Satoshi Akima writes:

>Any former stark distinction between the Middle Ages and the
>Renaissance has become completely blurred.

I don't know that it was ever viewed as stark, except perhaps by naive
eyes, but it's certainly true that there are few clear demarcations of
style.  This is true of "aesthetic periods" in general, however, and
they remain useful for purposes of simplification.

In the US, in fact, "the Renaissance" is usually taken to begin with the
generation of Dufay, whereas in France (and apparently Australia) it is the
generation following Josquin.  The truth is that this is reflective of the
divergence between two aspects of a doubly ramified shift, the increasing
use of thirds-based harmonies with the generation of Dufay, and the shift
in text-setting techniques to a more syllabic style in the wake of Josquin.
The latter also coincides, to the best of our current knowledge, more or
less to the end of Pythagorean tuning as a viable system.  The melismatic
style using tertian sonorities in this interim serves to form some of my
favorite music.

The term "medieval" itself was not exactly created with an eye toward
the interesting features of this period, but I have no problem embracing
the term and letting the positive aspects of the period speak for
themselves.  This goes not only for such transitional figures as the great
Franco-Flemish polyphonists, but "true" medievals like Machaut or Perotin,
whose music also speaks for itself.

I don't agree with using the period names as categories or pigeon holes,
but I do believe they can help clarify certain stylistic trends.  It's all
in the attitude of how one uses them.

Todd McComb
[log in to unmask]