Order today and save 35%!
Shh! We're sharing the discount code we created for
the 2024 American Musicological Society annual meeting attendees.
Enter AMS24CH in the shopping cart to save 35% on book orders.
Valid through November 24, 2024.
Discount does not apply to digital prints, paper offprints, or non-book items.
Cannot be combined with other discounts.
By A-R's house editors
There are four principal factors in determining score order in Renaissance vocal music: modern choral score order, defined, in descending order, as soprano, alto, tenor, and bass (SATB); voice names employed by the original manuscript or print; clefs assigned to the original parts; and the vocal ranges of the parts. Because of the prevalence of modern choral score order, all editions should begin with this as the guiding editorial rule: voices are arranged in standard choral order from highest to lowest. In three- or four-voice pieces with commonly named parts, this is a simple rule to apply: in Latin, superius/(dis)cantus, altus, tenor, and bassus; and in Italian, canto, alto, tenore, and basso (see example 1).
Example 1. Orazio Vecchi, “Erat Jesus” (opening), from Orazio Vecchi, Motecta (1590), ed. William R. Martin and Eric J. Harbeson (R160), 3.
With the addition of voices to the standard (i.e., modern) four-voice texture, issues such as voice naming, clefs, and range play important roles in determining score order. Possibly the most common additions to the four-voice texture are parts named ordinally, such as quintus/quinto (fifth), sextus/sesto (sixth), and septimus/settimo (seventh). Because the names of such parts provide no indication of vocal ambitus, and because the ambitus may change from piece to piece within a collection of works, the best approach is to place the part(s) in the score according to clef and/or vocal range. The simplest method is to place the ordinal part below the part with which it shares a clef (see example 2). So, for instance, if the superius part is written in treble clef and the quintus part is also written in treble clef, then the quintus should be placed below the superius and above the altus.
Example 2. Gioseffo Zarlino, “Ascendo ad patrem meum” (opening), from Gioseffo Zarlino, Motets from the 1560s, ed. Cristle Collins Judd and Katelijne Schiltz (R163), 5.
If, however, the range of the ordinal part is significantly higher than the part with which it shares a clef, then it may prove more felicitous to modern choral score order to place the ordinal part above its partner (see example 3, in which the range of the quintus is higher than that of the tenor).
Example 3. “Regina caeli laetare” (opening), from The Hymn Cycle of Vienna 16197, ed. Lilian P. Pruett (R169), 200.
If an ordinal part does not share a clef with any other part, it should be placed in the score according to range (see the quintus part in example 4).
Example 4. Gioseffo Zarlino, “Hodie Christus natus est” (opening), from Gioseffo Zarlino, Motets from the 1560s, ed. Cristle Collins Judd and Katelijne Schiltz (R163), 20.
Another common approach sources employ to name additional voices is the ordinal numbering of a specific voice type (e.g., discantus primus and discantus secundus, etc.). In this instance, part names should determine score order, with the second, and sometimes third, part placed in ascending order below the first. While this approach might sacrifice strict adherence to score order according to descending range, similarly named parts will, as a general rule, share similar ranges, and any differences will probably be negligible (see the discantus and bassus parts in example 5).
Example 5. Matthaeus Le Maistre, Missa Preter rerum seriem, Kyrie (opening), from Masses by Ludwig Daser and Matthaeus Le Maistre, ed. Stephanie P. Schlagel (R164), 125.
If, for a specific piece or group of pieces, there are two of every voice type, an alternative approach might be to create two separate choirs each in standard choral order and each with its own bracket (see example 6). While this approach is not necessary, per se, it might prove especially useful given an original context of antiphonal or separated choirs.
Example 6. Orlando di Lasso, “Quid vulgo memorant?” (opening), from Orlando di Lasso, The Complete Motets 21, ed. Peter Bergquist (R148), 245.
In fact, if such a performance practice is evident from the music or cultural context, this division would also be appropriate for choirs comprised of unequal divisions of voice parts (see example 7).
Example 7. Orlando di Lasso, “Providebam Dominum” (opening), from Orlando di Lasso, The Complete Motets 21, ed. Peter Bergquist (R148), 222.
Finally, for unnamed or named voice parts that do not conform to the categories discussed above, the key to determining score order again resides with the clefs and ranges of the parts. When deciphering the placement of these parts, consider that it is quite common to for parts in the clefs G1, G2, C1, and C2 to be assigned to the soprano (whatever that might be called in the language of the source), parts in clef C3 to be assigned to the alto, parts in clef C4 to be assigned to the tenor, and parts in clefs F3 and F4 to be assigned to the bass. However, these assignments vary considerably, and it is not uncommon for two parts to have the same clef or for parts to be higher or lower than what is considered the modern vocal range for that part. In cases such as these, the range of each part should determine the score order (highest to lowest), and the score order should determine the naming conventions adopted (see examples 8 and 9).
Example 8. Jean Mouton, “Sancte Sebastiane” (opening), from Songs in Times of Plague, ed. Remi Chiu (R172), 49.
Example 9. Franchinus Gaffurius, “O beate Sebastiane” (opening), from Songs in Times of Plague, ed. Remi Chiu (R172), 24.
For the complete Recent Researches in Music Style Guide, click here (PDF).
Have a question about making critical editions of music? Click here to ask A-R!