Musical Feuds and Modern Debates
In 1600, a renowned musical theorist named Giovanni Artusi published a dialogue wherein he publicly criticized the fresh and inventive music being produced by contemporary artists. He called his treatise, Of the Imperfections of Modern Music. Through a fictitious dialogue between characters Luca and Vario, Artusi attacked composers for violating the "laws" of music and stepping outside long-established rules — he even dubbed them "sinful against nature."
One of the composers on the receiving end of Artusi’s criticisms was Giulio Cesare Monteverdi. Monteverdi (1567–1643) was an Italian composer of the late Renaissance and early Baroque eras. He is considered one of the most influential composers of his time, and his work helped to shape the development of Western music. Monteverdi’s music was innovative and experimental, and he is credited with helping to usher in the Baroque era. His work is still performed today.
Artusi argued that Monteverdi's use of dissonances is unnatural and jarring and that his melodies are too complex. Monteverdi, on the other hand, defends his music by arguing that it is more expressive and emotionally powerful than traditional music. Similar arguments occur at dinner tables across the globe as parents fail to relate to their children's music — calling it "noise."
It's hard for us to imagine the magnitude of this debate since we've seen musicians don bacon-covered dresses, bite off the heads of animals on stage, destroy instruments, and other antics that would have Artusi rolling in his grave. And that's to say nothing about what he might think of the music.
One of my favorite bits of Artusi's raging dialogue is when Vario says:
It is my belief that there is nothing but smoke in the heads of such composers and that they are so enamored of themselves as to think it within their power to corrupt, spoil, and ruin the good old rules handed down in former times by so many theorists and most excellent musicians, the very men from whom these moderns have learned to string together a few notes with little grace.
Artusi, through Vario, very elegantly yelled, "Stay off my lawn, you young whippersnappers."
One of Artusi's targets, Giulio Cesare Monteverdi, didn't take too kindly to the criticism, and a seventeenth-century Twitter-style feud transpired. Monteverdi clapped back at Artusi with his Dedication to Book 5 of Madrigals:
Do not be surprised at my publishing these madrigals without first replying to the objections raised by Artusi to a few tiny portions of them. Since I am in the service of His Grace the Duke of Mantua, I do not have the necessary time at my disposal. Nevertheless, I have written the reply to show what I do is not done by accident. As soon as my reply is copied out it will be published under the title Seconda Pratica, overo Perfettione Della Moderna Musica. Some people may marvel at this, thinking that there is no other practice than the one taught by Zarlino [Giuseppe Zarlino, 1517–1590, codifier of the old Netherlandish style, exemplified by Josquin]; but they can be sure that, with regard to consonances and dissonances, there is yet another point of view which defends modern compositional practice to the satisfaction of both the mind and the senses. I wanted to tell you this both to keep others from preempting my expression “Second practice,” and so that even ingenious persons may meanwhile countenance other new viewpoints on harmony. Believe me, the modern composer is building upon the foundations of truth.
Classic. A traditionalist attacked a new way of doing things, and a modern practitioner replied, "You just don't understand."
Similar debates happen today across a variety of domains. Within the financial system, for example, technologists are advocating for a new system of money — digital assets and cryptocurrency. However, some traditionalists who support fiat money not only aim to maintain the status quo but also seek to prohibit competing systems.
On artificial intelligence some believe that AI will enhance every aspect of human life, while others argue that it will lead to the downfall of humanity.
The clash between individuals who cherish tradition and those who welcome innovation is a natural and necessary aspect of society. Through this clash, new ideas are born, tested, and defended. Typically, only the most valuable survive the onslaught of detractors and establish a new baseline to be usurped eventually.
The debate between Artusi and Monteverdi serves as a reminder that change is an unavoidable aspect of life. It's essential to recognize the significance of both tradition and innovation. Tradition offers us stability and a connection to the past in an ever-evolving world. Innovation is necessary for advancement and to create a brighter future for ourselves and those who come after us.
Old and new will continue to clash; only our position on the spectrum will shift as we age. It is natural to take a side in these disputes, but it’s better to approach them with an open mind and a willingness to learn from both sides.
The struggle between innovation and tradition is a complex one. It is beneficial to be critical of both tradition and innovation. Age does not determine quality, nor does newness indicate inferiority. Be willing to try new things and see if they have value. Question the status quo and see if there are better ways of doing things.
On the other hand, don’t become addicted to novelty. Fads are a dime a dozen, and those blinded by shiny new objects end up in a circular pursuit of “better.” Those who constantly chase the latest and greatest often end up feeling unfulfilled. Being discerning and thinking critically about new things is crucial.
It's perfectly fine to have a balance of both Artusi's and Monteverdi's approaches.
