Respond to the debate between attackers and defenders of late Renaissance polyphony. The basic issues at stake are (1) text expression; and (2) “moving the affections,” to borrow Girolamo Mei’s phrase. Is Mei right that polyphony is powerless to move the soul? Is musical complexity an aid or a hindrance to expressing the meanings of a text? Should music sound “natural” and simple, or ought a composer drape their text in rich polyphony and clever artifices? Does music need to make its text intelligible (i.e., audible) to move a listener, or does it not matter? These are some of the questions I want you to think about as you listen to Monteverdi’s madrigal and Strozzi’s monody (we did this in class).
<
<
<
<
Option A
<
<
You will advocate for Monteverdi’s madrigal. In your view, Mei and the others are wrong, and polyphonic music, imitative polyphony, is in fact well-suited to express its poetic text effectively and thereby move the emotions. (Though I am focusing on Mei, you can also contend with Galilei, Artusi, and any combination of them.)
<
<
<
<
Option B
<
<
You will advocate for Strozzi’s monody. In your view, Mei and the others are spot-on in their critique, and polyphonic music is incapable of moving the soul. You believe that monody solves the problems inherent to polyphony. (Though I am focusing on Mei, you can also contend with Galilei, Artusi, and any combination of them.)
<
<
<
<
Option C:
<
<
Take another position on the debate. Here, neither of the above options are sufficient and more analysis is necessary. You could even, conceivably, critique the very idea of picking “one one the other.”
<
<
<
<
Requirements, regardless which option you choose:
<
<
You must support your analysis by referencing/analyzing at two specific pieces.
<
You must refer to at least two SPECIFIC musical moments (with time stamps and/or a reference to the written text) for EACH piece you refer to.
<
450-700 words
<
please use PDF as sources
