Pacem Relinquo Vobis

[Kristofer Emerig]

I am uploading the organ score, as I don't want to spend endless paragraphs defending the "sacrilegious" setting of the text. The vocal setting is scored for two groups each of alto, tenor, and bass on six staves (sorry sopranos, but you'll more than make up for the omission in the Crucifixus). The organ setting is identical, but compacted onto three staves. This will likely be a component of my Mass Mysteria.

 

Included now is the Tenor/Bass/Bass score, as well as a detail of the "pqdb" (or "pq" or "pd") structure which pervades the piece.

 

 

 

http://www.box.net/shared/j3jt4l07b5

 

http://www.box.net/shared/msjy0u95nl

 

detail_pqbd_structure.jpg

 

 

[Christopher Sahar]

K -

Well thank you for the compliment. When I have the time I try to give an in-depth review but often I just can't.

One point - your rhythms are fine and I agree you don't want to have the individual lines too rhythmically independent of each other. I do see some cool things you do that may work for another piece - the duple and triple pulses in the 4/4 that you have sporadically is very good. In this piece, the most I see it being explored is between two solo voices (think 14th century ars nova, the truplum and duplum parts, but to a much lesser degree). But you'd have to be careful.

What I suggest is to vary the vocal texture more - Tyler mentioned that in his critique. You can create a sense of rhythmic diversity through textural changes - just think of how Dufay and Josquin do that without resorting to overly complicated rhythms (well Dufay less so).

Also, you will maintain more interest by explore a little further a few of the cross relations. Just have the cross relations recur for longer periods (think of how Lassus and Gombert do that wonderfully) and your chains of suspensions (especially a few more 2 -3 sus - you seem to favor 4-3 in this piece)

You are right about Bach - he is able to avoid getting bass heavy - I think it is because he studied Vivaldi quite a bit. Granted I can only take Vivaldi in small amounts but I always admire how Vivaldi could repeat his material and make it sound fresh just thru textural or slight harmonic differences.

[Kristofer Emerig]

Chris, just a quick point on texture. I was going to mention this last night, but was "saving" it for a more detailed response, when I might address all of those details. But I'll just throw this out there;

When originally roughly drafted, the exposition (well the piece itself) began in measure 4, with the alto exposing the subject on D, then answered in inversion in the bass, then answered by the tenors on B flat, then answered again by the bass in inversion, with a secondary, secondary dominant maneuver leading to soft "mini cadence" on the supertonic C (or variably, the subdominant c, if you view the piece as starting on the dominant, as a tend to do). This would have been the standard fugal model of gradually thickening texture by introducing one voice at a time in each section. The dilemma that I encountered, and the reason specifically for the addition of the first three measures, was in the retrograde counterparts of said sections. Reading backwards from cadential measure 126, you will see that the the exposition and several opening sections occur in retrograde. T use standard expository texture would require the close of that latter section to gradually dwindle to just one voice, thus precluding a satisfying cadence. Also, I prefer to introduce voices in syncope, where appropriate. Retrograde treatment requires special considerations though, and syncope, not tied to a preceding long note suspension, leaves one with a short staccato quaver, just dangling awkwardly at the end of the phrase. Again, I emphasize that you are very astute in your observation of details, and indeed the ones indicated are valid, but you must also understand their origin. Are they oversight, or a tough and considered compromise? Because all of the material is mirrored in retrograde, inversion, or both, whatever "works" in one place must work in the literally opposite manner (or more accurately, direction) in another.

I'm still studying the fine details of your observations though to sort out which are hard compromises and which are plain oversight or poor choice. The scrutiny of a third party is invaluable and enlightening though.

Christopher Sahar said:

K -

Well thank you for the compliment. When I have the time I try to give an in-depth review but often I just can't.

One point - your rhythms are fine and I agree you don't want to have the individual lines too rhythmically independent of each other. I do see some cool things you do that may work for another piece - the duple and triple pulses in the 4/4 that you have sporadically is very good. In this piece, the most I see it being explored is between two solo voices (think 14th century ars nova, the truplum and duplum parts, but to a much lesser degree). But you'd have to be careful.

What I suggest is to vary the vocal texture more - Tyler mentioned that in his critique. You can create a sense of rhythmic diversity through textural changes - just think of how Dufay and Josquin do that without resorting to overly complicated rhythms (well Dufay less so).

Also, you will maintain more interest by explore a little further a few of the cross relations. Just have the cross relations recur for longer periods (think of how Lassus and Gombert do that wonderfully) and your chains of suspensions (especially a few more 2 -3 sus - you seem to favor 4-3 in this piece)

You are right about Bach - he is able to avoid getting bass heavy - I think it is because he studied Vivaldi quite a bit. Granted I can only take Vivaldi in small amounts but I always admire how Vivaldi could repeat his material and make it sound fresh just thru textural or slight harmonic differences.

[Kristofer Emerig]

Sorry, I meant to say subtonic C above. Now I'll have this conversation really confused. Trying to look at too many things at once here.

Incidentally, I'm working out the Kyrie now, and with potentially 8 independent voices on 4 staves, I'll have more headroom for offering some of the textural variation you've suggested. There's a substantial difference between pausing two voices in three part texture versus four. The latter allows for perfect cadence by antico method, by step from above/below, and one can generally keep some sense of momentum with two parts.

[Christopher Sahar]

I am glad you raised that point. I had thought fleetingly that due to the structure your textural considerations would be limited.
There is a famous example in Pierrot where the mirror fugue starts with separate entrances quickly piling up on another. What happens of course is the ending dwindles quickly to the vocal part with its question - a magical moment and great word painting of Moonflecks.

In your case though, I wonder, would you feel comfortable breaking the series of consecutive mirror fugues? If not then the only points I think you really should address are msr 4 to 5 and 70 to 71 and my suggestion to extend a few sequences.

Let me know what you come up with

[Kristofer Emerig]

Yes, it's the rigor of the thing which binds me to many compromises which, in a freer setting, as you rightfully point out, could be handled more gracefully. Unfortunately, because of the mirrored structures, it is often not a matter of what is the optimum choice in one instance, but the optimum solution in two or more simultaneous (composing process, not time in the piece of course) instances, which often does not lead to the best solution for any of those instances taken individually. I hope that makes sense, because I'm confusing myself now.

On the thinning of texture, you did inspire some further reflection on my part. Although in three part texture I am almost bound to exposing subjects in three active parts, due to the cadence/retrogradibility (yes, I'm inventing words) issue, I could endeavor toward more thinning in interior sections, avoiding the terminal regions. I'm going to keep vigilant about that, as I agree, so much incessant saturation of texture can become tiresome to the ear.

I'll narrowly focus my attention to the two areas you've indicated for now.

Christopher Sahar said:

I am glad you raised that point. I had thought fleetingly that due to the structure your textural considerations would be limited.
There is a famous example in Pierrot where the mirror fugue starts with separate entrances quickly piling up on another. What happens of course is the ending dwindles quickly to the vocal part with its question - a magical moment and great word painting of Moonflecks.

In your case though, I wonder, would you feel comfortable breaking the series of consecutive mirror fugues? If not then the only points I think you really should address are msr 4 to 5 and 70 to 71 and my suggestion to extend a few sequences.

Let me know what you come up with

[Chris Alpiar]

I didnt have time to listen to the whole thing yet, just the first 1:30 or so. I will say your voice leading is really nice. However the lack of rhythmic content kind of makes my ear get weary pretty quick. Obviously this is set in a certain style you are portraying, but even in that context changing chords on every beat makes them all become a mush of sound instead of those really great voiceleadings becoming melody of their own. Just my 2cents. But you obviously have a very mature understanding of the harmony and so I hope you can find that zen spot where the rest falls into place at the same level

[Kristofer Emerig]

Well thanks for listening to what you did Chris, and I sincerely hope you'll listen to it in its entirety.

The sense of rhythm in a free contrapuntal texture in which any of the voices seldom rest is somewhat different than in the melody/harmony construct, and certainly subtler (especially where the voicings have relatively little attack and are sustained, such as this). Of course most music is lies somewhere between the extremes, but for the sake of discussion, let's imagine a single sung melody which you recite for me like so... "dat -dat -dat", etc, but omitting the melody, in a monotone fashion. If it's a popular song well known to me, I might even be able to identify it without the pitches, depending on its rhythmic complexity. Now do the same with any line from Tallis' Spem in Alium. I haven't a clue, although I've listened to that work more times than any pop song.

What I'm driving at here is that in a texture such as this, you're not going to get much overt pulsing rhythm in the sense it's widely perceived in other styles. It's too much embedded in the overlapping changes in lines and syncope, and as you've correctly pointed out, in the changes of harmony. The desirable condition in a texture such as this is that individual melodic changes should be staggered across voices, ie one or two voices tied across a change in another, and not in lockstep, which I think this piece represents adequately, so I have to disagree with the one chord per beat perception.

My philosophy is never to look at chords as a constructive method in contrapuntal writing; If you follow the protocols of voice leading, triads will "happen". It's ironic that Fux's methods, a mere protocol for moving voices in and out of relative states of consonance and dissonance, can lead to some of the most breathtaking "chord progressions", by not acknowledging them whatsoever.

Nuf rambling, it's late. Thanks for listening and your thoughts. I hope you take time to listen to the whole piece.

Chris Alpiar said:

I didnt have time to listen to the whole thing yet, just the first 1:30 or so. I will say your voice leading is really nice. However the lack of rhythmic content kind of makes my ear get weary pretty quick. Obviously this is set in a certain style you are portraying, but even in that context changing chords on every beat makes them all become a mush of sound instead of those really great voiceleadings becoming melody of their own. Just my 2cents. But you obviously have a very mature understanding of the harmony and so I hope you can find that zen spot where the rest falls into place at the same level

[Kristofer Emerig]

Chris,

I'd be hard pressed at this point to do much structural tinkering. It's a tightly woven tapestry which might just start unraveling should I start tugging on a string too hard.

I've examined the harmony in m4 - m5 as suggested, but I just keep drawing a blank where a better solution is concerned. The D's in the alto are part of a strict subject entry (unless perhaps you're suggesting an entry on an alternative pitch, breaking the I-V-I scenario), and the B flat harmony at m5b1 is, for better or worse, where I keep returning as the best fitting one. I understand the analysis that the persistent sounding of D softens the impact, but I'm not sure of an alternative in this case, without disassembling the entire fugal exposition. Keep in mind, if that is indeed your suggestion, that this would require a reworking also of at least measures 122 - 126, the retrograde reflection of the area in question. Thoughts welcome.

Christopher Sahar said:

I am glad you raised that point. I had thought fleetingly that due to the structure your textural considerations would be limited.
There is a famous example in Pierrot where the mirror fugue starts with separate entrances quickly piling up on another. What happens of course is the ending dwindles quickly to the vocal part with its question - a magical moment and great word painting of Moonflecks.

In your case though, I wonder, would you feel comfortable breaking the series of consecutive mirror fugues? If not then the only points I think you really should address are msr 4 to 5 and 70 to 71 and my suggestion to extend a few sequences.

Let me know what you come up with

[Christopher Sahar]

Well nothing too drastic - I was thinking even if you delay sounding the d prior to the one on beat 1 measure 5 with a leading tone - say C#, just that tiny change will make a difference. Or as you said on an alternate which would break up the I - V - I scenario.

[Kristofer Emerig]

Chris,
I'll work up some alternates, if nothing else, to exercise my brain a little. I got sidetracked on a little fughetta which doesn't fit into anything on which I'm currently working in earnest, but I had to work it out when the idea was fresh. I'll post up an alternate sketch.

[Marek Cupák]

finally found some of your works. as i'm pretty new here, can't find some simple "list of mp3" for each member.

edit: sorry, fixed.. :-)

 

if i could dissect a bit, i miss the text pretty much. can't imagine where the sentences begin and end, but it was very nice to hear the change of pulsation to 1/4 in bars 22-24 instead of ostinate 1/8 pulse.. i also could not understand the crossing of voices in bar 44 and then on. makes the score not quite readable.

[Kristofer Emerig]

Yes, sorry about that Marek, but this is a reduction of six staves into three staves, suited more for my purposes of working out at the keyboard (more than four staves are too much for my eyes to follow). Each staff represents two groups of singers (or possibly just two singers) who vary between singing in unison and occasionally branching into independent parts. This arrangement allows me to draft movements for the mass of between three and eight voices (two groups each of soprano, alto, tenor, and bass). When I have time to return to the work, I'll try to get the full six staff score into Finale with text. I'm still making the difficult transition to notation software, which is still quite new and awkward to me. Thanks for listening and your feedback.