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

John of Salisbury: 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)

You are partially correct. The confusion arises from the similar subtitle of Salisbury's work - Policraticus, sive de nugis curialium et de vestigiis philosophorum. However the quote is from the latter. The former is Walter Map.

I agree, since virtually all of John of Salisbury's output can be dated to 1159 or earlier, it is unlikely his criticism of polyphony was based on any exposure to the music of Perotin. This section should be moved to, for instance, Notre Dame school. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 13:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Subsequently moved --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 19:48, 10 February 2019 (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"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myers6609 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm having a hard time sourcing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myers6609 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a calssic exampel of dyxelsia ;-) I am certain that you are correct (Petronius is another guy entirely, the French form of whose name is "Pétrone", not "Pérotin"), and it should not be difficult to find that necessary source. I shall see what I can do!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Beat me by a minute -- it should be Perotinus. It's in the NG and everywhere else. Antandrus (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably scrawled on fences around building sites, as well. Never mind. I have found the original, in chapters 2 and 6 of Anon IV's "De mensuris et discantu" (as styled by Gerbert and Coussemaker), if we need it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade

Page currently under revision. For earlier version see see here --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced material (mothball)

This passage was added in 2013, without citing a source. While interesting it is mothballed here till a source can be identified. Editor notified.--Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

An example of the dual styles can be found in his organum duplum on Benedicamus Domino. The chant melody for the second-tone Benedicamus is mostly syllabic with only three simple ligatures (more than one note on a syllable).

This part will be sung in extended continuous sounding syllables, laying an organ-point or harmonic basis for the duplum or vox organalis, a new florid line which will have many notes to the one of the tenor. Usually a single syllable in the chant comes back as a long note in the tenor, its length is governed by the development of the upper voice as it works toward a modulation to the next tone of the tenor. In this fashion, Be....ne..di...ca...mu....s is stretched out syllable per syllable. The next section, Domino, starts with a long melisma on 'Do' and is set in discantus style, where both the tenor and organal voice proceed in one of the rhythmic modes. In organum purum, the tenor tends to be static a lot on a few tones; in discantus style it has its fair share of the modal rhythms. At the end, the O of 'Domino' the tenor comes to rest on the tonic note, while the upper voice makes its final runs toward the tonic or the octave. At that point the organum is finished, and the 'Deo Gratias' will be sung choraliter. Organa exist for two to four voices. That for two voices, organum duplum, has the most freedom in performance, as it will invariably have many sections of organum purum, where the upper voice is rhapsodic and not bound by strict modal rhythm. In three- or four-part organa all the upper voices need to be organized rhythmically, even over a long static tenor.

There is another group of new compositions on new texts, the conductus, which exist in a variety of forms: monophonic strophic songs and simple or complex conductus for two to four voices.

The above editor has provided an explanation that this is based purely on their own performance history, not sourced, and therefore OR. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 12:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Images of Perotin

The image used at the top of this page is not well sourced but is widely used to illustrate recordings of Perotin's music. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ought to have rung a bell! Thanks for chasing down an ID. Sparafucil (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It was quite a chase but I had my suspicions from the start, based on style. Interwesting that even a reputable source such as RILM would go along with this (I have notified them). --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 17:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Which "Alleluia"?

I wish this were better captioned; it looks like the opening of Alleluia Nativitas gloriosae, one of several Alleluia verses attributed to Pérotin. Sparafucil (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not the opening, as given in the facsimile a little further along in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A little rusty here, but the pitches match, and rhythmic mode 3 is implied, yes? Sparafucil (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the E on the downbeat in the triplum. Am I missing something?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing I don't miss under magnification too, but plica strokes can be vanishingly faint, or perhaps the source is not unique. We should probably ID this one. Sparafucil (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just came across a version with the E spelt out, in Montpellier f. 9. Sparafucil (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Petrus Succentor

…there have been speculative attempts to identify the composer with members of the Notre Dame administration. The two candidates that have been suggested as possible identities for Perotinus are the theologian Petrus Cantor (died 1197) and the Petrus who was Succentor of Notre Dame from at least 1207 until about 1238. Petrus Succentor has been suggested as more probable, in part on chronological grounds, and partly because of the succentor's role in overseeing the celebration of the liturgy in the cathedral (whose choir was dedicated 1182), but other authors have dismissed this as improbable. Comment: How does Tischler in 1950 express disagreement with Roesner 2001, unless this is backwards? Also, Tischler seems to be cited in _favor_ of the Succentor in previous text: "For instance he has been described as a sub-chanter there, and associated with a Petrus Succentor, but all evidence is circumstantial at best."

This paragraph is still confusing, with Tischler cited for both the pro and con positions. Does he entertain the idea before "dismissing" it, or is he taking issue with Jenny, the only earlier reference? Is Petrus Cantor uncited? Sparafucil (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted. I will get to it. Just dealing with a few other issues on the page at the moment. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 23:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Revised. I think it would be all too easy to overdo the identification. It is all circumstantial. Only Wright pushes a plausible identity, most others dismiss it. Roesner at best, toys with the thought, "is a possible candidate". --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 17:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Lead image

I have serious concerns over the lead image. MOS:LEADIMAGE says it should "only illustrate the topic specifically" and "should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" – this fails both. There's no connection between Pérotin to Cantigas de Santa Maria other than both being during the Middle Ages... It seems extremely misleading, as most people will see the image, assume it of Perotin and think nothing of it (without looking at the note or reading the captain). I don't think the rationale of "has been used to illustrate recordings of Pérotin's music" overturns any of these issues. I would suggest it's removal, there's no need to have a lead image if a suitable one is unavailable, tons of medieval figures don't have one. If we do put a lead image, I would think moving up one of the scores would be far more appropriate. Aza24 (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We might even consider something like

Sparafucil (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Choir of Notre Dame de Paris in 2012. By 1188 it was a functioning cathedral, separated by a wall from the rest of the construction.

That would be better, but perhaps the colored photo + modern (and I'm assuming altered since Pérotin's time) wouldn't align well with the idea of a medieval composer. As I said in the edit summary, the infobox as a whole may be better replaced by the image itself, but I'm hesistent to offer that as a solution, since the inclusion vs exclusion of infoboxes is so contested on WP. Is there perhaps an older sketch/drawing/painting of Notre-Dame from Pérotin's time? Otherwise the music seems the most sensible option. Aza24 (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Black and white options only go back (on WP:Commons at least) to a 17c engraving showing the renaissance choirstalls. I'm not happy with the 15c illuminations either, at least now accurately captioned. Another photo, Clerestory of apse, Notre Dame, Paris, ZM.JPG shows fewer modern features. Sparafucil (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sparafucil, I don't know if you saw, but I added another (rather nice) image closer to Perotin's time. Also, see below Aza24 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Article layout

This article is, of course, admirably researched and written, but the layout seems less than ideal, and a bit confusing. I've split the ambigious "Work" section into "Historical context" and "Music" but I'm thinking it should look something like this:

• Historical context
  • Notre Dame School
  • Magnus Liber
• Sources (the first paragraph and quote from the current Life, and problems of identification section)
• Identity (the rest of the current Life, and problems of identification section)
• Music
  • Forms and style
  • Compositions
• Works

The sources could perhaps be before the historical context section... - Aza24 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Disuse of Organa singing

Organa were being sung until the early decades of the 14th century - Jacobus of Liège is among the sources for this. 217.254.40.190 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)