Talk:Pérotin

Pérotin's dates

An anon today added approximate birth and death dates (1160-1240). We really know nothing about Pérotin's life, unless there is some recent research of which I'm not aware; we know he was an adult around 1197-1200, when he wrote his four-voice organum, and he probably collaborated with Philip the Chancellor, which couldn't have been before 1220, but beyond that nothing; if someone has a source giving these dates, or even better some justifaction for them, could you please post here? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not change to "fl. 1197-1200," then? Grove simply says "fl. c. 1200." Badagnani 02:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, "fl. c. 1197-1200" can be misleading... "fl. c. 1200" would be enough in this case, especially to avoid confusion... Selfinformation 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hum, I'm going to change it to fl. c. 1200 for now, as "fl. c." adds quite enough ambiguity as it is, no need to have a three year span in which he "flourished round about -ish". Mak (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Pérotin and minimalism

I'm removing the statement "...and indeed it can be argued that Pérotin himself was a proto-minimalist." On the contrary, Pérotin's polyphonic structures were the most complex pieces of music composed up to that point in the history. If minimalism implies a deliberate paring-down or reduction of musical structure, then in an age when most music was still plainchant these compositions were ""maximal"", not minimal. On the other hand, it's accurate to say that some minimalist composers of the 20th century drew inspiration from Pérotin's work. InnocuousPseudonym September 21, 2006

Good call. Badagnani 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

John of Salisbury quote

It really should be noted that the excerpt is from Policraticus, written around 1160. However, as we all know, Pérotin was active much later, around 1200. What John heard was probably more reminiscent of the St. Martial repertory, which was far more improvisational and didn't adhere to any strict rhythmic system. So, though what he's likely describing is an important predecessor of the Notre Dame School, it lacks a fundamental, revolutionary characteristic of that repertoire: modal rhythm. If only there were a comparably detailed eyewitness account from c.1200... Epn10 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, De nugis curialium was not written by John of Salisbury, but by his contemporary Walter Mapp. This is an error. Nostalgicmodernist (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"More footnotes"

Instead of a giant "needs more footnotes" banner at the top of the article, can we please have an indication of exactly which statements are being challenged and need footnotes? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The banner is worthless without an indication of what needs an inline cite. In any case, anything tagged inline with {{Citation needed}} already puts the article in the appropriate maintenance category and makes the issue clear to the reader. Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Steve Reich

I'm not sure Steve Reich belongs in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renfield (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Petronius?

The first footnoted fact claims that Anonymous IV referred to Pérotin as "Magister Petronius" ("Pérotin the Master").

Should it not be "Magister Perotinus" instead of "Magister Petronius"?