Independent Study in Music History, Spring 2006 Meter Fluctuation in Lully’s Recitative By: Rémi Castonguay Hunter College, City University of New York May 24, 2006 In the last few decades, the operas of JeanBaptiste Lully have been the object of renewed interest. In turn, this revival triggered a thorough investigation of what lies at the core of Lully’s work: recitative. Indeed, the French master’s recitative technique has been the subject of interesting debates among specialist of the French Baroque. Much of the issues revolve around Lully’s use of fluctuating meter. This article aims at presenting different aspects influencing the use of meters in Lully’s operas. To this day, French Baroque musicologists still use the divisions of recitative established by Rousseau and his contemporaries in the second half of the 18 th century. Since these divisions are crucial to an understanding of French recitative, and also have an effect on meter usage, they will be introduced at the beginning. The second part will provide a closer look at the importance of text in recitative and how it too,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
25.3.2015 French recitative has traditionally been divided in three large categories: récitatif simple, récitatif accompagné, and récitat
influences the use of meters. Subsequently, a look at musical examples and French theories of meter in the
17th century will help to draw a picture of how different meters relate to each other and how certain
passages of recitative can be conceived. More specifically, a particular focus will be granted to the
alternation of meter signs C, , and 2. I will argue that these signs have to be considered differently
depending on where they occur in the musical flow (e.g. within récitatif simple, at the frontier of récitatif
simple and mesuré).
French recitative has traditionally been divided in three large categories: récitatif simple, récitatif
accompagné, and récitatif mesuré.[1] This model was first developed by Estève (1753) and almost
simultaneously by Rousseau (1768) who’s work served much later on as a basis to PaulMarie Masson’s
studies in the 1930s.[2] As explained by Charles Dill, evidence of a critical language for discussing
recitative in France does not appear until the mideighteenth century. Therefore, Rousseau’s views were
built one century after the creation of recitative by Lully and based on performances or scores largely
different from their original version. Neverteless, this division is still widely employed in music literature.
Here is an overview of these divisions:[3]
1. Récitatif simple is accompanied by a continuo and contains frequent meter changes.Example 1: Example of récitatif simple or ordinaire; J.B. Lully, Thésée, Prologue: "Contre un héros…”
2. Récitatif accompagné is divided in two categories: récitatif accompagné solennel and récitatif
accompagné pathétique. While the first type (solennel) only employed the orchestra to punctuate the
action with simple chord progressions, the latter (pathétique) exhibited agitated rhythmic
accompaniment and was used in intense dramatic moments, scenes of confusion like madness, magic
25.3.2015 French recitative has traditionally been divided in three large categories: récitatif simple, récitatif accompagné, and récitat
The definition of récitatif mesuré remains problematic to this day. In the 18th century, as those
categories were being defined, there seems to have been already a share of confusion. As Rousseau
explains, these two words, recitative and mesuré, don’t seem to belong together or rather contradict each
other. Rousseau also talks of this style as a recitative accompanying the accompaniment:Ces deux mots sont contradictoires: tout récitatif où l'on sent quelque autremesure que celle des vers n'est plus du récitatif. Mais souvent un récitatifordinaire se change tout d'un coup en chant, et prend de la mesure et de lamélodie; ce qui se marque en écrivant sur les parties a tempo ou a battuta. Cecontraste, ce changement bien ménagé produit des effets surprenants. [128]Dans le cours d'un récitatif débité, une réflexion tendre et plaintive prendl'accent musical et se développe à l'instant par les plus douces inflexions duchant; puis, coupée de la même manière par quelque autre réflexion vive etimpétueuse, elle s'interrompt brusquement pour reprendre à l'instant tout ledébit de la parole…On mesure encore le récitatif, lorsque l'accompagnementdont on le charge, étant chantant et mesuré luimême, oblige le récitant d'yconformer son débit. C'est moins alors un récitatif mesuré que, comme je l'ai
25.3.2015 French recitative has traditionally been divided in three large categories: récitatif simple, récitatif accompagné, and récitat
dit plus haut, un récitatif accompagnant l'accompagnement.[4]
As mentioned earlier, the categories of recitative are somewhat arbitrary and anachronistic as they
were established a long time after the death of Lully. In that regard, Rousseau’s influential Dictionnaire de
la musique (1768) was published eighty years after the death of Lully. Did the composer think in such
categorized ways or did he conceive recitative as an organic phenomenon where “each passage…is by its
nature a unique experience”?[5] In other words, is every moment of recitative a little universe? When
analyzing passages, what is important to realize is that the differentiation between, the different types of
recitative, especially between recitative simple and mesuré, is often difficult to establish. French recitative,
as Teleman once described it, “flows continuously, bubbling forth like champagne.”[6] Nevertheless, this
differentiation must be made since it influences directly the use of meters.
Beyond the organization exposed above comes an element that is crucial to the understanding of
French recitative: the importance of the text. French recitative is ‘ruled’ by the text in very intricate ways. It
is commonly acknowledged that Lully modeled recitative, at least partly, on the highly stylized
declamation of spoken theatre of his days. Baptiste also inherited the French traditions of metric freedom
(as in the 16thcentury musique mesurée), stressing the lyric accents of the text by marking both the rhyme
and the caesura. The French vers is indeed dividable in two hemistiches: in a vers of twelve feet the
division is of two hemistiches of six feet while in a vers of ten feet the hemistiches are usually of four and
six feet. In Lully’s music, the last syllable of each hemistich is usually accented.
In her seminal article about French Baroque recitative, Lois Rosow explains that a look at Lully’s
recitative:reveals the essence of the relationship between line structure in the libretto andmetrical notation in the score: though there are exceptions, in most cases the rhymeof the line falls on a downbeat or on the second stress of a bar (e.g.: third beat in aC bar). Furthermore, the caesura in a long line is likely to receive a metrical accentin the music as well[7]
In a more recent article, Rosow clarifies that while the rhyme almost always corresponds to a strong
beat in the music, the caesura and other “mobile secondary accents” are emphasized through different
means; pitch or agogic, harmonic or metric accents.[8]
Another important aspect of Lully’s recitative lies in the asymmetry of Quinault’s poetry. Indeed,
his libretti abound in alexandrines that vary in actual number of spoken syllable because of the mandatory
pronunciation of ‘the muted e’ at the end of feminine verses. Hence, many verses can actually be measured
to thirteen feet rather than twelve.[9] Similarly, lines of six and eight feet often add up to seven or nine
25.3.2015 French recitative has traditionally been divided in three large categories: récitatif simple, récitatif accompagné, and récitat
syllables. Hence, as Rosow argues, this asymmetry combined with need of barline placement dictated by
caesurae and the rhymes, has for effect the use of fluctuating meters.[10] Rosow explains furthermore that
while setting Quinault’s poetry to music, Lully followed the tradition of 17thcentury air de cour:in which frequent alternation between bars of duple and triple metre, even inthe middle of phrases, reflects a virtual absence of metrical regularity in thepoetry. Since the barlines are determined by the irregular accentuation of theverse, it is not surprising that passages of recitative designed to approximatespeech rhythms are notated with frequent changes of meter. The metricalfluctuations are not, as is sometimes said, purely notational – the bars notatedin triple metre contain music in triple metre – but the subtle interplay of fixedand secondary accents in the poetry means that the listener usually cannot tellwhere the barlines come.[11]
A question can obviously occur to the reader: why not avoid fluctuating meters by manipulating
durations without breaking the rules explained above? In a study of Lully’s Alceste, Claude Palisca
attempts to give answers to that question. By comparing a number of alexandrines’ and octonaries’ text
setting, Palisca demonstrates that “the number of syllables in a poetic line does not determine the duration
of the musical line.”[12] In his sampling, Palisca showed that Lully was taking anywhere from four and
half to eight beats of quarter notes to set alexandrines and octonaries of variable length. In his opinion, it is
clear that: “This range of musical linelengths demonstrate that the alternation of different versetypes did
not force Lully into mixed meters, because there is a great variety within a given syllabic count.”[13]
Logically, Palisca concludes that the composer could have easily set all the text to regular meter.[14]
What accounts, then, for the fluctuation of meters? In Palisca’s opinion, the rate of declamation “…
depends, at least much of the time…on the meaning and mood of a line.”[15] To convey these moods or
meaning, Lully’s recitative, as Palisca observes, uses rates of declamation varying from one line to the
other: at times, a rate of one sixteenth
note per syllable is used while at other times, a mode of one eighthnote per syllable will usually prevail.
This speaks to the association of speed and note values related to meter signs, which will be discussed later.
Palisca’s observations obviously conflict with Rosow’s approach. I believe that, rather than simply
conforming meter to obey the poetry’s accents, Lully also consciously chose the meters to which he set his
recitative. In using meter changes, Lully not only approximated text declamation in the French tradition but
also signified subtle changes of mood signaled in the text.
Example 4 below illustrates this idea. In the first few measures, starting where the meter changes to
C, Idas talks directly to his friend Atys. In a conversational mode, Idas invites him to admit his love for
25.3.2015 French recitative has traditionally been divided in three large categories: récitatif simple, récitatif accompagné, and récitat
from 4/4 to 2/2 (or C to ). This type of change often occurs at cadences but in this case, it clearly denotes
a change of character.
One can legitimately ask how these meters relate to each other. Are note values equivalent from one
meter type to the next? Interestingly, Rousseau says that:On ne mesure point le récitatif en chantant; cette mesure, qui caractérise les airs,gâterait la déclamation récitative: c'est l'accent, soit grammatical, soit oratoire, quidoit seul diriger la lenteur ou la rapidité des sons, de même que leur élévation ouleur abaissement. Le compositeur, en notant le récitatif sur quelque mesuredéterminée, n'a en vue que de fixer la correspondance de la bassecontinue et duchant, et d'indiquer à peu près comment on doit marquer la quantité des syllabes,cadencer et scander les vers. Les Italiens ne se servent jamais pour leur récitatifque de la mesure à quatre temps, mais les Français entremêlent le leur de toutessortes de mesures.[16]
Rousseau’s statement points to a concept of qualitative meter emphasizing the importance of text
over music in simple recitative. This view is corroborated by a number of other authors of the 18th century.
[17] In that vein, many authors of the 18th century also insist on the difference between song (chant) and
recitative. In terms of actual practice, Rousseau’s comments remain vague despite their interest. In
addition, a look at French theory treatises of the late 17th century cannot give us definitive answers to these
issues. However, they can help better understand some of the elements of practice of those days. By the late
17th century, the old proportional system had practically disappeared and new practices of metrical notation
were slowly starting to coagulate. What all theorists of the time agreed upon was that specific meter
signatures should be associated to specific tempi: “Or le signe qu’on met au commencement d’une pièce,
marque à la fois; combien il doit y avoir de notes dans chaque mesure, à combien de temps elle doit se
battre, et quel mouvement, c’estàdire quelle vitesse ou quelle gravité il faut donner la pièce."[18]
Simultaneously, many French theorists also agreed upon the discouraging gap between theory and practice:
“Mais c’est particulièrement dans ce qui regarde le mouvement des pièces, que les musicians prennent des
libertés contre leurs principes.”[19] Table 1 below, summarizes the views of a few French theorists of that
era.[20] The table organizes duple meters from the slowest to the fastest and triple meter in the same
fashion.
Table 1: The views on Rhythm of four French Music Theorists of the late 17th Cent. E. Loulié
(1696)C. Masson (1699)
J.P. FreillonPoncein(1700)
M. SaintLambert (1702)
4 beats. No specified
4 slow beats when used
“signe majeur”, 4 slow
“signe majeur”, 4
25.3.2015 French recitative has traditionally been divided in three large categories: récitatif simple, récitatif accompagné, and récitat
Example 7 leads one to believe that even in strict ordinary recitative, C and had tempo implications that
did not involve the 2:1 mentioned by Loulié. By strictly respecting that ratio, the eighth, quarter, and half notes of
the bars become respectively equivalent to the sixteenth, eighth, and quarter notes of the C bars. In other words,
at the meter change, the listener would not hear any changes of speed. Therefore, Lully must have conceived C
and in a ratio different than 2:1. In later operas, it should be said, Lully favored the sign 2 (2/2) over .
Examples such as example 8 show that the composer must also have conceived of 2 as not acting in a 2:1 ration in
relation to C.
Example 8 : J.B. Lully, Isis, Act I, Scene 5 : "Mais il doit s’expliquer autrement…"
Rosow attributes those shifts of meter from C to or C to 2 as matching “sudden exclamations” or
interjections.[29] I argue that such passages are so frequent that it seems unlikely that this explanation
alone could match every case. Loulié’s theory of a 2:1 ratio, as we just saw, is unlikely to explain all
passages. As George Houle also explains:“A 2:1 ratio between C and does not necessarily indicate a change of speedor of rhythmic quality, since notes of double size are usually found when thetactus is twice as fast. A perceptible change in the speed of the music does
25.3.2015 French recitative has traditionally been divided in three large categories: récitatif simple, récitatif accompagné, and récitat
occur if the tactus is somewhat faster. In order to be precise, this changewould need to be represented by a ratio more mathematically complex than2:1, the proportion specified by many writers for the diminution .[30]
This study of recitative provides only hints at the signification of meters in Lully’s work. I hope to
have provided new avenues for further exploration. A systematic and comprehensive look at the music
however, can only give us better answers. I also argue that a detailed look at the text, through the lenses of
literary theory such as rhythmopoeia and other 17th Century theories of text declamation would provide
invaluable insights into Lully’s composition process. These projects remain, however, beyond the scope of
this article. I would like to propose nevertheless, that rather than starting from the music and trying to
explain the use of fluctuating meters, one should start from the text as the composer did, and theoretically
deduce how certain passages were set to music. It seems indeed likely that Lully would have written bars in
after deciding of rhythms matching the words. Finally, let me warn the reader about any attempt at
systematization in a domain where each moment of music should be treated as a little universe.
[1] Charles Dill, “EighteenthCentury Models of French Recitative.” Journal of the Royal MusicalAssociation 120 (1995): 32350; see p. 233.
[2] PaulMarie Masson, L’opéra de Rameau (New York: Da Capo Press, 1972.)[3] This overview is largely indebted to Charles Dill’s article mentioned above and to: Monson,
Dale E., Jack Westrupt, and Julian Budden: 'Recitative : Up to 1800: History, Grove Music Online,Accessed March 15, 2006, <http:// www.grovemusic.com>
[4] JeanJacques Rousseau, Dictionnaire de Musique: Tome second, NR. In Oeuvres complètes deJ. J. Rousseau, mises dans un nouvel ordre, avec des notes historiques et des éclaircissements, ed. V. D.MussetPathay (Paris: P. Dupont, 1824), 13: 1155; see p. 1278, Accessed March 15, 2006<http://www.music.indiana.edu/tfm/18th/ROUDIC3_TEXT.html>.
[5] Patricia Howard, “Lully and the Ironic Convention.” Cambridge Opera Journal 1 (1989): 13953; see p. 143.
[6] Quoted in Lois Rosow, “French Baroque Recitative as an Expression of Tragic Declamation.”Early Music 11/4 (Oct. 1983): 46879, see p. 468.
[7] Idib., p. 469.[8] Lois Rosow, “Lully.” Grove Music Online, Accessed 16 April 2006,
<http://www.grovemusic.com>.[9] Nevertheless, we still refer to these verses as alexandrines.[10] It should be said also that the syllabic style of French recitative has a role in that equation.[11] Rosow: “Lully.” Grove Music Online, Accessed April 1, 2006
<http://www.grovemusic.com/shared/views/article.html?section=opera.004014.1.2.1>[12] Claude V Palisca, Studies in the History of Italian Music and Music Theory (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 502.[13] Ibid.[14] It should also be said that Italian opera composers, dealing with asymmetrical verses, namely
settenario and endecasyllabo, did not resort to the use of fluctuating meters.[15] Palisca, Studies in the History of Italian Music and Music Theory, p. 502.
25.3.2015 French recitative has traditionally been divided in three large categories: récitatif simple, récitatif accompagné, and récitat
[16] JeanJacques Rousseau, Dictionnaire de Musique: Tome second, NR. In Oeuvres complètes de
J. J. Rousseau, mises dans un nouvel ordre, avec des notes historiques et des éclaircissements, ed. V. D.MussetPathay (Paris: P. Dupont, 1824), 13: 1155; see p. 122, Accessed March 15, 2006<http://www.music.indiana.edu/tfm/18th/ROUDIC3_TEXT.html>.
[17] For an extensive look at this subject: Borel, E. “L’interprétation de l’ancien récitatif français.”Revue de musicologie 12/37 (1931): 1321.
[18] Michel de SaintLambert,. Les principes du clavecin: contenant une explication exacte de toutce qui concerne la tablature & le clavier (Paris: Ballard, 1702), p. 15.
[19] Ibid. p. 24.[20] Table I is by no means exhaustive but it is rather meant to give an overview of a few theorists’
views.[21] Lois Rosow, “The Metrical Notation of Lully’s Recitative.” In JeanBaptiste Lully. Congress
Report from the 1987 meeting in Heidelberg and SaintGermainenLaye, ed. Jérôme de La Gorce andHerbert Schneider. Neue Heidelberger Studien zur Musikwissenschaft no. 18. (Laaber, Germany: LaaberVerlag, 1990), 405422. see p. 405.
[22] Loulié applied his rule to airs but Rosow, following Peter Wolf’s suggestions applies it torecitative. She makes a convincing case of its pertinence in that context.
[23] Etienne Loulié, “Supplément des principes ou elements de musique.” [circa 1696], FPn, f. fr.n. a. 6355, fol. 138v, quoted in Launay, Denise. “Les rapports de tempo entre mesures binaries et mesuresternaires dans la musique française (16001650).” Fontes Artis Musicae 12/23 (MayDec. 1965): 16694;see p. 185.
[24] Rosow, “The Metrical Notation of Lully’s Recitative.” p. 409. [25] Ibid., p. 410.[26] Denise Launay, "Les rapports de tempo entre mesures binaires et mesures ternaires dans la
musique française (16001650)." Fontes Artis Musicae 12 (1965).[27] The earlier example 4 also “announced” a recitative mesuré that happened a few measures
later.[28] With time, Lully utilized less and less favoring instead 2/2. This coincides with publication…
[29] Rosow, “The Metrical Notation of Lully’s Recitative.” p. 410.[30] George Houle, Meter in Music, 16001800: Performance, Perception, and Notation
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), p. 14.