A Comparison between French and Italian singing Styles in (1636 – 1705)
As I proceed with my research, I cannot help but notice that a lot of French authors were comparing French musical style with the Italian one. It was quite an interesting rivalry relationship between the French and the Italian, so I found it necessary to dedicate a chapter to this topic. By reading about how the French viewed themselves differently, to what extent they felt they should point out their preferences, in addition to what they like or dislike about the Italian musical styles, we can find out more specifics about the French singing styles during the period in question.
This chapter aims at differentiating between the French Singing style and other styles during the period in question. What makes French style special and typical? How did the French view themselves? Since Italian singing style was very prominent everywhere else in Europe during that period, the two styles will be compared.
Throughout this chapter the primary references I have consulted include the 1702 François Raguenet dissertation Parallèle des Italiens et des Français en ce que regarde la musique et les operas and Le Cerf de La Viéville 1704 response Comparaison de la musique italienne et de la musique Françoise. The contemporary references include James Anthony’s 1974 book French Baroque Music: from Beaujoyeulx to Rameau, Elizabeth Hehr’s 1985 article ‘How the French Viewed the Differences between French and Italian Singing Styles of the 18th Century’, and Sally Sanford’s 1995 journal article ‘A Comparison of French and Italian Singing in the Seventeenth Century’.
As more and more Italian singers were coming to France and performing towards the end of the 17th century, there was quite some rivalry between the two styles. A lot of authors, including Mersenne, Bacilly, Le Cerf de la Viéville, Raguenet… etc. wrote about the differences and controversies between Italian and French music. From their descriptions we can also understand more how the French saw themselves and their music during this period.
1. Character
2. Voice Types
3. Language
5. Expression
1. Character
French and Italian musicians in this period were largely different in performing personality. French musicians tended to be more cautious and restrained by the “rules” in their performance for a sweet and ear-tickling timbre. On the other hand, Italian musicians had a bold, firm and assured character that allowed them to sing freely as they wish and add ornaments in places that were believed to be inappropriate by the French. The scholar, François Raguenet, in his 1702 dissertation entitled Parallèle des Italiens et des Français en ce que regarde la musique et les operas, described what he observed about French and Italian musicians:
French musicians believe themselves lost if they do the slightest thing contrary to the rules. They caress, tickle, respect the ear and still [they] tremble with fear that they will not succeed even after having done things as correctly as possible. The Italians, more bold, suddenly change the note and the mode and make double and re-doubled trills of a 7 and 9 measures upon notes which we would not even believe suitable for the slightest trill. They hold notes of such a prodigious length that those who are not accustomed to them, first of all cannot help being offended by such boldness which subsequently they cannot seem to praise enough. They make such lengthy melismas that those hearing them for the first time become confused. (Raguenet 1702)1
Raguenet continued to illustrate with examples how French and Italian reacted when singing consonances and dissonances by reason of their trained ears:
If one gives one of these dissonances to a Frenchman to sing, he will never have the force to sustain it firmly which [is what] it needs to make it successful. His ear being accustomed to the sweetest and the most natural consonances is shocked by the irregularity. He trembles when singing it; he wavers. Whereas, the Italians whose ears are experienced since childhood with these dissonances and were therefore used to them by force of habit, are as firm on the most irregular note as on the world’s loveliest chord and sing them all with a boldness and assurance which makes them always succeed. (Raguenet 1702)2
It appears that the French saw themselves as amenable and sensitive to intonations, whereas the Italians, in the French point of view, were reckless and inattentive. There were more complaints about the Italian singers by the French magistrate, Jean-Laurent Le Cerf de la Viéville, in his 1704 book Comparaison de la musique italienne et de la musique Françoise.
We do not believe that they are expressive, simple, or modest. (Le Cerf 1704)3
With this claim by Le Cerf, we learnt that the three important qualities that a French musician should have, or should aim at having, were expressive, simple, and modest. With this difference in character in the two nations, the taste on the voice types also differed.
2. Voice Types
In the 17th to early 18th century, French musicians were not missing the bass voice as was sometimes the case, apparently, in Italy. Raguenet justified the situation during that period:
I observed in the beginning of this parallel how much we had the advantage over the Italians in our basses, so common with us and so rare to be found in Italy… (Raguenet 1702)4
Unfortunately, the bass voice was not valued that much in the 17th century. Bacilly admitted that higher voice ranges were more successful in giving an effective and passionate performance, while basses were only suitable in singing angry songs or singing the bass part in an ensemble:
The bass voice is suitable for almost nothing but the emotion of anger, which appears rarely in French airs. As a result, this voice range must be content with partsinging and doing the job for which nature seems to have destined it; i.e., singing the bass part rather than the melody. (Bacilly 1668)5
In general, the voice types preferred in both France and Italy were the higher voice ranges, i.e., sopranos, boy trebles, and castratos. Nevertheless, the castrato voice was non-existent in France, and it was also controversial among the Frenchmen. Some believed that the castrato voices were the most charming voices that resembled that of the nightingale, some thought that they were too strong and irritating.
Raguenet was one of those who were very envious about the castratos in Italy. He thought that the advantage of having bass voices in France were not comparable to that of having castratos in Italy, which did not even exist in France:
[…] but how small this is in comparison to the benefit their operas receive from their castratos, who abound without number among them, whereas there is not one to be found in all of France. Our women’s voices are indeed as soft and agreeable as are those of their castratos, but then they are far from being either so strong or lively. No man or woman in the world can boast of a voice like theirs; they are clear, they are moving, and they affect the soul itself.
Sometimes you hear a symphony so charming you think that nothing in music can exceed it until you suddenly perceive it was designed only to accompany a more charming air sung by one of these castratos, who, with a voice the most clear and at the same time equally soft, pierces the symphony and tops the instruments with an agreeableness which they that hear it may conceive but will never be able to describe. (Raguenet 1702)6
Raguenet went on describing how the Italian castratos were having a great advantage over the French masculine voice by reason of the castratos’ fine and soft voice, which was precisely the ideal timbre in the period. The castratos were also better in the sense that their vocal “shelf lives” were longer than that of the female sopranos:
[…] in this the Italian lovers have a very great advantage over ours, whose hoarse masculine voices ill agree with the fine soft things they are to say to their mistresses. Besides, the Italian voices being equally strong as they are soft, we hear all they sing very distinctly, whereas half of it is lost upon our French theatre unless we sit close to the stage or have the spirit of divination. Our upper parts are usually performed by girls who have neither lungs nor wind, whereas the same parts in Italy are always performed by men whose firm piercing voices are to heard clearly in the largest theatres without losing a syllable, sit where you will.
But the greatest advantage the Italian receive from these castratos is that their voices hold good for thirty or forty years together, whereas our women begin to lose the beauty of theirs at ten or twelve years. (Raguenet 1702)7
On the other hand, Le Cerf disagreed with Raguenet in that he disliked the voices of castratos, considering the fact that they were too irritating and would even hurt the ears of the listeners if they would be singing a big role in an opera:
I will state only that it is true that the voices of the castratos are admirable for singing five or six airs in an opera. But they are so “strong” and so “piercing” that they become for that very reason incapable of a large role. For, in the long run, they irritate and wound the ear…(Le Cerf 1704)8
Le Cerf added that French had their own sweet masculine voices, such as the countertenors and the tenors, that were a good alternative to the Italian castratos. Interestingly, Le Cerf described the French masculine voice in an opposite way with Raguenet’s thought— “hoarse” and “ill agree with the fine soft things”.
But doesn’t it seem that we have in our theatre only heavy, masculine voices? When it is necessary to fill the role of preferred lover, have we neither counter-tenors nor tenors whose voices are as sweet, flexible, and high as they need to be to express sweet sentiments tenderly. (Le Cerf 1704)9
The castrato voice is truly a debatable topic even for now. I once heard a recording of Ave Maria sung by the castrato Alessandro Moreschi in the album The Last Castrato with my fellow colleagues. I personally find it really hard to appreciate the voice, however, to my surprise, many of my colleagues thought the song was beautifully sung. Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that the voice was also controversial in 17th-century France.
3. Language
Besides the types of voice, there were a great deal of emphasis in the differences of the two languages. Both 17th-century Italian and French authors, such as Monteverdi, Mersenne and Bacilly, assured the importance of language in solo vocal music:
[…] and finally by loftier spirits with a better understanding of true art, he understands the one that turns on the perfection of the melody, that is, the one that considers harmony not commanding, but commanded, and makes the words the mistress of the harmony. (Monteverdi 1607)10
One of the great perfections of song consists of good pronunciation of the words and rendering them so distinctly that the auditors do not lose a single syllable… (Mersenne 1636)11
[…] Good pronunciation exists for the purpose of giving expression of finesse to the vocal line… (Bacilly 1668)12
Although both Italian and French solo vocal music in this period had the same aesthetic desire for singers to express text clearly so as to move the souls, their stylistic way of execution was quite different. As explained by Bacilly, the Italian language had a great advantage over French language for French had a certain inherent “strictness” in the language itself:
Italian airs most certainly have some advantage over the French, especially in relation to long recitative sections, but I don’t know but what this advantage doesn’t spring from the fact that the Italian language permits more freedom than the French, whose strictness (which is perhaps excessive) tends to hold composers in check and often prevents them from doing everything which their genius would inspire.13
Bacilly believed that the Italian language had more freedom than French. Raguenet, who had a preference for Italian music after his journey in Italy, shared the same view with Bacilly that he believed the mute syllables and diphthongs in the French language are a great disadvantage.
The Italian language has a great advantage over the French [language] when sung… [In Italian] the beauty of the passage notes and of the trills becomes more apparent. By contrast, the French make them [i.e. flourishes] indiscriminately on all vowels; on the most silent as on the most sonorous. Often, they even make them on diphthongs like those in the words ‘Chaîne’ [chain] and ‘Gloire’ [Glory], etc. (Raguenet 1702)14
Nevertheless, Le Cerf disagreed with Raguenet in his 1704 book. He pointed out that it was true that some words were more difficult to pronounce, but that language was not a valid excuse, it was only a very slight disadvantage.
I will not deny at all that the Italians do not have greater ease than we do in making runs and trills on most of their vowels, and I likewise will admit in all sincerity that I agree with Mr. l’Abbé R. that our diphthongs, as in the words ‘Gloire’, ‘Chaîne’, etc., cause a confusing sound, hardly fitting for runs and trills; but I reply that all these flourishes, all these runs, are hardly natural ornaments and should not be used except in moderation; it is a very slight disadvantage for our language to be less well suited for this than Italian, in which this advantage has been and continues to be truly fatal. (Le Cerf 1704)15
Bacilly added that the elisions of syllables in Italian language allowed Italian composers to repeat or shorten a word as they wished. The French language would not allow a word to be repeated for as many times as a composer wanted.
For instance, in addition to the freedom which is permissible in Italian, as exemplified by the elisions of syllables, which can be used to shorten words whenever one wishes (which is never allowed in French), it is permissible to repeat Italian words at any length that happens to please the composer. The result is that a small four-line verse can be transformed into quite a lengthy air by means of these repetitions (this also applies in setting the Latin language). These repetitions are even extended to words which would seem hardly to be worth the effort, which sounds ridiculous applied to our language. (Bacilly 1668)16
Bacilly believed that French words cannot be repeated in the same way as in Italian, and in the French language it could only happen when it produces “a sweet and familiar connotation in the vocal setting”.17 Le Cerf recorded an interesting conversation about the repetition of words in Italian and French songs. It described that while Lully would only repeat the same word three times at the most, the Italian repetition of the last line could go on for another quarter of an hour.
“As for me,” said the Countess, “I admit that I am tired of hearing them repeat the same words so many times, composing an air ‘as long as a tale’ on four short lines. How many times does Lully repeat the same words?”
“Three, Madame, at the most.”
“I should think,” she continued, “that that is enough. It is hardly natural to repeat further what one wishes to express in the most effective way.”
“Oh, Madame, the Italians have other tricks. When they have repeated the last two lines of the air once or twice, you believe it is finished. But you are mistaken. On the last syllable of the last word, which often adds nothing to the sense, but where there will be some ‘a’ or ‘o’ sound appropriate for their playful passages, they put in an ornament of five or six measures, taking advantage of it by repeating the last line three or four times with new energy. There is enough for another quarter of an hour.” (Le Cerf 1704)18
Although the French language had certain restrictions and had less freedom than the Italian language, this interesting text can more or less summarize how the French viewed their own language in musical setting: natural, non-repeating and effective.
4. Ornamentation
It was not only the Italian language that the French found unnatural, but also the Italian style of ornamentation. Le Cerf expanded on this subject in his 1704 response, in which he described that the Italians would ornament a line with two to three octaves in five to six measures:
“Their love of extraordinary melodies, the torture one must give to sightread their horrible transpositions, the troublesome profusion of their ornaments, the habit which they have to run two or three octaves from bottom to top and from top to bottom in [only] five or six measures, and to change continuously movement and mode, etc, are the definite marks that the music of their motets is not at all natural.” (Le Cerf 1704)19
The frequent change of register and mode in ornamentation was considered to be unnatural, and furthermore, the excessive addition of notes on one vowel was also considered bizarre:
Buononcini always put a run of about 30 notes on the O of the word SOCCA. It is sung four times, which makes 120 notes for this O alone. It is not common either that death be released and received with such gaiety. (Le Cerf 1704)20
Obviously, Le Cerf had a strong opinion on the Italian style of ornamentation. He continued expressing his opinion by accusing the Italian singer Bononcini’s style of ornamentation for being overly complicated and incomprehensible:
For greater accuracy, I borrowed from Mr. l’Abbé R.’s book, some of Buononcini’s cantatas, which I examined. This hero of Italy so richly scatters the ornaments in his music with such profusion that he clearly could not know what the virtue of simplicity is. (Le Cerf 1704)21
As Elizabeth Hehr summarised in her 1985 article How the French Viewed the Differences between French and Italian Singing Styles of the 18th Century, “the Italians are always playing around with additional ornaments because 1) they are incapable of stopping themselves and 2) they lack the necessary seriousness”.
Since the ‘goût’ and the talent of the Italians is always to play and jest; and that they are musicians intoxicated by their clever ornaments and incapable of stopping their outbursts and excesses, all the serious places which call for gravity, wisdom are out of their reach. They do not know what it is. Likewise sacrifices, invocations, sermons, etc. are pieces of a beauty so little known to them as they are perfectly known to us. (Le Cerf 1704)22
Again, Raguenet and Le Cerf held two entirely different views. In spite of Italian singers’ ostentatious and unrestricted style of ornamentation, Raguenet described that in an Italian concert during his journey in Italy, audiences were so satisfied with the performances that they would give as much acknowledgment as possible with their applause:
[…] it often is not possible to control oneself until the end, the musician is interrupted by shouts and unending applause. Every day, Italian music produces these effects. There is no one who has travelled in Italy who has not witnessed this a thousand times. There is nothing like it in any other country. (Raguenet 1702)23
Moreover, Raguenet admired how the Italians could learn a piece so quickly and performed it in an “infallible” way. This is probably due to the reason that the French were too careful and too much “perfectionist” that they would not allow a mistake in ornamentation, so that it hindered their effectiveness in learning a new piece of music. While the Italians, bold and certain, used a free-style way of ornamenting that allowed them to be confident in adding all the possible embellishment in a song.
The Italians study music once completely and attain it to the greatest perfection; the French learn it by halves, and so making themselves never masters of it, they are bound always to be students. When any new piece is to be presented in France, our singers are forced to rehearse it over and over before they can make themselves perfect. How many times must we practice an opera before it’s fit to be performed; this man begins too soon, that too slow; one sings out of time, another out of time; in the meantime the composer labors with hand and voice and screws his body into a thousand contortions and finds all little enough to his purpose. Whereas the Italians are so perfect and, if I may use the expression, so infallible, that with them a whole opera is performed with the greatest exactness without so much as beating time or knowing who has the direction of the music. To this exactness they join all the embellishments an air is capable of; they run a hundred or more divisions in it; they in a manner play with it and teach their throats to echo in a ravishing manner, whereas we hardly know what an echo in music means. (Raguenet 1702)24
Just as there are two sides to a coin, there are two sides to every story. The French could be performing every ornaments perfectly, as compared to the overabundant Italian style, but they could also be too judgemental that they could not enjoy a performance because of all the errors they spotted. The Italians could be too unrestricted and confident in all their dissonances, nevertheless, they earned unending applause from the audience. This serves as a good reminder to singers like me, who is always judging whether every note was sung correctly and beautifully, while the listeners only pay attention to the overall pleasure of the performance.
5. Expression
In terms of expression, both Italian and French believed that it is important to move the soul of the listeners and to sing with passion and affection, but the French thought that “sweetness” came before that, and passion that involve anger was not so much appreciated. Mersenne gave a good insight for us in the different approaches to it in Italian and French music in Harmonie universelle (1636):
As to the Italians, in their recitatives they observe many things of which ours are deprived… the passions and affections of the soul and spirit, as for example anger, furor, disdain, rage, the frailties of the heart, and many other passions with a violence so strange that one would almost say that they are touched by the same emotions they are representing in the song; whereas our French are content to tickle the ear, and have a perpetual sweetness in their songs.25
Bacilly shared a similar view with Mersenne on the affect in French music: there were no excessive or too severe emotions, merely those that “tickle the ear”. Not all expressions were permitted in music, there had always to be “sweetness in their songs”.
“Lightning, Thunder, Stars, Purgatory, Hell, and thousands of other similar words are all available for musical interpretation in Italian airs… The very use of such expressions would be considered barbarous in French airs, which can accept only sweet, flowing terms and familiar expressions.” (Bacilly 1668)26
This major difference in expression probably stems from the inherent nature of Frenchmen and Italians. Raguenet stated that the Italians were livelier and therefore, were more capable of expressing different passions in a better way.
Since the Italians are much more lively than the French, they [Italians] are more sensitive to the passions and likewise express them more energetically in all their performances… everything there is so alive, so sharp, so piercing, so impetuous and so agitated that the imagination, the senses, the soul and even the body itself are carried away together. No one can defend himself against the speed of these movements. (Raguenet 1702)27
Raguenet, obviously preferring the Italian style than the French one, explained that the unique ability of the Italians, that they could combine tenderness with vivaciousness, provided surprises in Italian performances for Frenchmen.
Thus, whether the airs have a lively or tender character, or whether they are impetuous or languid, the Italians are superior in all to the French; but beyond that, they do one thing which neither the French musicians nor those of any other nation know how or ever knew how to do, because they sometimes unite tenderness with vivaciousness in a surprising way. (Raguenet 1702)28
And perhaps this is the reason why Raguenet found Italian operas to be so exciting, that even when they last for five to six hours, he did not feel uninterested; while he found that a lot of people were bored by French operas that were half as long.
[…] and although they last five and six hours, nevertheless one is never bored, whereas after some of our performances which last half as long, there are few people who are not both saturated and bored. (Raguenet 1702)29
Although the love-hate relationship between the French and the Italian persisted throughout the 17th to early 18th century, the French managed to keep their own spirit in music. Moreover, the disagreeing texts written by Raguenet and Le Cerf is a very interesting read that allows us to get more insights on the French national identity, which could perhaps help us to better define the ambiguous term le bon goût (good taste).