Perotin documentary

We were shown several sections of this documentary in our listening lab on Thursday. Because the documentary was so long, we skipped several sections which made it seem very disjointed.

The first historian/musicologist that was featured made an interesting point.  He spoke about how history doesn't always progress smoothly and methodically.  Sometimes it makes leaps.  And this was the case with Perotin.  He was a man who created something completely new.  He created music with three or even four separate voices, and this was brand new.

In another part of the documentary, someone made the connection of Perotin's music coinciding with the invention of the clock.  The clock changed society and gave it a rhythm, it pushed everything forward and this is mirrored in Perotin's music where rhythmic modes became important.  And this is what made it possible for three and four voice parts. 

My favorite part of the documentary was watching the Hilliard ensemble practice and perform.  In one of their practices they are interrupted by a historian who asks them to sing it less rhythmically.  He wanted them to forget the rhythm and sing it freer, more ecstatically.  I was confused about whether he thought that they were singing it wrong, not the way that Perotin had intended it to be sung, or if he wasn't sure which way Perotin intended it, and was just experimenting with hearing performed in a different manner.  It seemed that the performers were using their knowledge of the rhythmic modes to aid in their interpretation of the music.

Part of the documentary showed a symposium where a few people got pretty feisty over their views of Perotin's music.   Because it was in another language and I was trying to take notes and read subtitles at the same time, I am not sure I understood everything that they were debating.  It seemed that the featured speaker was making the case that we really have no idea what the music sounded like in the day.  We can only make educated guesses and pretend to know what it sounded like.  Others strongly disagreed with him and made the case that we can know quite well what it sounded like if we use all of our knowledge.  I actually found it a little humorous that the debate got so heated over such a specialized issue.  I could never imagine myself at a symposium getting worked up over what the music of Perotin sounded like. 

That particular aspect of music is not one that interests me, but I know that it is important that those fields of study exist.  These men are similar to archeologists or paleontologists in that they gather as much information as they can so that we can know about people and cultures who lived hundreds of years ago.  The insights that they gather help us as performers to perform the music in the way it was intended, and if we do a good job, we can actually be a part of the preservation of history and culture, and that is pretty exciting.