Susan Rankin, Writing Sounds in Carolingian Europe: The Invention of Musical Notation. Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology, 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. xxiv + 404 pp. ISBN 978-1-108-42140-9
{"title":"Susan Rankin, Writing Sounds in Carolingian Europe: The Invention of Musical Notation. Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology, 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. xxiv + 404 pp. ISBN 978-1-108-42140-9","authors":"J. Contreni","doi":"10.1017/S026112791900007X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Leo Treitler concluded his seminal study ‘Reading and Singing: On the Genesis of Occidental Music Writing’, published first in these pages thirty-five years ago, with the obiter dicta that understanding the origin of music writing ‘is a question of semiotics, not alone of paleography’.1 While not denying that music writing is a system of signs, Susan Rankin’s important book argues that the sudden appearance ‘within a period of probably not more than fifty years (and probably rather less)’ (p. 328) of varieties of music script in the ninth century can best be understood from the perspective of palaeography. During the course of the ninth century music books and fragments of music came to be accompanied by supralinear notations. By the end of the century music notation was commonplace and had developed its own broad conventions. But was the ‘invention of musical notation’ a paradigm shift? In an early example of the careful and judicious reasoning that characterises her investigation, Rankin answers that it was not (pp. 77– 84). Memory was at the heart of music production, obviously so when music texts did not come with signs, but even so when music texts did come equipped with signs. Memory now worked in tandem with signs, signs that were written with the same quill and ink as the alphabetic signs they accompanied and thus the subject matter of palaeography. Rankin’s new narrative succeeds on several levels. It offers a panoramic and nuanced view of Carolingian music notation that deftly","PeriodicalId":42589,"journal":{"name":"EARLY MUSIC HISTORY","volume":"38 1","pages":"317 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S026112791900007X","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EARLY MUSIC HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S026112791900007X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Leo Treitler concluded his seminal study ‘Reading and Singing: On the Genesis of Occidental Music Writing’, published first in these pages thirty-five years ago, with the obiter dicta that understanding the origin of music writing ‘is a question of semiotics, not alone of paleography’.1 While not denying that music writing is a system of signs, Susan Rankin’s important book argues that the sudden appearance ‘within a period of probably not more than fifty years (and probably rather less)’ (p. 328) of varieties of music script in the ninth century can best be understood from the perspective of palaeography. During the course of the ninth century music books and fragments of music came to be accompanied by supralinear notations. By the end of the century music notation was commonplace and had developed its own broad conventions. But was the ‘invention of musical notation’ a paradigm shift? In an early example of the careful and judicious reasoning that characterises her investigation, Rankin answers that it was not (pp. 77– 84). Memory was at the heart of music production, obviously so when music texts did not come with signs, but even so when music texts did come equipped with signs. Memory now worked in tandem with signs, signs that were written with the same quill and ink as the alphabetic signs they accompanied and thus the subject matter of palaeography. Rankin’s new narrative succeeds on several levels. It offers a panoramic and nuanced view of Carolingian music notation that deftly
Leo Treitler总结了他的开创性研究“阅读和歌唱:关于西方音乐写作的起源”,35年前首次在这些页上发表,并明确表示理解音乐写作的起源“是符号学的问题,而不仅仅是古文字”虽然不否认音乐写作是一种符号系统,但苏珊·兰金(Susan Rankin)的重要著作认为,“在可能不超过50年(可能更短)的时间内”(第328页),九世纪各种音乐手稿的突然出现,可以最好地从古生物学的角度来理解。在九世纪的过程中,音乐书籍和音乐片段开始伴随着超线谱。到本世纪末,音乐记谱法已经司空见惯,并形成了自己的广泛惯例。但“乐谱的发明”是一种范式的转变吗?在一个早期的例子中,兰金的仔细和明智的推理是她的调查的特征,她回答说这不是(第77 - 84页)。记忆是音乐创作的核心,当音乐文本没有符号的时候显然如此,但当音乐文本有符号的时候也是如此。记忆现在与符号一起工作,这些符号与它们所伴随的字母符号一样,都是用羽毛笔和墨水写的,因此成为了古文字研究的主题。兰金的新叙述在几个层面上都取得了成功。它提供了一个全景和细致入微的观点,加洛林王朝的音乐符号,巧妙地
期刊介绍:
Early Music History is devoted to the study of music from the early Middle Ages to the end of the seventeenth century. It gives preference to studies pursuing interdisciplinary approaches and to those developing new methodological ideas. The scope is broad and includes manuscript studies, textual criticism, iconography, studies of the relationship between words and music, and the relationship between music and society.