheway
inwhichtheygottheirresults.34FollowingafamouspronouncementbytheFrench
philosopherofscienceGastonBachelard(1884–1962)thatinstrumentsarenothing
34StevenShapinandSimonSchaffer,LeviathanandtheAirPump:Hobbes,Boyle,andtheExperimentalLife(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1985),andSimonSchaffer,“GlassWorks:Newton’sPrismsandtheUsesofExperiment,”inTheUsesofExperiment:StudiesintheNaturalSciences,ed.DavidGooding,TrevorPinch,andSimonSchaffer(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989),67-104.
19
but“materializedtheories”35(théorêmesréifiées),theystressedthatthe
experimentalset-up,sometimesdowntotheprecisemakeoftheinstruments,
playedamajorroleforthegenerationofscientificknowledge.Theyshowedhowin
theworkofBoyleandNewtonthefundamentalstatusoftheexperimentchanged,
fromademonstrationthatmerelyillustratesascientificphenomenonbutisofno
furtherrelevancetoscientificknowledge,toanintegralpartintheprocessof
discoveryandtheory-making.
[3.4]InthecaseofNewton’sOpticks,theexperimentumcrucis,thecritical
experimentuponwhichtheauthorityofthescientificclaimhinged,wasentirely
dependentonthemakeoftheprism.Thiswasmorecomplicatedthanweimagine,
sinceprismswerewidelyavailable,stuffoffairgroundattractions,butevensmall
flawsintheglasswouldruintheexperimentaloutcome.Newtonhimselfreliedon
high-qualityprismsimportedfromtheNetherlands,butitisnotsurprisingthat
otherresearcherstryingtoreplicateNewton’sexperimentumcrucisfailedintheir
efforts.Understandably,theywerequicktofindfaultwithNewton’shypothesis.
SchaffershowshowmuchworkandeffortNewtonputintoconvincinghis
correspondentsthattheexperimentmustbereplicatedpreciselyandthatthe
physicalpropertiesoftheprismareall-decisiveforthesuccessoftheexperiment,
andhencethescientifictheory.Thesestudieshelpedusherinanewdisciplinary
paradigmfortheHistoryofScience,adisciplinethathadtraditionallybeen
particularlyinterestedinahistoryofdiscoveries,progressivelyunfolding,as
35GastonBachelard,TheNewScientificSpirit,tr.ArthurGoldhammer(Boston:BeaconPress,1984),13.Thisline,inamoreliteraltranslation,functionsasanepigraphinSchaffer’sarticle“GlassWorks.”
20
scientificunderstandingmarchesonthroughtime.Bycontrast,ithadbeenmuch
lessinterestedintheprocessofexperimentationleadinguptothesediscoveries,
andinthematerialconditionsthatmadethempossibleinthefirstplace.
[3.5]Howdoweadaptthisideaforourpurposes?Ofcourse,SchafferandShapin
weretalkingaboutaveryspecificmoment,indeed,aturningpointinthehistoryof
science,theScientificRevolutionintheseventeenthcentury,anditishardlyan
accidentthattheirinterestfocusesonNewtonandBoyle,thatis,figureswhooccupy
acentralpositioninthecanonofthehistoryofscience.Itisimportanttobearin
mindthattheexperimentalmethodoftheScientificRevolutionisspecifictothis
period—infact,thisiswhatmakestheScientificRevolution—anditwouldbewrong
togeneralizebroadly,outsideofthisspecificcontext.Thatsaid,wefarebetterifwe
turnthisthoughtonitshead:werememberthatthePythagoreansshowedno
interestinexperimentalproofofthenumericalhypothesis.Andaswesawearlier,
thefabledstoryofPythagorasinthesmithy—andwithit,theentirephysicalbasis
onwhichthePythagoreanarithmeticparadigmrested—wasquestionedby
VincenzoGalilei,preciselyduringthefirststirringsoftheScientificRevolutionin
Italy.
[3.6]Thissuggeststhatthesignificanceofthemonochordchanged.Itwouldbe
foolhardytoarguethatPythagoreansfromNicomachustoZarlino,thatis,fora
millenniumandahalf,hadused,orthoughtabout,themonochordillegitimately,
andthatVincenzoGalileifinallyputanendtothisfaultyusage.Rather,whatit
suggestsisafundamentalreconfigurationofthetwoquestionsofwhatthe
monochordispurportedtoshowandwhatstatusisassignedtoitsdemonstrative
21
power.Itisperhapsusefultothinkofthisshiftasachangefromanarithmeticway
ofthinkingtoaphysicalone,fromanabstract,numericalwayofthinkingtoan
empiricalone.Thisisanimportantdifference.ItwasthePythagoreanworldview—
withitsfaithinuniversalcorrespondencesanditsliberalassociations—that
assignedmusicitsplacebesideastronomy,geometry,andarithmetic,whichushered
inthemedievalquadrivium.Andfromastrictlyarithmeticpointofview,the
mechanicsoftheinstrumentisirrelevant;thesoundthatthemonochordproduces,
theexperientialdimensionofitseffects,isatbestincidental.Themathematical
distinctionbetweenepideixis(demonstration)andapodeixis(proof)springstomind
here.36ForPythagoreans,themonochordwassimplyadevicewhoseexistencewas
enoughtounderlinetheuniversalvalidityofthemathematicalratiosthatthey
believedtounderlieallworldlyphenomena,fromthesmallesttothelargestscale.In
fact,evenintheancientworldPythagoreanswereregularlytakentotaskforthe
chasmthatopenedupbetweentheirpainstakingcalculationsandthescant
relevancethesepreciseproportionsborewithrespecttomusicalpractice.37
[3.7]OnlyinGalilei’shandsdidthemonochordbecomepartofanexperimental
designinacontextthatcanbeunderstoodfromtheperspectiveofmodernscience.
Ofcourse,thisdidnotchangeovernightthewayinwhichthemonochordwasused.
Cosmologicalmodels,suchasRobertFludd’sfamouscelestialmonochord,from
Utriusquecosmihistoria(1617–1624),whichoutlinedthetraditionalGreatChainof36ForawiderdiscussionoftheepistemologicalstatusofproofsinEuclidianscienceseeRevielNetz,TheShapingofDeductioninGreekMathematics(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003).37SeealsoDavidCreese,“InstrumentsandEmpiricisminAristoxenus’Elementaharmonica,”inAristoxenusofTarentum,ed.C.F.Huffman(NewBrunswick:Transaction,2012),29-63.
22
Being,fromdivinebeingsandangels,viastarsandplanets,allthewaytohumans
andanimals,continuedtofeature,sometimesprominentlyso.38Buttheideaof
correspondencesorresemblancesthatdeterminedsomuchofPythagorean
thinkingallthewaytotheRenaissanceandthatproceededonthebasisofanalogical
orsymbolicthinking,wasonthewayout.Asitbecameharderandhardertothink
togethermusicalintervalsanddivinecelestialorder,newconstellationsbetween
numericalratiosandsoundasanempiricalphenomenon,thatisaperceptually
verifiableobject,emergedaspowerfulandconvincingarguments.Fromthis
perspective,JohannesKepler’sfoundationalastronomicaltreatiseHarmonices
mundi(1619),inwhichthethirdlawofplanetarymotionisproposed—withexplicit
referencetotheMusicoftheSpheres,isperhapsbestunderstoodasafinal
grandiosegaspofthePythagoreanworldview,theviewthatsucceededinholding
thequadriviumtogetherforthebestpartofamillennium.39
4.WhatKindof“Thing”IsAMusic-TheoreticalInstrument?
[4.1]Whatdoesitmeantoconsiderinstrumentsfromtheperspectiveofscientific
inquiry—orperhapsbetter:knowledgeacquisition—aswellasfromtheirmusical
qualities?AsPythagorasputsonhiswhitelabcoat,metaphoricallyspeaking,and
startsexperimentingwithhismonochord,itmakessensetodrawonanothermodel
borrowedfromthehistoryofscience.Hans-JörgRheinbergerdevelopedaconcept
ofthe“epistemicthing”todescribeanimportantaspectoftheprocessofscientific
38RobertFludd,Utriusquecosmihistoria(Oppenheim:JohannTheodordeBry,1617-24).39JohannesKepler,Harmonicesmundi(Linz:GottfriedTampach,1619).
23
experimentation.40Rheinbergeremphasizes“thepowerofmaterialobjects—in
contrasttoideasorconcepts—asdrivingforcesintheprocessofknowledge
acquisition.”41Theepistemicthingisamaterialobject,phenomenon,orprocessthat
arousesourcuriosityandthat,withinanexperimentalsystem,holdsacertain
knowledgethatcanbeuncoveredbythescientist.The“epistemicthing”isneither
identicalwiththemerephenomenonormaterialobject,norwiththescientific
instrumentariumusedtoexamineit;theepistemicthingonlyemergesasthe
conjunctionofboth.WhatmakesRheinberger’sconceptsoproductiveisthatthese
epistemicthingspossessacertainfundamental“fuzziness”or“blurriness”
(Verschwommenheit).Thereisnopre-givenepistemologicalcontentthatthe
researcherextractsfromthethingunderscrutiny;thethingitselfdoesnotexude
knowledge.42Keenlyavoidingtheproblemofdeterminism,Rheinbergerarguesthat
theepistemologicalvalueoftheepistemicthingisonlyconstitutedbyitsplaceand
interactionwithintheexperimentalsystem;itiscontextuallyandhistorically
determined.43
[4.2]Thereisasteadilygrowingbodyofreflectionsontheepistemologyofthe
“thing,”notleastnurturedbyaresurgentinterestinamaterialisticperspective.
40Hans-JörgRheinberger,TowardsaHistoryofEpistemicThings(Stanford:StanfordUP,1997).41Rheinberger,“AreplytoDavidBloor:‘Towardasociologyofepistemicthings’,”PerspectivesonScience13(2005),406.42SeeespeciallyUljanaFeest,“Remembering(Short-term)Memory:OscillationsofanEpistemicThing,”Erkenntnis75(2011),391-411.Feest’sownreadingattributes“blurriness”toconcepts,notobjects.43HasokChanghighlightsthisaspectin“ThePersistenceofEpistemicObjectsThroughScientificChange,”Erkenntnis75(2011),413.
24
Sometimes“thing”and“object”areusedinterchangeably.44ThearthistorianW.J.T.
Mitchell,however,cautions:“objectsarethewaythingsappeartoasubject—thatis,
withaname,anidentity,agestaltorstereotypicaltemplate.…Things,ontheother
hand,[signal]themomentwhentheobjectbecomestheOther,whenthesardinecan
lookback,whenthemuteidolspeaks,whenthesubjectexperiencestheobjectas
uncannyandfeelstheneedforwhatFoucaultcalls‘ametaphysicsoftheobject,or,
moreexactly,ametaphysicsofthatneverobjectifiabledepthfromwhichobjects
riseuptowardoursuperficialknowledge.”45Objects,itisgenerallyagreed,are
characterizedbyacertainpassivity,inthattheyrequireacontemplatingsubject,
whereasThingsarecharacterizedbyanirreducibilitytoobjects,inthattheyhavean
existenceintheirownrightandthatmayimbuethemwithagency,asBrunoLatour
underlined.46AndBillBrownremindsus,inamorepoeticvein,thatthingsare
“encountered”andneverquiteapprehended.47Theepistemologiesunderlyingthese
variousapproachesto“thingness”fallalongacontinuumbetweenidealismand
materialism,withBachelard’s“reifiedtheorems”reachingoverintothematerial
worldfromafirmlyheldpositionattheidealistendofthespectrum,and
Rheinberger’s“epistemicthings”erectingtheirsuperstructurefromamaterialistic
base.48
44See,forinstance,Chang’s“EpistemicObjects,”413-429.45W.J.T.Mitchell,WhatDoPicturesWant?,quotedinJaneBennett,VibrantMatters(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2010),2.46BrunoLatour,Wehaveneverbeenmodern(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1993).47BillBrown,“ThingTheory”CriticalInquiry28(2001),1-22.48Forafurtherexplorationoftheepistemicthinginmusicalcontexts,seemy“ThreeMusicTheoryLessons,”JournaloftheRoyalMusicalAssociation141/2(2016),251-282.
25
[4.3]Andinthemusicalrealm?Wecanseehowcertainaspectsofthis
epistemologycaneasilybeadaptedtomusicalpurposes.Justascertainscientific
phenomena,especiallythoseexistingbelowthelevelofperception,mustbebrought
toourattention,examined,andunderstoodwiththeaidofscientificinstruments,so
certainmusicalphenomenacanonlybesubjectedtotheoreticalscrutinywhenthey
manifestthemselvesassounds,producedbymusicalinstruments.Anyonewhohas
taughtanintroductorymusictheoryclassknowsabouttheimportanceofthepiano
inexplicatingmusic-theoreticalconcepts.Or,forasomewhatmorespecialized
example,AnnaGawboyhastracedtheriseoftheWheatstoneConcertinaaccordion
astheinstrumentofchoiceamongtheacousticallyinclinedmembersoftheRoyal
SocietyinVictorianBritain—makingitsurelythemostennobledmusic-theoretical
instrument.49Weshouldbecarefulnottoconstructasimplecause-and-effect
schema.Thedifficultyindecidingbetweenapodeixisandepideixisintherealmof
musicissymptomatichere:doessoundingmusic“prove”or“demonstrate”amusic-
theoreticalproposition?Aswewillsee,differentscenariosrequiredifferent
epistemologicalregimes.Perhapsthebestwayoutofthisdilemma,fornow,isto
thinkoftheinstrumentasfunctioningasafilterthatallowscertainpropositionsto
bemadeinsound,whileinhibitingcertainothers.
[4.4]Whereasthepianoclearlyplaysasuprememusic-theoreticalrole,itis
oftenlesscommoninstrumentsthataretheoreticallymostinteresting.50The
monochordwouldbearepresentativeexamplehere—leavingasidethedogged49AnnaGawboy,“TheWheatstoneConcertinaandSymmetricalArrangementsofTonalSpace,”JournalofMusicTheory53/2(2009),163-190.50ForareconsiderationofthepianoseeRehding,“ThreeMusicTheoryLessons,”264-270.
26
questionofwhetheritshouldcountasamusicalinstrumentornot.Butthereisno
doubtthatitgivesusvaluableinsightsabouthowmusicworks.Themonochord
contains,andmakesreadable,someofthefundamentalsystemicaspectsonwhich
musicdraws.Inproducingsounds,italsoproducesknowledgeaboutmusic.Thisis
theessentialfunctionofamusic-theoreticalinstrument.
[4.4]Inthismodel,inotherwords,wecanimaginemusiciansbecoming
veritablescientistsexperimentingwithinstrumentstouncovermusicalknowledge
andtodemonstrateitsprinciplesinsounds.Wewillexaminetwoshortexamplesof
musicalexperimentalistsfromdifferenthistoricalperiods:thefirstisNicola
Vicentino(1511–1575or76)andhisarchicembalo,whichwasconstructedinthe
1530s,andthesecondistherhythmicon,aninstrumentthatwasdevisedinthe
1930sbytheAmericanexperimentalistcomposerHenryCowell(1897–1965)and
hiscollaborator,theRussianinventorLeonTheremin(1896–1993).Thepointhere
isnottoconstructacoherenthistoryofmusictheoryoranorganologicalsurvey,but
toshowthediversityofpossibilities.Itgoeswithoutsayingthat,inprinciple,every
musicalinstrumentisalsoamusic-theoreticalinstrument.Butitisnotthecasethat
everymusicalinstrumentcarriesveryusefulinsightsaboutthemusicalsystemin
whichitoperates.(Arattleoratriangle,forinstance,willholdlimitedmusic-
theoreticalinformationofinterest.)Themoreinterestingexamples,atleastforour
exploratorypurposes,tendtobethemoreexperimentalones:theyareoftenthose
thatgobeyondaconventionalnotionofwhatmusicisorcanbe,preciselybecause
intestingthelimitstheyshowusmostclearlywhatisatstake.
27
5.TheArchicembalo
[5.1]Ourstoryaboutthearchicembalocentersonastrangebet.51Ataprivate
concertinRomegivenbytheinfluentialbankerBernardoAcciaiuoli-Rucellai,athis
palaceontheTiberinMayof1551,apolyphonicReginaCoeliwasperformed.Inthe
wakeofthisconcert,twomusiciansintheaudiencestartedanargument:Nicola
Vicentino,householdmusicianintheserviceofCardinalIppolitoIId’Este(1509–
1572),CardinalofFerrara,andthepapalsingerVicenteLusitano(d.after1561).
ThesetwowereengagedinadiscussionaboutwhethertheReginacoelibelongedto
thediatonicgenusornot.ItispossiblethatLusitanowasthecomposer,inwhich
casehewouldhaveapersonalstakeinthisdebate,butwedonotknowthiswith
anycertainty.52Asthediscussionquicklygotheated,itwasdecidedthataformal
debatebetweenthetwomusiciansshouldsettlethisquestiononceandforall.The
agreedwagerwastwogoldscudi,ahandsomeamountofmoneyatthetime.Three
judgeswereappointedtoadjudicatethedebate.Intheevent,oneofthejudges,the
NetherlandishmusicianGhiselinDanckerts(1510–1567),wascalledoutoftown
andhadtomisstheactualdebate.InresponsetoarequestbyDanckerts,Vicentino
senthimashortwrittenstatementimmediately,whereasLusitanoapparentlytook
moretimetowriteamuchlongerletteroutlininghisposition.Thisdiscrepancy
struckVicentinoasunfair—especiallyafterLusitanowasdeclaredthewinnerofthe
51ThisstoryhasbeenimmaculatelyreconstructedbyMariaRikaManiates,inhereditionofVicentino’sAncientMusicadaptedtoModernPractice(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1996),xi-lxiii.52Foradetailedandsensitivereconsiderationofthesedocuments,seeGiordanoMastrocola,“VicenteLusitanoentrehistoireethistoriographie:nouvellesperspectives,”inPhilippeCanguilhem,ChantersurlelivredelaRenaissance(Turnhout:Brepols,2013),58-78.
28
debate.Theaffairturnedbittersoon.BothVicentinoandjudgeDanckertscontinued
toholdagrudgeforseveralyearsandpublishedtheirrespectiveversionsofthe
headyeventsof1551,eveninmultipleversions.53Oneofthestickingpointsseemed
tohavebeenadefinitionalissue.AsMariaManiatesobserves,Vicentino’swritten
andnotarizedaccountinsistedonspecifyingthediatonicgenusas“purelydiatonic
music”ormusicadiatonicasemplice,atermthatwasnotincludedintheoriginal
documentssignedbythejudgesandfourwitnesses.54(Vicentino’sdocumentwas
alsosignedbyfourwitnesses,threeofwhichwerethesameastheofficial
document.)Danckertsnoticedthediscrepancyandtookgreatexceptionto
Vicentino’stamperingwiththedocuments.WhywouldVicentinomakethis
apparentlypettydistinction,andwhywoulditmattersomuch?
[5.2]Vicentinotookarathercomplicatedpositiononthequestionof
diatonicism:hearguedthatthechromaticandenharmonicgeneraoftheancients
wereneverabandonedbymusicians,butthattheyhadinsteadbeenfully
internalizedandwerebeingusedunconsciously.55Everytimeasingersangthe
intervaloftheminorthird,orthe“incompositetrihemitone,”56Vicentinoargued,
53Vicentino’ssideoftheeventsisincludedinhistreatiseL’anticamusicaridottaallamodernaprattica(Rome:AntonioBarre,1555),Bk.4,Ch.43.(Maniates,AncientMusic,302-314.)Danckert’ssideexistsinthreeversions,bearingthetitleSopraunadifferentiamusicale(Rome:BibliothecaVallicelliana,MsR56A),nos.15a,15b,and33.SeeManiatesxiv-xv.54ManiatesarguesthatVicentinodidnottamperwiththedocumentandsuspectsthatGhiselinDanckertslikelyfabricatedthisaspectofthestory.Itseemsmoreplausibletomethatthewitnessesdidnotnoticethissmalldifferenceordidnotconsideritsignificantinanyway,whereasforVicentinoitmadeallthedifference.55VicentinoreiterateshisclaimsthatmostpeoplemisunderstandgeneraandmodeinL’anticamusicaBk.3,Chs.15and48(Maniates,AncientMusic,150and203-4.)56ThetermsofVicentino’spositionareoutlinedinL’anticamusicaBk.4,Ch.43(Maniates,AncientMusic,305).
29
theywouldunwittinglyemploythechromaticgenus,andwhentheysangamajor
third,orthe“incompositeditone,”theywereintheenharmonicgenus.Initselfthis
isastrangeclaimthatseemshardtodefend,sincetheseintervalscaneasilybe
constructedwithinthediatonicgenus.Fromthisperspectiveitshouldcomeasno
surprisethatVicentinowaswidelyheldtohavelostthedebate.Butthisisnottosay
thatVicentino’sargumentwascompletelybaseless.Howevercomplicateditmaybe,
itispossibletoreconstructhiscase—aroundhismusic-theoreticalinstrument,the
archicembalo.
Fig.2.ExamplesoftetrachordsinVicentino’sthreegenera(fromL’anticamusica,3.45).Otherconfigurationsarepossible.
[5.3]WecanapproachVicentino’sclaimbyconsideringhisperspectiveon
ancientgenera,andthewayinwhichheimaginedtetrachords,thebasicunitof
ancientGreekmusic.JonathanWildhasrecentlyprovidedalucidaccountof
Vicentino’scomplextheory,whichIwilluseasabasishere.57Fig.2shows
57JonathanWild,“Genus,SpeciesandModeinVicentino’s31-toneCompositionalTheory”inMusicTheoryOnline20/2(2014).<http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.14.20.2/mto.14.20.2.wild.html>
30
diagrammaticallytetrachordsinthethreegeneraandtherelationsbetweenthem.
Thediatonicgenusisquitestraightforward,consistingofonesemitoneandtwo
wholetones.Thechromatictetrachordiscomposedofaminorthirdandtwo
semitones.Theenharmonictetrachordconsistsofamajorthirdandtwodieses(two
microtonalintervals,whichtogethermakeupadiatonicsemitone).Tomarkthese
microtonesVicentinohadtoinventanewnotationalconvention:headdedadot
overthenote,indicatingthatitisraisedbyoneminordiesis.Whilethesegenera
maylookfamiliarfromGreekmusictheory,thedetailofVicentino’sideasputsan
interesting,indeedrevolutionary,twistontheseconcepts.
[5.4]OnemajordifferencefromancientconceptionsisthatVicentino’sgenera
cansmoothlybeconvertedfromoneintoanother.58Vicentinoisquitespecificabout
howthesetransformationswork:thesemitoneofthediatonicgenusistransformed
intotheminorthirdofthechromaticorthemajorthirdoftheenharmonicgenus.
Thismayappearcounterintuitive,ifweexpectthesetransformationstobe
parsimonious—similarityofintervalsizeorshortvoice-leadingdistancesdonot
58KarolBerger’sreadingofVicentinostressesthetransformationalpropertiesofVicentino’stheories.SeeTheoriesofChromaticandEnharmonicMusicinLate16thCenturyItaly(AnnArbor:UMIResearchPress,1976).InL’anticamusicaBk.3,Ch.52(Maniates,AncientMusic,211),Vicentinounderlinesthetransformationalnatureofgenerawiththe(startling)suggestionthatthemusicexamplesinhistreatise,whichareoftenfullyfledgedmadrigalsormotets,beplayedthroughmultipletimes:firstwithoutanyaccidentals,inthediatonicgenus,thenbyaddingthechromaticaccidentals,andfinallybyalsoobservingthedotsthatmarktheenharmonicintervals.Thispointhasoccasionallycausedconfusion,sinceitseemstocontradictmuchofwhatVicentinoargueselsewhere.Fromaperformer’sperspective,however,thisrecommendationisprobablylessparadoxicalthanitmayfirstappear.InWild’sreport,therecentcollaborationbetweenPeterSchubertandJonWildinwhichtheyrecordedVicentino’smicrotonalmusic,operatedalongsimilarlines.SeeWild,“Vicentino’s31-toneCompositionalTheory,”fn.51,ontherecordingandpost-productionprocess.
31
seemtomatterhere.Instead,Vicentino’sruleofthumbistoput“thebigstepinthe
locationofthesmalldiatonicone,andthesmallstepsinplaceofthebigdiatonic
ones.”59
[5.5]Giventhistransformativepotential,itisusefultoapproachVicentino’s
tetrachordsfromtheperspectiveoftheirsmallestconstituents,theminordiesis.It
isthislowestcommondenominatorthatallowsVicentinotomovebetweengenera
smoothlyandeffortlessly.60DuringtheRenaissancethediesiscommonlydescribes
theminuteintervalthatseparatesonetonefromitsenharmonicneighbor.61
Vicentinospecificallydefinesthediesisas“exactlyone-halfoftheminor
semitone,”62—or,expressedinmodernmathematicalterms,√(18:17).Thisinnocent
definitionismoreexplosivethanitmayatfirstappear:thePythagoreantradition
heldthatirrationalnumbers—whichatthattimecouldnotbeexpressed
arithmetically,onlyderivedgeometrically—wereinadmissibleasmusical
intervals.63Eventwodecadeslater,afterthedustoftheRomedebatehadlong
settled,theSpanishmusictheoristFranciscodeSalinas(1513–1590)would
59Vicentino,L’anticamusica,Bk.3,Ch.45(Maniates,198).60Ibid.,Bk.3,Ch.52.(Maniates,210–11.)Thisisperhapsthebiggestdeparturefromancienttheories,whichtendtoproposeseparateratiosforeachgenus,thusforeclosingtheoptionofgeneraconvertingsmoothlyintooneanother.61Vicentino’scontemporaryFranciscodeSalinas,forone,insiststhatadiesiscorrespondstotheratio128:125.Thisratiohederivesfromthedifferencebetweenmajor(16:15)andminor(25:24)semitones.SeeFranciscoSalinas,Demusicalibriseptem(Salamanca:MathiasGastius,1577),Bk.2,Ch.21.62Ibid.Bk.0,Ch.15.(Maniates,18.)63Vicentinocarefullyoutlinestheconsequencesofthis“irrationalratio”fortheenharmonicgenusinBk.3,Ch.50(Maniates,207).PeterPesic’s“HearingtheIrrational:MusicandtheModernConceptionofNumber,”Isis101/3(2010),501-530,explorestheconnectionsbetweenmusicalintervalssuchasVicentino’sdiesisandtheformulationofirrationalnumbersinsixteenth-centurymathematics.
32
condemnVicentinoparticularlyforstrayingfromthepathofrationalnumbers.64
SoundEx.1:Vicentino’squartertones,fromManfredCordes,NicolaVicentinosEnharmonik(2007)
[5.6]ButdespiteoffendingorthodoxPythagoreans,thisdefinitioncertainlyhad
practicaladvantages.AsFig.3shows,Vicentinousedtheconvenientfactthatthis
diesiscorrespondsalmostperfectlytoafifthofawholetone,andsystematizeditby
dividingupthewholetoneintofiveequalmicrotones.(Ademonstrationcanbe
heardonSoundEx.1.)Onthebasisofthisrigoroussubdivisionofthe
wholetone,itispossibletoconceptualizethethreetetrachordsfromthegroundup,
startingwiththesmallestunit,theminordiesis.Eachtetrachordconsistsofthirteen
suchdieses,whicharedifferentlydistributedacrossthesoundingintervals.Going
backtoFig.2,wecanrecapturethediatonictetrachordas3+5+5minordieses,the
64ForaPythagorean,imaginingtheworldincosmicanalogiesonthebasisofperfectproportions,theexistenceofirrationalintervalsmeantthatthecosmoswassomehowoutoforder.(AccordingtoPythagoreanlore,Hippasusdiscoveredirrationalnumbersandwaspunishedbythegodsbydrowning.)SalinasdedicatesawholechapterofDemusica(Bk.3,Ch.27)toanexcoriationofVicentinoandhisarchicembalo.Theirdifferentinterpretationofthediesisisattheheartofthismatter.
Fig.3.Vicentinodivideseachwholetoneintofivemicrotones
33
chromaticas8+2+3,andtheenharmonicas10+2+1.Thewholeoctaveis
subdividedinthissystemintothirty-oneminordieses(5wholetonesand2diatonic
semitones,thatis,5x5+2x3=31).Vicentino’stransformationalconceptionof
generahassomeimportantconsequences:ifthebasicbuildingblockofallthree
tetrachordsistheminordiesis,andwecanmovefreelybetweenthem,thenwecan
onlydistinguishbetweenthegenerabymeansofthecharacteristicintervalsthat
theyemploy.
[5.7]ThesebackgroundconsiderationsputVicentino’sbetagainstLusitanoina
somewhatdifferentlight.ItturnsoutthatVicentinophrasedhisclaimsvery
carefully:everytimeweemployamelodicmajorthird,weareinVicentino’s
enharmonicgenus,andeverytimeweemployaminorthird,weareinhischromatic
genus.Or,putmoresharply:weknowbysoundingthesecharacteristicintervalsthat
wecannotbutbeintherespectivegenus.ItisalsointerestingthatVicentinokeeps
quietinthispublicdebateabouttheotherintervalsofthechromaticand
enharmonicgenera.Theminorchromaticsemitone(2dieses)ismathematically
identicaltothemajorenharmonicdiesis;thetwointervalsonlyderivetheir
differentmeaningsfromthegenerainwhichtheyareemployed;theycannot
thereforedefinethegenus.Thisintervalcanonlysheditsambiguitywhenitis
pairedwiththerespectiveothersmallintervalfromeachgenus:themajorsemitone
ofthechromaticgenus,ortheminordiesisoftheenharmonicgenus.Themajor
semitoneissimilarlyambiguous,asitissharedbetweenthediatonicandchromatic
genera.Theonlyremaininguniqueintervalistheminordiesis,thecontroversial
“irrationalratio”onwhichhissystemisfounded.Needlesstosay,Vicentinodoesnot
34
highlightthediesisinhisbet—though,inanycase,itprobablyhelpsthatthediesis
isnotemployedasamelodicintervalinconventionalsixteenth-centurymusic.
[5.8]Butthishedginggetsustotheheartoftheargument:Vicentino’s
conceptionofwhatmusicis,orshouldbe,wasfundamentallydifferentfromthe
musicthatexisted.(Onecanhardlyblamethesixteenth-centuryRomansin
attendanceatthedebatebetweenLusitanoandVicentinoforbeingmystifiedby
theseideas.)AsWildputsit,itoffersa“tantalizingglimpseofanalternative
pathwayformusicaldevelopment,”drawingonagreatlyextendedmicrotonalpitch
collection.65Vicentino’sscale,withits31-folddivisionoftheoctave,notonlycovers
thethreegenera(albeitinVicentino’sidiosyncraticunderstanding)butitalso
presentsaclosedsystem,spanningtheentireenharmonicsystemoverthirty-one
fifths.Inhisownassessment,hissystemhadtheadvantageofoffering“agreater
abundanceofsteps,consonancesandharmony.”66Hewasconvincedhehadmadea
majordiscovery—nolessthantheperfectdivisionofmusic.
[5.9]Inhissubsequentreflectiononthedebate,Danckertscommentedonthe
extremesecrecyunderwhichVicentinooperated.67Despitethelikelybiasofthis
testimonyfromahostilejuror,thisobservationsoundsfairlyplausible:thecareful
framingofVicentino’sbetsuggeststhathewasconvincedthathisclaimsmust
reflectsomefundamentaltruthaboutmusic,andthathewasunwillingtorevealthe
principle—the31-folddivisionoftheoctave—onwhichthisinsightwasbased.It65Wild,“Vicentino’s31-toneCompositionalTheory,”[1].66Vicentino,L’anticamusicaBk.1,Ch.8(Maniates,AncientMusic,49).67DanckertsspeculatedthatVicentinowashopingforapapalappointment.SeeClaudePalisca,“AClarificationofMusicareservatainJeanTaisnier’sAstrologiae,1559”inStudiesintheHistoryofMusicTheoryandItalianMusic(Oxford:Clarendon,1994),276.
35
seemsthatthissecrecywasamajorcontributingfactortolosingthebet:Lusitano
andtheopposingsidehadnoinsightintotheveryspecific,idiosyncraticmeaningof
histerms.Fromaconventionalmusic-theoreticalperspectiveVicentino’sclaims
simplydonotstanduptoscrutinyandseemclosetononsensical.
[5.10]Meanwhile,Vicentinowashardatworkdevelopingpolyphonicmusicthat
wouldmakeuseofitsfullmicrotonalpotential.AsWildpointsout,hiscompositions
goalongwaytowardclarifyingVicentino’sunderstandingofthethreegenera:
adherencetoonespecificorderofthetetrachord,thatistosay,toonefixedpitch
collection,wasnotimportant.Instead,itwastheintervalsemployedineachvoice
thatmattered:anyminorthirdandsemitonalmovement,majororminor,acrossthe
31-tonegamutconstitutedthechromaticgenus,andmajorthirdandmovementby
eitherofthediesesconstitutedtheenharmonicgenus.68
[5.11]Itisthe31-tonedivisionthatisattheheartofVicentino’sideasabout
music,whichgavehimtheconfidence—theludicrousover-confidence,onemight
say—thatmadehimengageinthefatefulbetwithLusitano.Thematerial
manifestationofthisideawasthearchicembalo,amicrotonalharpsichordthat
Vicentinoprobablyfirstdevelopedinthe1530s,thatis,severalyearsbeforethe
publicdebateandthepublicationofhistheoriesinL’anticamusicaridottaalla
modernaprattica(1555).69Thiswashisexperimentumcrucis.
68Wild,“Vicentino’s31-toneCompositionalTheory,”[32].69Salinas,Demusica,Bk.3,Ch.27,writtenin1571,indicatesthatVicentino’sexperimentswiththearchicembalooccurred“inthelastfortyyears.”
Fig.4.Vicentinocelebrateshisaccomplishmentswithamedal.Therectoshowshisprofile,theversoshowshistwoinstruments,thearchicembaloandthearciorgan.Themedalmarkshimasthe“inventoroftheperfectdivisionofmusic.”(FromMorton&Eden,AuctionCatalog59,November13-14,2012.)
36
[5.12]Asthefifthandfinalbookofhistreatisedetails,thearchicembaloisa
harpsichordwithtwomanuals,eachmanualhasthreeordersofkeys,including
severaldividedones:thelowermanualhas19andtheupper17keystotheoctave.
(Therearesomecomplicatingfactorswiththekeyboardlayout,mostnotablythe
confusingfactthatVicentinoaddsfivemorekeysthannecessaryforhistonal
system,sothathiskeyboardhasthirty-sixkeystotheoctave.Theremainingkeys
arenotpartofthetonalsystem,buttointroducepurerharmoniesandtheyneednot
concernushere.)In1561Vicentinoalsopresentedasimilarorgan,whichhecalled
thearciorgano;themachinationsbehindbothinstrumentsarecomparable.70
Keyboardinstrumentswithdividedkeysthatdistinguishedenharmonically
betweensharpsandflatshadbeenaroundforawhile,butthelengthstowhich
Vicentinowentwithhisinstrumentswereallbutunprecedented.71Histwo
instrumentsmusthaveseemedlikethephilosopher’sstonetoVicentino.Infact,he
70SeeHenryW.Kaufmann,“Vicentino’sArciorgano:AnAnnotatedTranslation”JournalofMusicTheory5(1961),32-53.71SeePatrizioBarbieri,EnharmonicInstrumentsandMusic1470-1900(Rome:Levante,2008).
37
wassoproudofhisaccomplishmentthathehadacoinforged,reproducedinFig.4,
showinghisprofileononesideandhisinstrumentsontheother.Hisinstruments
instantiatedhisideasaboutmusic,makingitpossibletoperformpolyphonicmusic
inanyofthethreegenera—andtoswitchfreelybetweenthem.72Whatismore,
giventhatthebackboneofhismusicalsystemwastheirrationaldiesis,therewasno
wayforhimtoexplainhisprinciplesbyarithmeticmeans—atleastnotaccordingto
thePythagoreanprinciplesatthetime.73Thevalidityofhismusicalsystem,withits
transgressive√(18:17),couldbedemonstratedinsounds,butnotbynumerical
proof.74TheonlywaytounderstandVicentino’smusic,anditsunderlying
principles,wastohearit—andforthat,thearchicembalowascrucial.
[5.13]OnemajorobstaclethatVicentinohadtotackleinordertoputhis
complexmicrotonalsystemintopracticewasthatsingersarenotverygoodat
pickingouttheexactintervalofafifthofatone.Vicentino,whosesurviving
compositionsarevocal,conceivedhismusicverymuchalonginstrumentallines.He
72ThetuningofVicentino’sinstrumentisofteninterpretedas31-equaltemperament,seeforinstance,Barbieri,EnharmonicInstruments,308-324.Vicentinodiscussesatleasttwodifferenttuningsystems,seealsoVolkerRippe,“NicolaVicentinoundseineInstrumente:VersucheinerErklärung”DieMusiktheorie34/4(1981),393-413,ManfredCordes,VicentinosEnharmonik:Musikmit31Tönen(Graz:AkademischeDruck-undVerlagsanstalt,2007),andWild,“Vicentino’s31-toneCompositionalTheory,”[4-9]andfn.16.73ManiatesnotesVicentino’sreluctancetogiveadefinitionofthediesis,whichcausedmuchconfusionamonghisdetractorsandsupporters.See“BottrigariversusSigonio:OnVicentinoandhisAncientMusicAdaptedtoModernPractice,”inMusicalHumanismanditsLegacy,eds.NancyKovaleffBaker,BarbaraRussanoHanning(StuyvesantNY:PendragonPress,1992),99.Thiscoynessisonlytoounderstandable,giventhathisdiesiswreakshavocwithPythagoreancertainties.74Vicentinowasawarethathewaseffectivelyrevivingtheage-olddiscussionbetweentheempiricistAristoxenusandthemathematicalPythagoreans,ashisopeningstatementsonsensevs.reasonmakeclear.SeeL’anticamusica,Bk.0,Ch.1(Maniates,AncientMusic,6).
38
complained:“Ohowimmeasurablyexcellentwouldmusicbeifsingers…could
intoneandsingacompositionasaccuratelyastheorgan!”75Vicentinowasworking
intensivelywithagroupofsingerstotrainthemtointonehismicrotonalintervals
precisely.Hehadswornthesingerstosecrecy,underthreatofsteepfines,lestthey
giveawayhisrevolutionaryideas.Tobesure,thisextremeprecautionraisedseveral
eyebrowsamongVicentino’sdetractors.76
[5.14]Heinsistedthatallmusic,vocalandinstrumental,shouldbebasedonhis
principles.Butgiventhetechnicalcomplexitiesofthismusicalsystem,andthe
difficultysingershadinintoninghisfifthtonescorrectly,thisinstrumentwasclearly
thebackbone,theembodiment,ofVicentino’sideas.77VincenzoGalilei,avoluble
criticofVicentino,recallsthetroublethesingershadwiththisenharmonicmusic:
Ifbymisfortuneoneofthesingerslosthiswaywhilesinging,itwasimpossible
toputhimbackontotherightspot.…Thusthiskindofmusicnecessarily
requiredaninstrumenttoguidethevoicesofthesingersthroughunknown
paths,nottosaythroughprecipitatecliffs.78
75Vicentino,L’anticamusicaBk.3,Ch.52.(Maniates,AncientMusic,302).76SeePalisca,“Musicareservata,”276.77TherecentrecordingofVicentino’smusicbyManfredCordesistelling:allthepartsexceptthesopranoareperformedinstrumentally.Thelonesopranomakesavaliantefforttointonethemicrotonesprecisely;thestruggleofthevoicewiththemusicisanimpressivepartoftheperformance.ContrastthiswiththeexquisiterenditionunderPeterSchubert,whichreliesonthetechnologyofautotunetoproduceaperformancethatexceedsVicentino’swildestdreams.(ExcerptscanbeheardinthesoundexamplesincludedinWild’s“Vicentino’s31-toneCompositionalTheory.)78VincenzoGalilei,Discorsointornoall’usodell’enharmonio,9v.,inFriederRempp,DieKompositionstraktatedesVincenzoGalilei(Cologne:ArnoVolk,1980),166.
39
Apartfromthedisparagingtone,Vicentinomightevenhaveagreed:healso
recommendedthatvocalmusicbealwaysaccompaniedbyinstruments.79
[5.15]ThearchicembalowasineverysenseinstrumentaltoVicentino’s
theory.80Italonecouldproducetherequiredintervalsthatmadethetheorya
musicalreality.81Hisinstrumentwasverymucha“materializedtheory,”in
Bachelard’ssenseasweencounteredabove.Wheremusicalexperiencewasin
conflictwithestablishedscholarlyauthority,itwasclearwhichwayVicentino
wouldturn.Headmitted—insomethingofanunderstatement—thatcertain
theoreticalpositionswerenotinaccordancewithBoethius,theforemostmusical
authorityofVicentino’sage,butcertainlyinagreementwithhisinstrument.82But
thiswasallthatmattered:thearchicembalo,whichallowedlistenerstoexperience
hisideaofmusic,functionedastheultimateepistemologicalauthorityinhismusical
universe.
[5.16]Thesixteenth-centurydebateswirlingaroundVicentinogotstuckonthe
questionofwhetherornothumanvoicescouldbetrainedtosingintervalsassmall
asfifthtones.83Thathistoricaldiscussionisnotquitethesamepointweareraising
here;theissueislessaboutthecapacityofthehumanvoiceandmoreaboutwhat
79Vicentino,L’anticamusica,Bk.4,Ch.42(Maniates,300).80DanielWaldenparticularlyexplorestheconnectionstothevisualarts,andsuggeststhatthearchicembalomaybemodeledontheperspectivalapparatusofDürerandhiscontemporaries.Seehis“DanieleBarbaro,NicolaVicentino,andVitruvianMusicTheoryinSixteenth-CenturyItaly,”inDanieleBarbaro:Vénitien,patricien,humaniste,(Turnhout:Brepols,2016),inpress.81Salinas’outrageatthearchicembalo,whichhecalled“prava”(crookedorperverse),suggeststhathewasalltooawarethatitbroughtirrationalratiosintotheworld.SeeDemusicaBk.3,Ch.27.82Vicentino,L’anticamusica,Bk.1,Ch.15(Maniates,59).83SeeManiates,“BottrigariversusSigonio,”91.
40
suchtrainingshouldbebasedon—itisaquestionof“turtlesallthewaydown”:the
demonstration,theepideixis,ofthefeasibilityofpolyphonicmusicwithina31-tone
systemisultimatelydependentontheexistenceofaninstrumentthatcanproduce
thosetonespreciselyandunambiguouslytotrainthosevoices.Vicentinoworehis
epistemologicalheartonhissleevewhenhespeculatedontheoriginofmusical
intervals:“Itisprobablethatthefirstpersontodiscoverthewaytosingthedistance
ofthestepsofthewholetoneandsemitone…couldnothavedonesowithoutthe
expedientofaninstrument.”84ThesameistrueforthearchicembaloandVicentino’s
challengingmusic.Abetterinvocationoftheepistemicthingishardtoimagine.
[5.17]ToreturntoVicentino’smusicalbetinRomein1551,everything
considered,itisprobablyunderstandablethatthejudgeswerenotconvincedby
Vicentino’sradicalideas.Thesewereexperimentalideasineverysense,andthey
clearlycontradictedBoethius’weightyauthority.Itisalsounderstandablewhy
Vicentinowouldinsistonthe“purelydiatonicgenus,”andwhythisfastidious
distinctionwaslostoneverybodyelse.Hehadveryparticularideasabouthow
musicworkedorshouldwork,ideasthattookseveraldecadestobeseriously
considered,andanothertwocenturiestobecomeworkedoutintheirmusic-
theoreticalimplications.85Eventhoughhefeltitwastooearlytolifttheshroudof
mysterytothepublicthatsurroundedhis“perfectdivisionofmusic,”Vicentinowas
convincedallalongthathewasright.Forhim,theproofwasinthepudding,or
ratherinhisarchicembalo.84Vicentino,L’anticamusica,Bk.1,Ch.12(Maniates,55.)85Barbieridiscussestwocirclesoffifthsbasedonthe31-tonescale,byAmbroseWarren,TheTonometer(1725)andQuiriniusvanBlankenburg,ElementamusicaofniewLicht(1739).SeeEnharmonicInstruments,346-47.
41
6.TheRhythmicon
[6.1]Thesecondcasestudy,HenryCowell’srhythmicon,takesustoBerkeley,
California,ca.1915,whereCowell,thenayoungcompositionstudent,wasworking
withtheethnomusicologistCharlesSeeger(1886–1979).Seegerintroducedhimto
polyrhythms,butCowellbecameincreasinglydisillusionedbytheinabilityofhuman
musicianstoexecutethesecomplexrhythmsprecisely.Hewrote:
Itishighlyprobablethataninstrumentcouldbedevisedwhichwould
mechanicallyproducearhythmicratio,butwhichwouldbecontrolledbyhand
andwouldthereforenotbeover-mechanical.Forexample,supposewecould
haveakeyboardonwhich,whenCwasstruck,arhythmofeightwouldbe
sounded;whenDwasstruck,arhythmofnine;whenEwasstruck,arhythmof
ten.”86
Cowell’sopeningtag“itishighlyprobable”shouldbereadastongue-in-cheek,since
heknewquitewellthattheunderlyingmechanismlongexisted.Afterall,earlierin
thesametext,hadCowellexplained,enigmaticallybutperfectlyaccurately:
Thereisawell-knownacousticalinstrumentwhichproducesasoundbrokenby
silences.Whenthesilencesbetweenthesoundoccurnottoorapidly,theresultis
arhythm.Whenthebreaksbetweenthesoundarespeeded,however,they86HenryCowell,NewMusicalResources,ed.DavidNicholls(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996),65-66.
42
produceanewpitchinthemselves,whichisregulatedbytherapidityofthe
successivesilencesbetweenthesounds.87
Thewell-knownacousticalinstrumenthewasthinkingofwasthemechanicalsiren,
whichhadbeenaroundforahundredyears.
[6.2]Letusbrieflyrewindfromtwentieth-centuryAmericanexperimentalismto
nineteenth-centuryFrenchengineering.In1819CharlesCagniarddelaTour
(1777–1859)presentedhislatestinvention,whichhecalledthesirène.88Itwas
originallynotthewarningsignalofmodernlifethatweallknowtoday,butrather
anexperimenttotestthetheoryofsoundgeneration.Atthetime,followingErnst
ChladniandThomasYoung’simportantworkonacoustics,itwasagreedthatall
musicalsoundshadtofollowthemodelofwindorstringinstruments,whichsetup
astandingwaveofregularoscillationsofpressurechangesinpositiveandnegative
directionsaroundaneutralzeropoint(whichcanberepresentedgraphicallyby
sinosoidsofvaryingdegreesofcomplexity).89Thesiren,bycontrast,produced
soundinaradicallydifferentway,whichcanbest,ifanachronistically,bedescribed
as“digital”:thesirencreatedaseriesofalternatingonandoffimpulses,justas
Cowelldescribed.
87Ibid.,51.88CharlesCagniarddelaTour,“Surlasirène,nouvellemachined’acoustiquedestinéeàmesurerlesvibrationsdel’airquicontientleson,”Annalesdechimieetdephysique12(1819),167-171.89SeeespeciallyThomasYoung,“TheoryofSoundandLight,”PhilosophicalTransactionoftheRoyalSociety90(1800),106-128,andErnstFriedrichChladni,DieAkustik(Leipzig:BreitkopfundHärtel,1802).SeealsoRobertBeyer,200YearsofAcoustics(NewYork:Springer,1999),1-25.
43
[6.3]Fig.5,takenfromapopularsciencearticleinHarper’sNewMonthly
Magazine(1872),showshowthesirenworks.90Asthecross-sectionshows,airis
blownthroughabellowsatthebottomofthedevice.Theairpassesthroughametal
discwithdiagonalholes,whichsetsanothermetaldiscontopinrotation.This
rotatingdiscalsohasholesinregularintervals.Everytimetheairpassesthrough
theholesanairpuffwillbereleased.(Twocountersatthetopkeeptrackofthe
numberofrotations.)Whentheairpulsesareslow,wewillhearthemasaseriesof
regularpulsations,asteadyrhythm.Butwhentherotationspeedpasses20
impulsespersecond,inotherwords:20Hz,ourearwillconvertthesefastrhythms
intoapitch,whichrisesasthefrequencyincreases.(Cagniard’ssireninactioncan
beheardonVideo1.)That’sthefamiliarnoiseofthesiren.Theprinciplewas
nothingshortofrevolutionary:thesirendemonstratedthatthetwomusical
parameters,rhythmandpitch,areinfactnotseparatedimensionsatall,butthey
existonacontinuum.90Anon.“TheSirenofScience;OrtheModeofNumberingSonorousVibrations.”Harper’s270(1874),844-849.
Fig.5.Apopularintroductiontothemechanismofthesiren,fromHarper’sNewMonthlyMagazine(1872).
44
Video1.DemonstrationofCaignard’ssiren,fromtheNationalMuseumofAmericanHistory,SmithsonianInstitution,WashingtonDC.<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs7CC4pdJeM>
[6.4]ThescientificworldwasaghastwhenCagniard’ssirenbegantowailand
scream,buthehadmadehispoint.91Thesirenwastheperceptualproofthatpitched
soundscouldbecreatedoutofrhythmicpulsations,dependingonwhetherthe
patternsthatcreatedthemwerepresentedaboveorbelowtheauditorythreshold
around20Hz.ForCaignard,thisphenomenonwasameresideeffect,whichhedid
notpursueanyfurther.Buttheideaofarhythm-pitchcontinuumgenuinelyexcited
musicians.
[6.5]Itwaslefttootherthinkers,scientificandmusical,toexploretheimplications
formusic,ofwhichtheOhm-Seebeckdebateisthebest-knownscientificdispute.92
Butinthemusicalworlditisworthdrawingattentiontothelittle-knownfigureof
FriedrichWilhelmOpelt(1794–1863),astateofficial,astronomer,andhobbymusic
theorist.Opelterectedawholeconceptionofhowmusicworksonthebasisofthe
91SeealsoPhilipvonHilgers,“Sirenen:LösungendesKlangesvomKörper,”PhilosophiaScientiae7/1(2003),85-114.92SeeStephenTurner,“TheOhm-SeebeckDispute,HermannvonHelmholtz,andtheOriginsofPhysiologicalAcoustics,”BritishJournalfortheHistoryofScience10(1977),1-24.
Fig.6.Theratio3:2correspondstotheintervalofthefifth.Opelt’smultiphonicsirenshowshowthecompoundrhythms,translatedintospatialsequencesofdots,asshownontheright,producetwo(ormore)sounds.(ThecirculardiagramincludedinFig.7showsthispatterninitssecondringfromthecenter.)
45
mechanismofthesiren,whichcausedall-too-briefexcitementinthe1830s.93Opelt
madethestartlingclaimthatthesirenprovidedthemechanismtoexplainall
aspectsofmusic,bywhichhemeantrhythm,pitch,andharmony.Buildingonthe
knowledgethatmultiplefrequenciescouldbesoundedsimultaneouslyononedisc,
Opeltexperimentedwithmultiphonicsirensandexploredtheeffectsofmerging
twoseparatefrequenciesintoone.Takethesimplehemiolicrhythmtwo-against-
three,asshowninFig.6.WeknowfromPythagorasthatthisratiocorrespondsto
theintervalofthefifth.Thiscompoundrhythmcanbeimprintedonasirendisc.
Whenrotatingatsufficientspeed,the[1/8–1/16–1/16–1/8figure]<insertnote
valuesinprint>rhythmwillturnintotheintervalofthefifth.Itmakesnodifference
whetherthefrequenciesarekeptseparateonthediscorcombined.
Video2:AdemonstrationofOpelt’ssiren,fromFlorenceScienceandTechnologyFoundation(FirST,FirenzeScienziaeTechnica)<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OHfQLtMWWc>[6.6]Thesameisobviouslytrueforotherratiosaswell.Opeltproducedadisc
withmultipledifferentfrequencieshappeningatthesametime.Thismultiphonic
sirencanbeheardonVideo2.ThecircularfigureincludedinFig.7showsOpelt’s
diagramforboresintheratio4:5:6:8.ThefourcirclesmarkedG,T,Q,O(for
Grundton,Terz,Quinte,Oktave)describetheseparateregularfrequencies,the
outermostcircleoutlinestheirregularcompoundrhythmofallfourputtogether.
Wealsoseethiscompoundrhythm,translatedintospatialdistancesandlaidouton
93Opelt’stheory,UeberdieNaturderMusik(Leipzig:HermannundLangbein,1834),isallbutforgottennowadays.ErnstRobel,DieSirenen(Berlin:Gaertner,1891-1900),5-12,considersOpeltfoundational,anddiscusseshiscontributionindepth.HansUlrichHumpertundHerbertEimertacknowledgeOpeltatvariouspointsintheirLexikonderelektronischenMusik(Regensburg:GustavBosse,1973).
46
astraightline,inthemiddleportionofFig.7.Asthesirendemonstrates,this
complexrhythm4:5:6:8isthesameasamajortriadinclosepositionwithitsoctave
doubled.94
94Technically,alltheholesof4coincidewiththoseof8,sotheloweroctaveisnotsoundedseparately,asOpeltrecognizedinhistext.Itseems,though,thathedidnotrealizethiscomplicationuntilafterheproducedthedisc.
Fig.7.Evenchordscanbecapturedascompoundrhythms.Theratio4:5:6:8,firstmarkedbyarrowsalongtheharmonicseries,thentranslatedintoasequenceofholes,correspondingtothecompoundrhythmofourcomplexratio,andfinallyprojectedontoaschematizedsirendisc.
47
[6.7]Backinearly-twentieth-centuryCalifornia,alltheseideasstoodbehind
Cowell’scallforanewmusicalinstrumentthatwouldcouplespecificrhythmic
pulsationswithspecificpitches.Around1930Cowellfoundacongenialcollaborator
forthisprojectintheinventorandRussianémigréLeonTheremin,whohadmadea
nameforhimselfwithhiseponymouselectricalinstrument,andwhocreatedthe
rhythmicononthebasisofCowell’sideas.DepictedinFig.8,apparentlythe
rhythmiconwasoriginallyconceivedaslittlemorethana“highlysophisticated
metronome,”95anditisnowsometimeshailedasthefirst-everbeatmachine—both
thesecharacterizationsmisssomeofthecentralfeaturesoftheinstrument,
especiallyasregardspairingrhythmswithpitches.Earlyreviews,itistrue,suggest
thattheoriginalinstrument,demonstratedattheNewSchoolinNewYorkon
January19,1932,hadverylittletoofferinthewayofpitchortimbre,andvarious
commentatorswereparticularlyconcernedaboutimprovingthepitchdimension.96
Butitsconceptionwasclearlywasasamusicalinstrument:Cowellandhisfriend
NicolasSlonimsky(1894–1995)composedanumberofpiecesforit,including
Cowell’sownConcertoforRhythmiconandOrchestra.97Ahistoricrecordingofthe
rhythmicon,fromtheholdingsofhisfriendJosephSchillinger(1895–1943)that
nowsurvivesintheSmithsonianInstitution,isincludedinSoundExample2.
95WilliamLichtenwanger,TheMusicofHenryCowell(NewYork:InstituteforStudiesinAmericanMusic,1986),132.96SeeRitaMead,HenryCowell’sNewMusic1925-1936(AnnArbor:UMIResearchPress,1978),188-90.SeealsoRogerNicholls,AmericanExperimentalMusic1890-1940(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990),140-41.97AreconstructionofCowell’sRhythmicanawaspremieredin1971atStanfordUniversity.SeeLelandSmith,“HenryCowell’sRhythmicana,”AnuarioInteramericanodeInvestigaciones9(1973),134-147.
48
SoundEx.2:Demonstrationoftherhythmicon,fromtheSmithsonianInstitution
[6.8]Likethesiren,themechanismoftherhythmiconisbasedontwometal
discswithvaryingnumbersofholesarrangedinregularintervals.98AsSlonimsky
describes,by“manipulatingarheostatwitharudimentarycrank,theperformer
automaticallyproducedprecisesynchronizationoftheharmonicseries,thenumber98Asmallnumberofrhythmiconswerebuilt.Oneinstrument,atStanford,wasdiscarded(tobesure,withCowell’spermission).SlonimskysoldhisinstrumenttoJosephSchillinger,whichendedupattheSmithsonian.AfurtherinstrumenthassurfacedinMoscow—doubtlessbuiltbyThereminafterhisreturntotheSovietUnion.Itcanbeheardonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkodVcuPVAo<pleaseembedfile,ifpossible,includedindocuments>.ItispossiblethatthisisthesamerhythmiconthatJoelSachslocatedinBudapest,seehisHenryCowell:AManMadeofMusic(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2012),539,n.110.ThesoundqualityisnotablyimprovedfromtheearlierinstrumentoftheSchillingerrecording.
Fig.8:HenryCowell’sfriendJosephSchillingerbehindtherhythmicon.(1932),photonowheldatStanfordUniversity
49
ofbeatspertimeunitbeingequaltothepositionintheseries.…Theresultwasan
arithmeticallyaccuratesynchronyscoreof32differenttimepulses.”99
[6.9]WecanseehowCowell’srhythmiconpursueseffectivelythesame
phenomenonasOpelt’smusicalsirenahundredyearspreviously,withone
importantdifference:therhythmiconhadakeyboardattachedtothemechanism,
whichmadeitplayableasamusicalinstrument,withfixedpitchesandrhythms.
CharlesIves(1874–1954),whofinancedthedevelopmentoftherhythmicon,
expressedreliefthatthedevicewas“nearertoaninstrumentthanamachine.”100
Thepresenceofthekeyboardnodoubthadalotdowithitsstatusasamusical
instrument.101Thekeyboardsuggestedvisuallyandhapticallythatthesounds
wouldqualifyasmusical.
99Slonimsky,MusicSince1900(4thedn,NewYork:Scribner’s,1971),1495.100SeeSlonimsky,PerfectPitch(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1988),151.Similarly,Mead,NewMusic,190,citeslettersinwhichCowellstellsIvesthattherhythmiconhasbeenacceptedasa“realartisticinstrument,”“withalmostwildacclaim,”“asopeningupafieldforbothmusicandinvestigation.”101TrevorPinchandFrankTroccoconvincinglyarguethatthepresenceofakeyboard—clearlysignifying“musicalinstrument”—gavetheMoogtheedgeoverotherkindsofsynthesizer.SeeAnalogDays:TheInventionandImpactoftheMoogSynthesizer(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2004).
50
[6.10]Asacomposer,Cowellwasclearlyexcitedbythiscorrelationbetweenhis
musicalintervalsandrhythmicpulsations.Heusedthisprincipleasthebasisof
youthfulQuartetRomantic(1915–17).102Thiscomposition,fortwoflutesandtwo
violins,worksontwolevelsatthesametime:thefourinstrumentsplayfreelyatonal
102ThequartetwaswrittenaroundthesametimeasNewMusicalResources,thoughnotpublisheduntilmuchlater.AdetailedanalysisisfoundininNicholls,AmericanExperimentalMusic,140-148.
Fig.9.(a)TheopeningofHenryCowell’sQuartetRomantic(1915)codifiesamajorharmonyinfourvoicesinthepulsatingrhythmsofeachpart.
Fig9.(b)InhisownanalysisofQuartetRomanticCowelldecodestherhythmicstructureofhismusicforusintohigher-orderharmonies.
51
melodiesatfixedrhythms,buttherhythmsthemselvescontainencodedpitch
information,sothattheproportionsbetweentheserhythmicpulsationsoutlinean
underlyingtonalstructure.Togivejustoneexample,inFig.9a,thefirstmeasure
juxtaposes6,5,4,and2pulsations,ratiosthatcorrespondtoamajortriadovera
rootinthebass.TheserhythmsactuallyencryptafullytonalBach-stylechoralein
fourparts,asecretmeta-compositionthatremainsunheardbyhumanears,along
thelinesindicatedinFig.9b.Itistrue,thispiecedoesnotsoundremotelylikeaBach
chorale.ButwecouldimagineetchingthecompoundrhythmsontoanOpeltsiren
andspeedingthemup.Playedatsufficienttempo,theproportionsofthissecret
musicwouldbecomeaudibleas(admittedly,extremelyshort-lived)harmonies.
Conclusions
[7.1]Turningtothebiggerquestions,whatdoestheexaminationofmusical
instrumentsasdeeplyengagedintheprocessofmusicaltheorizingdoforus?What
goodisthis“material”turnwithintheory?Let’stakeawiderlookatthecultural
historyofmusictheory.Oneofthekeyissuesthatthefieldhasbattledwithfora
whileisitsrelationshipwithspecificmusicalrepertoires.Attemptstorelate
theoristsfromthepasttothecomposersoftheirowntime,tomaphistorical
theoriesontocontemporaneouscomposers,tendtoberelativelyfrustrating,quite
simplybecauseourinterestsdonotnecessarilyalign:thequestionsthatwe,inthe
twenty-firstcentury,askfrommusicarenotnecessarilythesamethatthefigures
52
fromthepastwereinterestedindiscussing.103Ahistoricallymoresympatheticand
musicallymoresensitiveapproachisafundamentalnecessity.
[7.2]Byincorporatingmusic-theoreticalinstruments,asIsuggestedearlier,we
turnthetheorist’sstudyintosomethinglikeascientist’slaboratory—orperhaps,
dependingontheperiodwearediscussing,somethingakintonaturalphilosophers
andWunderkammern.Inoperatingwithsounds,withthematerialsthatmakeup
whatweusuallymeanbymusic,thesemusic-theoreticalinstrumentsarelocated
somewherebetweencompositionalpractice,theoreticalspeculation,and
experientiallistening.Itisnocoincidencethatthetwoexamplesdiscussedhere,
fromthemid-sixteenthandtheearly-twentiethcenturies,aretakenfromperiodsof
intenseexperimentation.Butthisisnottosaythatothers,lessintellectuallyfluid
periods,wouldnotbeopentothiskindofinquiry.Anynumberofotherpossible
scenariossuggestthemselves—andtheyarenotrestrictedtotheWest:theChinese
12lü十二律ortheArabicoudعودareprimeexamplesofmusic-theoretical
instrumentsinothercultures.
[7.3]Ultimately,theissueofhowamusic-theoreticalinstrumentworksisalways
amatterofthespecificquestionsweaskfromthemusicandfromthetheory.A
preciseanswerchangesfromhistoricalperiodtohistoricalperiod—or,ifyouwill,
fromoneFoucauldianepistemetothenext—andalsofrominstrumentto
instrument.Certainrecurringfactorsandissues,however,arenoticeable.Firstofall,
instrumentstendtocometotheforewheneverhumanperformersreachtheir
103SeeCristleCollinsJudd,“Thedialogueofpastandpresent:Approachestohistoricalmusictheory,”Intégral14/15(2000/01),56-63.
53
limit—pitchaccuracyinVicentino’scaseorrhythmicaccuracyinCowell’scase.The
instrument,asanobjectlocatedoutsidethehumansphere,canmakegreaterclaims
toobjectivity(ineverysenseconceivable)andisthereforeapreferred
argumentativestategy.104Attimes,thisnecessitytoholdhumaninterventionatbay,
orremoveitaltogether,iscounterbalancedbyaconcernattheotherendofthe
spectrum:ifnohumaninputisrequired,isitstillmusicthatwehear?Thisconcern
isvoicedfromtimetotime,andthespecterofthedehumanizedmachine,fedby
essentialhumanisticanxieties,invariablyloomslargebehindthoseconcerns.This
suggeststhatthedesiredepistemicobjectivityofmusic-theoreticalinstruments
operatesinaforcefieldthatisdeterminedbyacarefullycalibratedbalancebetween
humanagencyontheonehand,whichexpressesitselfin(soulful)music-making,
andthedehumanized,soullessmachineontheother.
[7.4]Second,allthesemusic-theoreticalinstrumentsrelyinsomesenseona
scientific—or,morebroadly,numerical—conceptionofsound.Thisseems
fundamentallyalientomuchoftheworkthatwearefamiliarwithincontemporary
musicologicalandmusic-theoreticalthought.ThefigureofPythagorasismorethan
emblematichere:thenumericalwayofthinkingaboutsound,whichplayssucha
smallpartintoday’smusicaldiscourse,isfundamentaltovirtuallyallmusic-
theoreticalinstruments.Sincethisfundamentalconceptionfeelssounfamiliartous,
wedowelltolearntoappreciatethesubtletiesbetweendifferentconceptions.Not
allnumber-basedapproachestosoundarePythagorean,andaswesawabove,there
areimportantdistinctionsbetweenanabstractmathematicalwayof104SeealsoPeterGallisonandLorraineDaston’sclassicstudy,“TheImageofObjectivity,”Representations40(1992),81-128.
54
conceptualizingsoundandphysical-acousticalones—eventhoughfromourmodern
perspective,thesimilaritiesbetweenthemseembyfartooutweighthedifferences.
[7.5]Andthird,wedowelltoreconsidertherelationshipbetweenmusic-
theoreticalinstrumentsandthemusictheorytheyoccasion.Ourstartingpoint,
Pythagorasplayingthemonochord,providesagoodexamplehere.ClassicistDavid
Creese,aftercarefullyreviewingtheancientsourcesmentioningPythagorasandthe
monochord,concludedthattherewasnocontemporaneousevidencethat
Pythagorasactuallyusedthemonochord.Henotedthatthefirstdocumenttomake
theconnectionbetweenthetwowastheverypassagefromNicomachuswe
encounteredinitially.Nicomachus,itshouldberemembered,livedsomesix
centuriesafterPythagoras;sohistestimonywasatbestbasedonhearsaypassed
downthegenerations.Nicomachus’claimhasbeenrepeateduncriticallythroughout
thecenturies,andovertimePythagorasevenmorphedintotheinventorofthe
instrument.Temptingasitis,weshouldnotassumethemonochordwasaround
whenthemathatthebasisofmusicalrelationswasfirstworkedout.Itbecamean
objectofscientificexperimentationmuchlaterthanthemathematicalrelationsit
proved.Creeseconcludesforcefully:“[D]oingmathematicalharmonicswithoutthe
monochordwasnotonlypossible,but…thereisnocredibleancientevidenceto
suggestthattherewasanyotherwaytostudythesubjectbeforethelatefourth
century.105Hepointsoutthatthe“mirage”thatPythagorasoperatedwith,oreven
inventedthemonochord,hasbeenconsistentlyfedbytheassumptionthatthe
105Creese,Monochord,92.Onthebasisoftheavailableevidence,CreesetracesthemonochordtotheEuclidiantreatiseSectiocanonis(Κατατομὴκανόνος)datingfromthe3rdcenturyBCE.Pythagorasisnotassociatedwiththisinstrumentinthistreatise.
55
discoveryofharmonicratiosandtheinventionofthemonochordmusthavebeen
concurrent.Themonochordseemstoservenootherpurposethantomeasureand
demonstratetheratiosofmusicalintervals,whichencouragedauthorsfromlate
antiquitytothemostrecentpasttoassumeaconcurrencyorevencausalrelation.
[7.6]Inaword,Pythagorasdidnotplaythemonochord.Wecanputthismythto
restonceandforall.LooseningthefirmtiesbetweenPythagorasandhis
monochord,betweentheoristandinstrument,willalsoallowustorevisittwoparts
ofourearliermethodologicalobservations:Wedefinedthemusic-theoretical
instrument,ontheonehand,intermsofBachelard’s“materializedtheory,”andon
theother,intermsofRheinberger’s“epistemicthing.”Infact,thetwomodelscover
oppositeendsatthespectrumofpossibilities:whileBachelardconsidersthe
instrumenttobethereifiedembodimentofatheory,Rheinbergerconceptualizes
theinstrumentasamaterialobjectthatallowscertaintheoreticalpropositionsto
issueforth.Putdifferently,RheinbergerisMarxtoBachelard’sHegel.Yet,thisdoes
notmeaninthisexplorationofmusic-theoreticalinstrumentsthatwemustmakea
firmcommitmenttoonepositionortheother.Itisnotnecessarythatthemachine
givesriseto,oremergesfromatheory,butratheritcanembodyorexemplifyit.In
thetwoexamplesatplaywesawtwodifferentwaysinwhichtheinstrument
featured:inthecaseofVicentinoandthearchicembalo,theinstrumentwasthe
linchpinthatheldmusicaltheoriesandpracticetogetherinasituationwherethe
paradigmofunassistedvocalmusicnecessarilyfailed.InthecaseofHenryCowell
andtherhythmicon,bycontrast,wesawhowtheinstrumentexplicitlypiggy-backed
onmechanicaldevicesthathadbeenaroundforacenturyandtransformedsome
56
preexistingtheoriesofmusicintoapracticalapplicationthatcouldthenbeusedin
composition.Alloftheseinstrumentsarelinkedbythefactthattheyputtothetesta
specificideaabouthowmusicalsoundworks—howitcanorshouldwork.Inthis
way,theorizing,composing,andhearingcometogether,inoftensurprisingways.
Othercasesarepossibleinwhichmusicalinstrumentsfulfillthefunctionof
“epistemicthings”andprovideuswithmusicalknowledge—ifweonlyknowhowto
makeuseofthem:eitherbyperformingexperimentsonthem,ormusic,orboth.