The greatest challenge in studying the life of Johannes Ockeghem is the discouraging absence of concrete evidence of the date of his birth and death, specifics of life activity, and even original manuscripts. This lack of records and information results from the cultural practices of preserving this sort of data, which are not as meticulous compared to today’s. Scholars and musicologists however study Ockeghem because he “had added something to the musical knowledge of his time” (Krenek, 7)1. In opening pages of Johannes Ockeghem, Krenek generally describes Ockeghem’s overall lifespan of activity. Ockeghem was born around 1430 in East Flanders (Belgium today) and studied with either Guillaume Dufay in Cambrai or with Gille Binchois, Flemish
…show more content…
After visiting Spain in 1469 and Flanders in 1484, Ockeghem returned to Tours and passed away in approximately 1495. On his musical style, Krenek describes Ockeghem as a “cerebralist” because of his tendency to write music in order to solve a logical problem which he created and his treatment of musical expression and emotionality as secondary if present at all. It is not only Ockeghem’s intellectualism that sets him apart from his contemporaries but also his audacious innovation. Krenek refers to a review of a work by Ockeghem for thirty-six melodic voices by Glareanus in Dodekachordon, in which Gleareanus’s brief comments talk more on the originality of the work rather than its musical function and validity. This review is ambiguous, as one could interpret this comment as a respectful salute or slight insult, and it is from this review that Ockeghem’s destiny could go one of two ways: the former promotes a life of compositional prominance, the latter a life of mediocrity. Is Ockeghem’s cultural/musical significance, however, determined by the manner in which his predecessors regard him or by the independent artistry and innovation on which his music
After visiting Spain in 1469 and Flanders in 1484, Ockeghem returned to Tours and passed away in approximately 1495. On his musical style, Krenek describes Ockeghem as a “cerebralist” because of his tendency to write music in order to solve a logical problem which he created and his treatment of musical expression and emotionality as secondary if present at all. It is not only Ockeghem’s intellectualism that sets him apart from his contemporaries but also his audacious innovation. Krenek refers to a review of a work by Ockeghem for thirty-six melodic voices by Glareanus in Dodekachordon, in which Gleareanus’s brief comments talk more on the originality of the work rather than its musical function and validity. This review is ambiguous, as one could interpret this comment as a respectful salute or slight insult, and it is from this review that Ockeghem’s destiny could go one of two ways: the former promotes a life of compositional prominance, the latter a life of mediocrity. Is Ockeghem’s cultural/musical significance, however, determined by the manner in which his predecessors regard him or by the independent artistry and innovation on which his music