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]