YEARBOOK OF THE ALAMIRE FOUNDATION

120 THOMAS HOLME HANSEN
adapted to today’s classroom”, in that his rules and his so-called ‘historically correct’exercises
are only to a very limited extent based on the music itself. 47 In Daniel’s
chapters on two-voice counterpoint, for instance, a large number of citations from
the polyphonic literature is found supplemented by extensive analyses, 48 whereas
Schubert’s corresponding chapters (amounting to more than 150 pages) contain only
a dozen repertoire examples, being filled instead with model-examples and examples
taken from treatises. 49
The differences are carried on when looking at the actual sources of the two
books. Schubert lists a number of sixteenth-century treatises but almost no modern
research literature, and he makes no references to other twentieth-century textbooks
at all. 50 In addition, he provides no page-references whatsoever to either music or text
throughout his book, thus making any check of the sources nearly impossible. Daniel,
on the other hand, lists a number of sixteenth-century treatises and quite a lot of twentieth-century
literature, 51 and he is very careful in giving precise references to all
musical and textual citations. Several other differences could be mentioned, 52 but it
should be evident that although both Daniel and Schubert aim at the same objective,
the number of dissimilarities between the two books is quite stunning. And, viewed
as textbooks, Daniel’s book clearly lacks student exercises and assignments, and the
lack of repertoire citations in Schubert’s book would at least have to be remedied.
Of course no such thing as an ideal or perfect textbook exists, encompassing the
entire vocal polyphonic output of the sixteenth century. In every case the author is
obliged to make choices regarding style, period, method and so on, in order to obtain
a suitable mixture of both continuity and change. The second half of the twentieth
century has witnessed a wealth of contributions to the further mapping of the musical
grammar of sixteenth-century vocal polyphony – the ones mentioned above in no
way being representative – and the results are slowly finding their way into the textbooks,
but to a very varying degree, and with very varying degrees of documentation.
With the exception of Jeppesen – to whom nearly all of the textbook writers
admit their indebtedness (Jeppesen’s two books are, without comparison, the ones
47 PETER SCHUBERT (1999), p. v.
48 THOMAS DANIEL (1997), pp. 167–274.
49 PETER SCHUBERT (1999), pp. 18–175.
50 PETER SCHUBERT (1999), pp. 321–322. This indicates that Schubert has formulated the contrapuntal rules
exclusively on the basis of sixteenth-century treatises and his own analyses, without being influenced in any
way by his twentieth-century colleagues – including Jeppesen. In that respect, it is unfortunate that Schubert
does not discuss essential methodological issues, for example the possible value and relevance of the huge
amount of twentieth-century research in relation to sixteenth-century treatises.
51 THOMAS DANIEL (1997), pp. 422–424, though, with an almost total negligence of English literature.
52 Both writers maintain the original notevalues of Renaissance polyphony, whereas the C-clef is used by
Schubert only. Daniel dismisses of the modern bar-lines and ties, utilized by Schubert, instead inserting the
so-called ‘Mensurstriche’, cf. THOMAS DANIEL (1997), pp. 27–28.