Knowledge
In order to acquire knowledge about John Bull’s work, it is important to know a little bit about what knowledge actually meant at the time the work was created. Here we are dealing with the late Renaissance–early Baroque, the exact date of the composition itself, as far as I have been able to determine, being unknown. Michel Foucault in his book, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, states:
Up to the end of the sixteenth century, resemblance played a constructive role in the knowledge of Western culture. It was resemblance that largely guided exegesis and the interpretation of texts; it was resemblance that organized the play of symbols, made possible knowledge of things visible and invisible, and controlled the art of representing them. The universe was folded in upon itself: the earth echoing the sky, faces seeing themselves reflected in the stars, and plants holding within their stems the secrets that were of use to man (p. 17) . . . To search for a meaning is to bring to light a resemblance (p. 29) . . . There is no difference between the visible marks that God has stamped upon the surface of the earth, so that we may know its inner secrets, and the legible words that the Scriptures, or the sages of Antiquity, have set down in the books preserved for us by tradition. The relation to these texts is of the same nature as the relation to things: in both cases these are signs that must be discovered (p. 33) . . . Knowledge therefore consisted in relating one form of language to another form of language; in restoring the great, unbroken plain of words and things; in making everything speak. That is, in bringing into being, at a level above that of all marks, the secondary discourse of commentary. The function proper to knowledge is not seeing or demonstrating; it is interpreting (p. 40).
If knowledge in the Renaissance and Baroque is interpretation and uncovering order, then knowledge about a work of art created in this transition time at the end of the Renaissance and the beginning of the Baroque can only be about discovering an order and an interpretation. I do not believe that the impossibility of total certainty of the results of such inquiry should deter one from the attempt to understand a work in the sense the maker might have understood that concept of “understanding.” One thing is certainly true. Understanding, in this sense, for a musician cannot simply mean hearing and/or playing a work and responding with “like” or “dislike.” Our response must go deeper. “It is not enough to feel the effects of a science or an art. One must conceptualize these effects in order to render them intelligible” (Rameau, p. xxxv). We must dig in order to uncover what might be hidden from cursory view. We must, as Frescobaldi demands, “endeavour in the first place to discover the character of the passages, the tonal effect intended by the composer . . . ”(Notes).
John Bull
John Bull (1562–1628) had his feet in the Renaissance and his head in the Baroque. In other words, he was a child of the Renaissance and experienced the beginnings of the new era as a grown man. He was the student of John Blitheman. John is known as William in the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book, which contains an In nomine of his immediately preceding the Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la of Bull’s which is the subject of the present essay. Blitheman was known for his cantus firmus compositions, which occasionally demanded great virtuosity of the player. Bull’s education, grounded in Renaissance teaching as it must have been, certainly did not end with his formal studies. He was elected first Public Reader in Music at Gresham College, London in March of 1597 where he remained, except for a year’s leave of absence, until 1607, the year which saw his necessary marriage to one Elizabeth Walter, who was pregnant with his child. During his period at Gresham, the College was a hotbed of discussion of new ideas, inventions and discoveries from all over Europe.
For example, during the last quarter of the sixteenth century the ideas of Copernicus became more widely disseminated among the general public, the world view which stood the previous view of the universe on its head. What was formerly immovable, the earth, now was realized to be hurtling through space at unheard-of speeds. Bull must have been well-informed as to the revolutions in scientific thought in which learned men all across Europe were engaged. He was part of the established intellectual community; the universities did not ignore these new, ground-breaking ideas. He must have known about the fierce debates between the followers of Copernicus and those of Aristotle at Cambridge during the 1580s. For “we find Gresham College was, throughout the first half of the seventeenth century, a general clearinghouse for information concerning the latest scientific discoveries. Its professors of astronomy and geometry were among the ablest scientists of their day, and the college’s central location in London made their rooms a convenient rendezvous for all those who were actually contributing to the advancement of science in England” (Johnson, p. 263).
There is no need to go into the relevance of science to music in either the Renaissance or Baroque eras. That relationship has been amply discussed in a plethora of publications. What is important to note here is that the age in which Bull lived and worked was one of adventurous discovery, one in which science was revolutionizing the view of the world, as well as one in which, first in Italy and then in the rest of Europe, music, too, was undergoing revolutionary change. It is important to note that revolution, new ways of thinking, were part and parcel of Elizabethan life. Bull was no stranger to the new.
The hexachord
The hexachord was first described, but not named, in Guido of Arezzo’s treatise Micrologus of 1025–28. There are three hexachords, all of which have the same intervallic structure: the hexachordum naturale (C - D - E - F - G - A); the hexachordum molle, so-called because it included b molle, i.e., b-flat (F - G - A - B-flat - C - D); and the hexachordum durum, so-called because it included b durum, i.e. b-natural (G - A - B - C - D - E). Since medieval theory did not consider pitches of higher or lower octaves to be identical, seven hexachords were differentiated in the scale from G to e2, all of them beginning on C, F, or G. There was no concept of modulation. A melody exceeding the compass of a single hexachord was considered to be in transition from one hexachord to another. This movement was referred to as mutation. Tonal centers were not established by such movement, but rather the compass of a particular melody simply shifted from one area to another by making use of a pivot tone, a tone which belonged to both hexachords. Thus, for example, the tone sol in one hexachord could at the same time function as the tone ut in another. Yet, because the hexachord has the same construction whether based on C, F, or G, it has one interesting similarity to the major-minor tonal system: it has the potential to form the basis of a relative pitch system.
Guido’s treatise was referred to throughout the ensuing centuries, though the term “hexachord” itself apparently does not appear until about the 16th century. Although Masses based on the hexachord were composed, keyboard composers of the late Renaissance and the early Baroque seem to have been particularly fascinated by the musical possibilities offered by this theme. Pieces based on the hexachord were written by such important composers as Girolamo Frescobaldi (2) and Gregorio Strozzi in Italy, Johann Jakob Froberger in Austria, Pieter Cornet (the piece survives only as a fragment) and Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck in the Low Countries, Samuel Scheidt in North Germany, Pablo Bruna in Spain, and William Byrd (2), Thomas Tomkins (7!), John Lugge, and John Bull (3) in England.
John Bull and the hexachord
Thomas Morley, as Master Gnorimus in A Plaine and Easie Introdvction to Practicall Mvsick (1597) which is organized in dialogue form, spends at the beginning of that treatise a considerable amount of time explaining musical notation to Philomathes, a student in the dialogue. He does this by using the hexachord and the syllables ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la. Morley’s art of teaching music was not unique in England and musicians must have been familiar with this system.
The adventurous John Bull composed three very different pieces on the hexachord. One, Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la [II], is an extended composition (292 measures in the Musica Brittanica edition, 237 irregularly-barred measures in the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book) in which, after the second statement, the hexachord theme is treated principally as a cantus firmus in the soprano in long notes accompanied by figurations which become in the course of the piece quite virtuosic. Beginning with a long section in two voices, Bull introduces a third voice for a similarly long section, and then a fourth voice, the piece remaining four-voiced to the end. The subdivision of the beat changes a number of times in the course of this work and in addition to the metric two-against-three which occurs in the juxtaposition of duple and triple times, rhythmic two-against-three is also found in this composition, a favorite Bull device.
Another is the more contrapuntal, 188-measure Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la [III] (not found in the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book) composition. The more sustained polyphonic nature of the five-part texture and the avoidance of metric and rhythmic variety (the piece moves principally in halves, quarters and eighths with some dotting of values) starkly differentiate this piece from the preceding one. In addition, the hexachord theme itself is found in several rhythmic forms, principally varying combinations of halves and quarters with some tied notes, dotted values and an occasional eighth-note.
The piece which is the subject of this essay is the shortest of the three hexachord compositions by Bull.
Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la [I]
Editions
I made the decision to use the version of the piece found in the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book since it is clearly closer to the actual score of the piece as Bull himself might have written it. The version found in the Musica Brittanica edition, with its regularly-barred measures and its conformity to 20th-century notational practices, leads one to think that the piece may be in common time. Whereas I would like, as much as is possible for a musician living very much with both feet planted in the 21st century, to get into the musical mind of Bull as it manifests itself in this composition. One must assume that whoever copied the music in the 17th century had an understanding of the music he was copying and, especially, was closer to the manner in which it was notated than editors in the mid-20th century could have been. And it is the notation which provides the only clues we have directly from the composer, clues we need in order to reach some understanding of the work, without which appropriate interpretive decisions cannot be made. The importance of the manuscript and the collection in general speaks for going to the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book as primary source.
The theme
The theme (see Example 1) has two parts, which mirror each other, consisting of the ascending and descending hexachord. The highest note (at the first appearance of the theme an e1) is always repeated.
As do the other two compositions on this theme, the present work begins not only with the hexachordum durum, but also with the very same note: g0, although it is the soprano voice (not bass or tenor as in the other pieces) which here begins the work in this low register.
Meter
Since the irregular measures of 1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 9/2, and 12/2 do not seem to indicate any regular occurrence of accent, my attention was brought to the consideration of meter in terms of the theme as a whole. The whole note is the value at which the regular occurrence of the tactus takes place. The piece floats in an unaccentuated flow of regular beats of that tactus. The entrance of the hexachord theme every 13 whole-note units is the important, regularly occurring event in the work. The unit of measure is not the bar line, wherever it is drawn, but rather the whole note itself and we will subsequently refer to whole-note units rather than any measure numbers. The six ascending and six descending notes give us the duration of twelve whole-notes. Except for the first three statements and one curious half note during the 13th statement, the entire theme consists of 12 unvaried note values throughout. The final pitches of the first two statements consist of two whole notes: two g0’s and two a0’s respectively. The final pitch of the third statement is one b0 whole note tied to another. After that, the final pitch of the theme is always a whole note separated from the following thematic statement by a whole-note rest. This makes the entire theme, the ascending and descending hexachord and the unit of rest, one phrase measuring 13 units (whole notes).
We can think of the hexachord theme as beginning with a downbeat and spanning the duration of 13 whole notes. A secondary accent occurs, perhaps, at the repetition of the highest note of the theme, which results in two units of six whole notes each. The 13th whole note of the first statement repeats the final note, that of the second statement repeats the final note with an ornament, that of the third is tied to the previous whole note. After that, the 13th whole note is a rest. The 13th unit of the hexachord theme functions, especially beginning with the fourth statement, as a breath, a metrical breath if you will, a moment of rest, of gathering energy, before continuing with the next statement. This music breathes in 13-unit phrases with a consistency unbroken until the end.
Transposition
The second statement of the hexachord theme begins a whole-step higher than the first statement; and the third statement begins another whole step higher. This transposition of the theme upwards by whole step is pursued rigorously up to f1, at which point the next statement would appear again on a G (g1, an octave above the first note of the piece). This Bull does not do, but rather jumps down almost two octaves to A-flat and begins the process of transposition by whole step upwards all over again, using the remaining pitches of the twelve-note chromatic scale.
Example 2 gives the initial notes of all 17 statements of the hexachord theme, the last 4 statements of which are all on the same pitch, g1. Thus we see that the cycle of whole-step transposition, beginning on g0, interrupted once at f1 and leaping down to A-flat instead and then continuing the cycle in order to return to g0, involves 13 statements of the hexachord theme.
Modulation
With the transposition of the hexachord theme Bull is forced to modulate to new keys at every single entrance of the theme. The composition manifests remarkable instances of modulatory prowess and enharmonic ambivalence. Consider Example 3.
The E-major chord at the beginning of Example 3 includes b0, the last note of the previous statement of the theme. D-flat1 is the first note of the fourth entrance of the theme and it appears here immediately as D-flat and not as C-sharp, as might be expected from the previous harmony. The enharmonic modulation must take place somewhere and Bull chooses to do it here. Apparently, in spite of what the Musica Brittanica edition has done here (namely first spell c-sharp1, then tie to d-flat1), Bull is not interested in making a smooth, a plausible, enharmonic modulation (see Example 4).
We can see that Bull has not written a piece concerned with modulating to as many keys as possible, thereby enabling the hexachord theme to appear in those keys. The plan of his work is to transpose, to shift the hexachord theme; he shifts the theme and afterwards draws the harmonic consequences. The transposition of the hexachord theme is the given, leading to necessary modulation—not modulation leading to transposition of the theme. The transposition of the hexachord theme is the postulate which implies the stipulation of key, not vice versa. In other words: the form is a priori and precipitates the harmony; the harmony does not precipitate the form.
Form
We have noted above that after 12 shifts or transpositions of the hexachord theme, i.e. with the 13th transposition, Bull returns, comes full circle transpositionally, to the g0 with which he started the piece, though here it is the bass voice and not the soprano as at the beginning. Here Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la could conceivably end. Bull has traversed the entire gamut of pitches available to him in the chromatic scale and returned back to where he had started. This disregards, however, the psychological strain through which he has put his listener. Bull must draw the consequences of going so far afield harmonically. He must first establish conclusively for the listener that one has arrived “home.” And that is not achieved by a single statement on G.
There follow four more statements of the hexachord theme, all on G, all on the same g1, all in the soprano voice. However, just as Bull begins to anchor the listener in the hexachordum durum, he changes what has up to that point been a duple to a triple division of the beat. Now this is a common device found at the ends of many compositions of this period and others: triple subdivision as ecstatic conclusion. Statement 14 consists of three half notes per whole note. Occasionally the half notes are subdivided into duple quarters which sound against the (now dotted) whole notes. Statement 15 contains both duple and triple subdivisions of the beat; the quarter notes here are ambiguously either triple subdivisions of the duple half notes or duple subdivisions of the triplet half notes. This rhythmic ambiguity occurs exactly at the point where Bull is interested in being unambiguous harmonically, i.e., he can now afford to be ambiguous on the rhythmic level now that the harmonic level has become more stable. Statements 16 and 17 return to duple subdivisions on all levels, as had been the case from statements 1 to 13.
So at the end of the composition there are five statements of the hexachordum durum. The first of these five statements (on g0) occurs at the end of the transposition process begun at the outset of the piece and belongs to that process. It rounds off that section of the piece. The final four statements (on g1) are no longer part of that process, but provide the necessary anchoring in G in order for the piece to come to a satisfactory close.
Counterpoint I: beginning and end
The hexachord appears as a cantus firmus, it does not take part in any imitative counterpoint. Three of the four voices are, then, not predetermined by the form. The opening of Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la is instructive (see Example 5) and merits a close look. It is not marked by strict imitation carried through the three free voices.
The soprano begins, opening with the hexachordum durum on g0. The bass enters one half note later on the same g0, before the soprano moves to its second note. The two voices sound together for the duration of one half note with the same pitch, thus obscuring the two-voiced texture. The bass continues stepwise downwards through the fourth unit. At unit three the alto enters with a motive different from both the hexachord in the soprano and the descending motive in the bass. It enters on the only available note between soprano and bass: g0. The tenor enters one unit later with the descending motive first heard at the bass entrance. However, the entrance of the tenor is obscured by the fact that at that same moment the alto and the soprano sound the same note together: c1. In other words, at the entrance of the fourth voice one hears only three voices. This obscures not only the texture again, but the imitation between bass and tenor as well. Significant, and genial, about the beginning of the work is that all four voices start from exactly the same point, exactly the same pitch: the final of the hexachordum durum, g0.
The descending fifth motive, found in the bass and tenor voices, does not reappear as such throughout the rest of the work until the very last measures. The motive is given one prefix note and is found here in all three free voices. This reminiscence of the beginning provides a fitting and appropriate close to the work (see Example 6).
Counterpoint II: alto motive
At the beginning of the work (see example 5) the soprano has the hexachord as cantus firmus and the bass and tenor voices imitate each other, in fact the first five pitches are exactly the same. The alto voice is here unique, free. It proves to have a more productive motive than that shared by tenor and bass, and, indeed, we find that it is not imitation which is most significant here or in the work as a whole. There are scattered passages which employ imitation in one form or another, more or less strictly, between two or three voices. There seems to be no overall formal principle which dictates when and where imitation between the voices takes place. It is one of the compositional means at Bull’s disposal and he uses it without ever losing the prevailing sense of freedom which the three voices have in the face of the strict formal construction of the transposition scheme of the hexachord.
The emphasis is not on imitative counterpoint, but rather on a free development of the concept of imitation. One can see this on the freedom with which Bull treats the alto motive, heard at the outset (see Example 7) and referred to henceforth as the alto motive no matter in which voice it is found.
During the course of the second statement of the hexachord theme, we hear this motive in different guises in three of the four voices (see Example 8).
Rhythm and intervals are altered, and inversion is heard in the alto and bass as well as retrograde in the bass voice. Just a few units later, during the third statement of the hexachord theme, the alto motive is found using a passing tone (see Example 9).
The part of the motive which is found at units 33–34, using the quarter-note passing tone, is one that is found in all the three free voices at that point and plays a role through the fourth entrance of the hexachord theme. The alteration of the alto motive thus generates a further motive that is used contrapuntally in these passages.
In Example 10, taken from the fourth statement of the hexachord theme, we find an interesting canon, interesting in the fact that it is not strict. The bass voice leads, followed by the alto voice one whole note later with a rhythmically enlivened version of the bass voice. Also noteworthy is how the same note takes on different harmonic functions. This is due, of course, to the fact that one of the voices is the bass and the other the alto. It also has to do with the fact that, although the entrance of the d-flat1 in the alto is rhythmically analogous to the entrance of the d-flat0 in the bass, namely mid-unit, the d-flat1 enters with the length of a whole note and obscures the fact that the alto voice is, contrary to the bass, placed on the unit (beat). Thus the g-flat0 in the bass becomes dissonant at unit 44, whereas the g-flat1 in the alto at unit 45 is consonant for its entire duration. So, too, the e-flat0 in the bass is consonant for its duration, but, the e-flat1 in the alto at unit 47 becomes dissonant.
This last example demonstrates the developmental possibilities of the alto motive. Given its construction (see Example 7), the small ambitus of a perfect fourth, the prominent interval of the third, and the half step at the end, it is a motive that is related to any other motive using those intervals. It is possible to recognize in example 10 that the alto line is directly derived from the alto motive in the bass voice. In other cases it is more difficult to assert that other motives with similar constructions were consciously fashioned from the alto motive. Nevertheless, many of the passages contain motives constructed with thirds and fourths, or often end with a half step, which fact is not surprising in music that is articulated with cadences.
From units 86–93 (see Example 11), the end of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth statement of the hexachord theme, we find the alto motive used in free imitative fashion between soprano, alto and tenor. Interesting is the alto voice which mirrors itself beginning at unit 89 and then tacks on a cadential e-flat1 - d1 - e-flat1.
Example 12, from the tenth statement of the hexachord theme, demonstrates a still freer treatment of the alto motive or, if you will, those primary intervals of which the alto motive is constructed. The passage does not illustrate imitative counterpoint, but rather a free development of the alto motive. Notice particularly the alto voice which, as in the previous example, mirrors itself and pivots around f-sharp1.
Immediately following this passage, at the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh statement of the hexachord theme, the soprano states two versions of the alto motive successively, the first descending (i.e, inverted), the second ascending (see Example 13).
There are further passages in which the alto motive or fragments thereof play a role in the contrapuntal texture of the work. Often, just as is the case in a number of the above examples, they are worked into phrases which are much longer. The motive shines forth suddenly from within the context of something larger than itself and contributes to the unity of the work.
Gary Verkade was born in Chicago and grew up in the south suburbs. He studied music at Calvin College and the University of Iowa in the United States, and in 1978 he received a Fulbright grant to study at the Folkwang-Hochschule in Essen, Germany, and lived in Germany for 17 years. He has performed much new music throughout Europe and the United States and is the composer of music for organ, electronics, chamber and improvisational ensembles.Verkade has been a guest professor/lecturer/performer at universities in Europe and the United States; he served on the music faculty of Carthage College, Kenosha, Wisconsin, from 1995–2000. He is presently on the faculty of the Musikhögskolan i Pitea, Sweden, where he continues to teach, perform, compose, record, and write about music.
