Taverner - how did he manage *without* Bach and Butterworth (correction to thread title!)

The more I read about composition, the more "formulaic" it seems to be, with its rules on progressions, cadences, modulations etc. It's been suggested elsewhere that to learn composition, one should study Bach's fugues; other suggestions include reading various other tomes, and obviously to pass the AB exams, we're urged to study Butterworth and various other books. I'm not disputing any of this! Being at a very low level still, I'm not in a position to make any judgement at all.

But I am puzzled at how the early composers managed to write works that have been deemed good enough to last several hundred years, without the benefit of the resources which later composers have had access to. When Taverner was composing for instance, he couldn't refer to Bach's fugues for enlightenment, and what books would have been written on composition that he could study? After all, the printing press was a relatively recent invention in his day - and who was a good enough theorist/composer to have written the books anyway? Who wrote all these rules for the structure of compositions, and when were they written?

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but if anybody understands what I'm getting at and has any contribution to make, I'd be interested to hear how the rules evolved and how composers managed to write such good works before they had Bach to study and before they had a myriad of books to read.... and before rules were even invented

The rules weren't just invented some day to give composers something to go on. The rules were built from what happens in existing pieces; they were then just codified into a book.

So whichever era you lived in, you would have learnt composition by studying other pieces of music.

And of course the rules change over time - harmony students today learn NEVER to write consecutive fifths, but there are examples of precisely that in Bach, Haydn, etc.

This could turn out to be a massive essay Skylark, so I will be brief.
Taverner, not to be confused with the modern day composer Tavener with only one R, was in a way the link between the mediaeval style and the renaissance style of composition. He was a product of the English school of church musicians and composers and he is probably best remembered for his church works. Composers learn from the music that has gone before and from that which is around them so he would have had the styles and traditions of many generations of church musicians instilled into him from an early age. He would have heard the music of the minstrels too, an interesting and nomadic bunch of folks who were largely responsible for bringing European styles across the Channel to Britain. Their music was handed down from one generation to the next and also from player to player. When there were feasts and fairs held they would be there passing their music on to one another.
National characteristics developed of course, but there is always a cross over between styles. Taverner was not averse to using the rather florid Italianate styles in his secular works.
When a composer writes he does so hoping that what he has composed will work. If it does not then his performers will tell him so and the music may be revised. In this way music develops along quite set patterns that are tried and tested. These rules are not always written out but they are there. An intelligent craftsman will make use of the good and discard the poor and so it was with the art of composition. If a composer wrote rubbish he would not get his works played. The works of those who did who did were heard and copied by others. In this way certain patterns developed and little by little new styles were utilized.
Incidentally if the modern Tavener had been banned from writing anything that did not follow the rule books much of his music would have ended up in the bin. Because he knows how to bend and break rules his music works and will live on for many generations. The work of some of his contemporaries will not .

Thanks both of you for your replies, and yes I understand what you mean.

It's like survival of the fittest, and then later generations look to see why they've survived and model themselves accordingly so that they survive too

Sorry to sound so naive and simplistic, but this is all new ground for me, and discovering that music has so many "rules" is quite a revelation!

Oh what a shame that would have been. We'd have all been so deprived.....



Oh no! Please no!!!

Matt.

Seems that there were advantages in not being too learned!

I love his music. He is one of my all time favourite composers. How very dare you!!