Talk:L'homme armé

Untitled

References are a mess, but I wanted to get roughed out with references before I forget where I found it all! Linuxlad 23:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could someone who has access to latest Grove check the ref.3 to Lockwood's article?

Actually I looked it up yesterday--it's in the l'homme armé article, pretty much as you say (I have the complete 1980 Grove but not the newer one). Antandrus 16:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tune

Hi Linuxlad, Antandrus, and whoever else-- Please let me know if the tune needs fixing in some way; it's easy for me to do with the software... Opus33 06:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine (agrees with Phillips in ref 3) - article is now way beyond what I could have done :-). (The tune differs slightly from that in Colles in 'The Growth of Music', but then Colles (who was writing his first edition in 1912) shows very little empathy with cantus firmus generally!). Linuxlad 10:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks perfect to me! Now it will be running through my head all day ... :-) Antandrus 16:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hallo. First of all, please forgive my mistakes in English... I have some sources without the flat in the keysignature. For example, in ChoralWiki there is a pdf version without any flat (http://www3.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/L%27Homme_arm%C3%A9_%28Anonymous%29). I have also a record of Musica Reservata (dated end of '60s early '70s of XX century) with this song without flat. In my opinion it sounds better without flat rather than with. As regards Robert Morton, in the same record, there is a 4 voice setting of this song, attributed to him. The reference of the record is: "The sounde of Musick" - Songs and dances from 1300 to 1600 - Philips 6747 004 (5 LP).Ltorre58 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

French text

I'm surprised at some of the spellings in the French.

• I think that 'viengne' is a simple typo (it is 'viegne' in the score above)
• I believed that French never had b's in 'doit' and 'doute', but they were inserted in English by would-be improvers.

Does anybody have access to an authoritative text? --ColinFine 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello CF, you shouldn't be too surprised, because French was spelled quite differently centuries ago. And French spelling, too, had its would-be improvers.

I believe I got the words from notes to a recording I own, which isn't a very good source. A scholarly article by Barbara Helen Haggh, Journal of the American Musicological Society 1987, pp. 139-143, quotes the original text. It agrees completely with what our article has, including "viengne."

The typo, therefore, is actually the "viegne" appearing in the score, which I'll fix next time I edit. Opus33 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, the OED says that French as well as English inserted the 'b' in 'douter' in 14th-16th century, but then abandoned it, while English kept it. --ColinFine 01:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello CF, The plot thickens:

(a) I found a digital copy of an article by Taruskin that includes a version of the original manuscript of the song, the so-called "Naples manuscript". The ms. copy has several spellings I have never seen, including "l'ome", "arme" with no accent, and a very abbreviated version of "chascun", hard to make out. "Viengne" is spelled as we currently have it in our article.

(b) Consulting the New Grove, however, I find that they spell "viengne" as "viegne".

What I think is going on is that, because the ms. spellings might confuse readers, editors have replaced them with (whatever they think is) more normal spelling of early Renaissance French. Hence the variation in "viengne"; different editors exercise different judgment.

As far as what to do: (a) I will make "viengne" consistent, as "viengne"; (b) it would be nice to include an image of the ms., which is quite striking. Unfortunately, Taruskin's has various annotations he put in by hand and can't be used. Cheers, Opus33 16:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, of course, looking for s sngle authoritative spelling is pointless, since spelling was never standardised in French or English until much later. But if there is only one surviving manuscript then that is in some sense authoritative. (The Jenkins that I am singing in next week says 'douter' and 'viegne', but then it also says 'chacun'. It's not exactly authoritative!) --ColinFine 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, could anyone give the proper pronunciation of the French text, spelling be damned? Are there two versions, one mediaeval, one modern? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:219B:E60F:345C:BF59 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable v non-notable modern examples

It would seem more consistent with WP practice to refer to all works which had had a public airing... Views?? Linuxlad 23:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Linuxlad, so long as we leave out ephemeral pop culture uses ("my favorite videogame plays this song when there's orcs"), I agree. Opus33 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He was armed because of orcs? Oh, never mind, different question. :) Agree with Opus. If the composers are notable--as these appear to be--I think their inclusion is valid. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I went too far in deleting the example of Karl Jenkins, who does indeed seem notable.

However, the example by Edward Gold is linked to a page on the classicalarchives site, which is a composer-submitted site for non-public domain works. Mr. Gold's recordings are all released on the Musical Heritage Society, who have a "composer-financed" business model.

There is no evidence that the "Symphony on Ancient Tunes" has ever been performed. The recording on the classicalarchives site is midi, other than the alto voice in the second movement. This does not seem notable to me and I believe that it should be deleted.

The reference to Christopher Marshall also links back to his own site, but the work is question seems marginably notable (according to his site "Vibrant set of variations on a Mediaeval theme, commissioned by Timothy and Hilary Reynish in memory of their son William, Premiered by the Guildhall Symphonic Wind Ensemble directed by Peter Gane in the 2003 WASBE conference in Jönköping, Sweden. Published by Maecenas Music (UK). Duration: ±17"."). However, it would probably be better if this linked to a Wikipedia page, which he does seem to qualify for.

I feel that there is much too much self-promotion which appears on notable articles such as this. I'm sorry if I went too far here, but I'm only trying to get rid of some of the Spam. Gretab 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created a page for Christopher Marshall and changed the link to that, and have deleted Gold, per my comments above. Gretab 08:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for (what appears to me to be ) a well-argued reply Bob aka Linuxlad 09:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What are the right notes?

Don Michael Randel has the tune slightly differently in his New Harvard Dictionary of Music (1986), and so does Christine Ammer in the Harper's Dictionary of Music (1972). Using these resources as a guide, I would change the "ar" in "Que chascun se viegne armer" from a G to an E.

Thanks, Anonymous. I did a bit more checking.

• The New Grove has G.
• The Naples manuscript, mentioned in the dicussion above, has G. You can view it at http://www.jstor.org/view/00030139/ap030112/03a00020/1?frame=noframe&userID=958e8da3@ucla.edu/01cce4405b00501cd98a3&dpi=3&config=jstor if you have JSTOR.

I don't know why Randel and Ammer have E. And, very curiously, when I listen to the song in my head, I hear E. I must have encountered this somewhere...

I would welcome further information on this puzzle.

Cheers, Opus33 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The recording of the two L'homme armé masses by Josquin, by the Tallis Scholars, has the song done monophonically as the first track. While I'm at work and can't listen to it now, I'm almost certain they sing "E" there. (They also sing it in the major key variant -- i.e. B natural, not flat, throughout.) So I believe both versions may be in use. Maybe we could revise the file to show both G and E with the E in parens? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea, though I hope first to figure out where these guys are getting their E from. Cheers, Opus33 04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An extra angle

I immediately declare that this is original work and not therefore suitable for inclusion in the main text. The work is in preparation for publication under that aegis of Thil Holger Borchert, the Director of the Groeninghe Museum in Bruges, and the Ruusbroecgenootschap school of the University of Antwerp.

I've added Craig Wright's The Maze and the Warrior, as he answers some long-standing problems in Belgian history. Professor Wright is Yale's Professor of the History of Music, and he brings out some aspects of this text in the context of mediaeval academia, in that it fits within a framework of the quadrivium, in particular as an exposition of Jan van Ruusbroec's On the Spiritual Tabernacle, one of the foundation texts on which his spiritual grandson Thomas à Kempis built the Devotio Moderna. Jan van Eyck's 1435 Fountain of Grace and 1432 Mystic Lamb cover the same territory, the entire thing pulled together by a papal bull of 5.1.1435 (in the Belgian State Archives, Anderlecht, Ecclesiastical "fonds") establishing an expiatory eucharistic chapel on the site of the communion desecration which caused the Brussels pogrom of 1370.

The relationship of van Eyck's work with this pogrom was treated by Josua Bruyn, Professor of the History of Art at Amsterdam University and founder of the Rembrandt Research Project, in his 1957 Utrecht doctoral thesis, Het Levensbron. At that time, he considered the Fountain of Grace to be a student's work using original cartoon designs (a decision based solely on the earliest documentary record), but a 2003 review by the Prado of the attributions of the Trinidade pieces it inherited in the late nineteenth century (of which this was the foremost revision) established that this was both earlier and Jan's own work.

Prof Wright covers the other side of the quadrivium subjects as well, somewhat inconclusively as he lacks the local knowledge of what Dufay was on about in the first place. There is a complementary collection of equally unresolved historical phenomena in the works of a Belgian art historian, Paul de Saint Hilaire, whose works generally left a number of puzzles hanging (many of them verging on the esoteric and fantastical) which Prof Wright accidentally ties up. The suggestion is that the esoteric angles of alchemy were rather more tangible than we are culturally conditioned to believe - which is why I'm placing this here, as it's personal conjecture someone else should verify - but that as they were the root of the modern science of Chemistry, they deserve more serious consideration, which the academic schools of the history of science are currently engaged in.

My suggestion is, therefore, that as Dufay wrote the Ecclesie Militae motet for Pope Eugene IV's coronation mass in 1432, which effectively declared Eugene's agenda of the Church Militant which is at the theme of this mass, and given that he is known to have travelled to Tournai in the spring of 1435, it is highly likely he was actually commissioned by the Pope to deliver this Bull, and we may therefore hypothesise that this is the period to search for the cantus firmus motet root of this mass, possibly in Tournai or Brussels libraries. Moreover, Alsemberg covers both Beersel, Dufay's birth village and where he was brought up, and the village of Ruusbroec, and is also the home town of the Peter the alchemist who sparked Phillip II's 1560 research which lead to the reorientation of the purpose of the Escorial and subsequently to Jan van Helmont's discovery of the gaseous state which is one of the most significant roots of the modern science of chemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.56.101 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Anonymous. Re. "I immediately declare that this is original work and not therefore suitable for inclusion in the main text.," I'm glad you're with the program, it is indeed Wikipedia policy not to allow original research.

However, I'm additionally concerned that the reference work you added has not been integrated into the article in any way. Can you provide some sort of reassurance that a reader who consults this source will learn something substantial about "L'homme arme"? If not, we really ought not to include it. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Anonymous: I verify that source, you should acquire it and absorb it in the quadrivium framework I discuss. I have confirmed his status in this detailed rspect with Pavlo Benosiuk, director of the Academy of Ancient Music, and Stevie Wishart, leader of Symphonie and referee on the Proms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

More detail on the Masses

I'd misinterpreted the disambiguation page Missa L'homme armé as a place to discuss the masses in more detail, and had added a list of recordings there. I think it would be better to include it in one place rather than by composer. Any thoughts or suggestions on including this as a new page (e.g. for more detail on Missae L'homme Armé) or including it on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrh1 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

About the origin/early uses of the tune

The text currently reads: 'One of the earliest datable uses of the melody itself was in the combinative chanson Il sera pour vous conbatu/L'homme armé ascribed to Robert Morton, which now is believed to probably date from around 1463, due to historical references in the text. Another possibly earlier version of the tune is an anonymous three-voice setting from the Mellon Chansonnier, which also cannot be precisely dated.' This doesn't seem right. The Mellon Chansonnier can be accessed at: http://imslp.org/wiki/The_Mellon_Chansonnier_(Anonymous) What's in there (on pages 88 and 90 of the PDF file) is actually 'Il sera pour vous conbatu/L'homme armé', the chanson ascribed to Morton (but transmitted anonymously here). Is there another anonymous three-voice setting, the source of which is mistakenly asserted to be the Mellon Chansonnier in the article? Or is it that the chanson in the Mellon Chansonnier was mistakenly assumed to be a work different from Morton's, there in reality being only one early three-voice chanson, namely Morton's? What's the source for the assertion that there are two early chansons incorporating the tune, instead of just one? 130.54.130.245 (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on L'homme armé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414201445/http://sheetmusic.berkeley.edu/courses/Music220/homme-arme.html to http://sheetmusic.berkeley.edu/courses/Music220/homme-arme.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)