Todd McComb replies to me:

>>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.

Sadly not everyone is as enlightened as you are Todd.  Too many
well educated people still think of the so called Middle Ages (which
socio-politically lumps together many more centuries together than when
just the music of this "period" is discussed) as being the "Dark Ages"; a
technologically backward time devoid of progress, full of superstition and
oppression.  Renaissance still means "rebirth" to many people - the rise of
the Reformation, the birth of Humanism, the revival of Classicism, the
flourishing of the arts and sciences blah blah...

>This is true of "aesthetic periods" in general, however, and they remain
>useful for purposes of simplification.

I am afraid it is rather this latter simplification I find unacceptable.
Categorization is a basic human necessity.  If it has to be done in music
then it should be done using value neutral terms devoid of simplistic
stylistic generalizations.

>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.

I made no claim to Josquin or Dufay being the more typically "Medieval"
composer.  I simply reject the whole line of demarcation between them.
My point was that from Dufay to Ockeghem, through Josquin to Gesualdo
I cannot draw such lines.  I see only a continuum of development.
Australasian academic trends are generally dictated by other English
speaking countries, namely the Britain and the US.  I agree it is uncommon
to see writers referring to Josquin or Ockeghem as a "late Medieval"
composer, but you do see it from time to time.  Furthermore to lump the
Franco-Flemish polyphonists together with Gesualdo, Tallis, Lassus, and
Palestrina as being commonly "Renaissance" strikes me as an example of just
this sort of gross oversimplification.

>The term "medieval" itself was not exactly created  with an eye toward
>the interesting features of this period,

True, and nor was the term "the Baroque" - an expression which has diverged
so far from its original meaning (which nobody could agree on anyway when
it was discussed on the list a while back) that we might as well call it
The Rhubarb Period!  It is a mere empty name full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.

>I have no problem embracing the term and letting the positive
>aspects of the period speak for themselves.

The trouble is that it tends to lump a huge variety of styles and trends
into the same basket.  Between Alfonso X "El Sabio" (1221-1284) and
Francesco Landini (c.  1325 -1397) there is a gaping gulf of difference
that the pigeon hole label "Medieval" does scanty justice to.  This is like
coining some label into which to stuff Brahms and Boulez together saying
the common aspects of the two "speak for themselves".  The unquestionable
self-evident nature of these historico-esthetic categories continues to
astound me.

>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.

The trouble is that all compositional periods are transitional.  Separation
is born of the human categorizing instinct, which introduces distinctions
which do not exist.

>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.

Again very true but we cannot deny the necessity of categorization.
It is how we make sense of the world.  We just need a system of
categorization which avoids the imposition of excessively gross esthetic
oversimplifications.  That means that I don't mind the term Ars Nova being
applied to the Franco-Italian contemporaries of Machaut and Landini.  It
does not lump several centuries together, but is restricted to a relatively
limited time span and geography.

So in summary I conclude that:

1.  Traditional Historico-Esthetics Periods ("Medieval", "Renaissance",
"Baroque", "Mannerist", "Romantic", "Impressionist", "Expressionist")
are meaningless empty pigeon holes.  They should no longer be used.

2.  Musical categories remain necessary.  Therefore we should
subdivide/categorize in terms of time periods / geography.

Satoshi Akima
Sydney, Australia
[log in to unmask]