Parce Domine
  • shawnk
    Posts: 57
    Feedback would be appreciated on this:
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,768
    1. Minor proofreading slip m5
    2. How much speeding/slowing or tasteful rubato are you calling for towards end?
    3. How is the 'inverted mordent' symbol to be interpreted by alto? before or on beat?
    4. Is this meant to be a refrain, with chanted verses?
    Thanked by 1shawnk
  • shawnk
    Posts: 57
    1. Ah. Thanks.
    2. What I hear in my mind for the tempo changes is about the same as what the recording, above, has.
    3. On the beat.
    4. Yes: a refrain for the typical chanted "Parce Domine" (attaching PBC edition, below).

    Also, I used organ for the audio, above, because it was clearer than the voice audio samples; but I intend for this to be sung unaccompanied.

    Thanks for any feedback you may wish to give.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    A beautiful setting, really nice, except that the conclusion is far too rapid and abrupt. Perhaps with voices this could be better, more artfully, addressed.
    Thanked by 1shawnk
  • shawnk
    Posts: 57
    I do want the tempo almost to double at m9, but perhaps if I keep things more moderate and even, it will help the piece to sound less madrigalian. Any suggestions for an appropriate tempo marking at m9?
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    sans madrigal

    ;)
    Thanked by 1shawnk
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Nice piece, btw
    Thanked by 1shawnk
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    These comments are meant as constructive, and I hope they help.

    I get the feeling that, with your greatly increased tempo from m9 on, you are trying to evoke the (possibility of?) God's wrath, as mentioned in the text. It might be better to view this (along with the entire text) as our own great sorrow and our innermost pleading to be spared God's anger. Hence, this would (at least to me) indicate a slow tempo throughout. Any faster pace at m9 should be minimal at best, if at all (sorry to disagree with you). After all, the preceding proceeds essentially in the slow pulse of minims (half notes), while at m9 the pulse is already effectively doubled, being twice as fast, proceeding in crochets (quarter notes). Moreover, the texture at m9 is purely homophonic, a change from the movement of parts before that.

    The "stretto" (and other) markings from m9 seem rather out of place, as they are generally used (at least in non-madrigalian contexts) to demarcate a succession of short statements of a (typically fugal) subject near the culmination of a longer working out (development) of the thematic material, but here I see no restatement of any main theme for which the term "stretto" might apply.

    The harmonies are nice, and the wide separation between the lower and upper voices in the penultimate measure are interesting (although the low tenor range there might get lost). The choice of the synthesized organ over synthesized voices doesn't really help in clarifying the texture, though. To hear individual parts and better assess their movement, you might use single wind instruments, such as flute, oboe, English horn, bassoon - or possibly a string quartet.

    Except for the "madrigalian" effects, this is a nice piece.
    Thanked by 1shawnk
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,768
    I'm with Chuck (instead of grumpy cat, imagine p54 of the coffee table book Disapproving Rabbits ;-) ). As noted, stretto is commonly used in two different senses, and the squiggle can mean very different things in Couperin, Mahler, and Bartok, where there are at least traditions to draw on. Why not just write out the ornament, in lieu of adding to the score a note to consult the midi realization?
    Thanked by 1shawnk
  • shawnk
    Posts: 57
    Thanks for the feedback (and humor), everyone.
  • shawnk
    Posts: 57
    Here's a recording from rehearsal, this past weekend.
Add a Comment