YEARBOOK OF THE ALAMIRE FOUNDATION

116 THOMAS HOLME HANSEN
works that are most convincingly based upon music analyses, are the ones by Gustave
Soderlund (1947), Herbert Andrews (1958) and Thomas Daniel (1997), the work of
Andrews probably coming closest to Jeppesen’s.
Contemporary music theory is hardly referred to. 24 In fact, only two of the textbooks
base themselves to some extent on sixteenth-century treatises, one of them
being the book by Samuel Rubio (1956), who provides a very detailed account of
especially the Spanish vocal polyphony of the sixteenth century. The translator of the
work, Thomas Rive, clearly emphasizes that the book’s “technical discussion deals
with this music in the light of contemporary music theory, rather than from a twentieth-century
point of view. It should, in translation, serve to supplement text-books
dealing more specifically with the grammar of the style”. 25 Consequently, there are
very few references to other twentieth-century textbooks. The other work, written by
Peter Schubert, will be commented on later.
Regarding the third source-type, quite a few textbooks, mainly older ones, do
not support their subject matter with references, neither to theoretical treatises nor to
modern literature. The majority of the works, though, contain a bibliography, and
their authors state – in a more or less explicit manner – which of the other books make
up their basis.
It can be concluded, then, that (1) as to the source foundation of the textbooks,
only very few are based on systematic analysis of a large musical corpus; (2) relevant
sixteenth-century treatises are not included, except in a few significant instances;
and (3) most of the works are based upon some of the other twentieth-century textbooks,
adding their own analyses, exercises and assignments.
In all three of the above-mentioned areas, Knud Jeppesen was, so to speak, fully
covered. Most importantly, he had indeed carried out a minute analysis of a large
musical corpus. 26 In addition he was well versed in the theoretical literature of the sixteenth
century and had a profound knowledge of the counterpoint treatises of the
seventeenth through nineteenth centuries. But, although no other textbook has the
same documentational backup as Jeppesen’s, his work stands by no means unchallenged
or without supplementations.
The most obvious shortcoming in Jeppesen’s seventy-year-old mapping and codification
of the so-called Palestrina-style, namely the lack of a specific paragraph on
24 Andrews emphasizes that “the main purpose of the book is to present the particular technical usages of
Palestrina as they appear in his music … rather than as contemporary theorists might have seen them”; see
HERBERT KENNEDY ANDREWS (1958), p. 7.
25 P. SAMUEL RUBIO (1956), in the English translation (1972), p. xv.
26 I.D. BENT and A. POPLE, art. Analysis, (par. 2), in S. SADIE and J. TYRRELLeds., The New Grove Dictionary
of Music and Musicians, 2nd ed., London, 2001, 1, p. 547: “The aspect of Jeppesen’s work that makes it
scientific is the fact that the analyst is not selecting and summarizing: he is presenting the entire data for each
case and adducing laws from it objectively. … The preliminary work for this analysis must clearly have been
an exhaustive search through every vocal part of Palestrina’s entire output … in order to count and note every
interval in relation to its metrical placing”.