Rorate caeli desuper (Charles H. Giffen), SATB a cappella

CHGiffen

Note: This work has been modified and the preferred version will be found further down the thread.

Here is setting of "Rorate caeli desuper" that I have just arranged (or recomposed) from my earlier "Let the clouds rain down" for SATB a cappella voices. Yes, I know this is June and the work is the Introit for the 4th Sunday of Advent, but this has been the right time to get it done. There is some musical word painting to match the text: a descending figure at the beginning of the Antiphon that underscores the dew dropping down, and an ascending figure that follows that matches the imagery of the earth bringing forth its fruit in the form of a Savior. After the Antiphon-Verse-Antiphon-Gloria Patri have been sung, the final statement of the Antiphon has an extended ascending figure that results in a complementary concluding descending figure which reminds us that the Savior brought forth on earth comes from the Father on high.

I've taken the liberty of putting this version up a whole step (key signature with 2 sharps) over the original English version (no accidentals in the key signature) from which this work is derived. Doing so saves the Basses from having to sing a low D, the Altos a low F-sharp, and the Sopranos a low A. It certainly could be sung down a step (no accidentals in the key signature). I'm not entirely happy with using (harmonized) Mode I chant for the Gloria Patri (which would fit with the fact that the Gregorian setting of the Introit is Mode I), and I may decide to change it to Mode II, which would also fit the setting itself. But I need to think about it for awhile, so for the present, you have the Mode I chanted Gloria Patri (if the harmonization seems too out of place for purists, the harmony could be omitted).

Feedback is always welcome.

mrcopper

dad29

Firmly agree that Mode 2 works better than Mode 1.

CHGiffen

Firmly agree that Mode 2 works better than Mode 1.

Yep, and I'm making that change as well as a couple of other changes. Thanks!

dad29

Well, I'll venture a far more bold critique, then.

Is there a particular reason that you completely harmonize the "Gloria Patri?" Seems to me that using just the melody would provide a nice "C" (a-b-a-c-a-b-a) structural component--and it would cut down choir 'learning' time, too.

CHGiffen

dad29.

The reason for harmonizing the Doxology is to have it available for those that want it, although of course just the melody can be sung. I think I have rather successfully harmonized (for 3 voices) the Mode III chant for the verses & Doxology of my "Gustate et Videte" ... but that also carries the same proviso: use the harmonization if you want or just use the chant melody otherwise.

But I really have to disagree about the "structural component" you mention. the Doxology isn't the part "c" of some "a-b-a-c-a-b-a" musical structure that the Introit is supposed to have, what you are describing is essentially an extended rondo (symmetrical) form, in which two "a-b-a" groups are separated by a middle group (in this case, "c"). In the singing of the Introit, it is usually the case that the Doxology "c" is sung once, just before the final iteration of the Antiphon (a), with the verse or pairs verses (b) alternating with the Antiphon, in a structure: "a-b-a-c-a" for a single verse group or, if there are more verse groups, something like "a-b-a-b-a-b-a-c-a" (e.g. in the case of three verse groups). At any rate, the Doxology does not belong in the middle as the central point of the Introit (or of the Communion).

One typically sees a rondo "a-b-a-c-a-b-a" form in NON-choral/vocal music, e.g. in my "Waltz in A Major" (attached).

dad29

I'll re-phrase while being perfectly comfortable with your explanation.

First: the harmonization is fine. No problem with it at all, and making it available is a good idea.

Second: I wrote my 'abacaba' in a rush this AM. Better phrased, my suggestion was merely to break up the harmonization with a melody-only doxology. I was aware that my analogy was flawed, but I was working towards "less is more."

CHGiffen

It's all okay, then ... we just got our wires a bit crossed, it seems.

And, by way of further explanation, my recent attempts at composing Communions have included harmonized chant for the Verses that go with the Antiphon. For "Psallite Domino" (Ascension), the Antiphon is 3-part harmony, but the (Mode I) Psalm chant is harmonized very simply with just two voices (much better than my attempt at 4-part harmony with the Doxology for the Introit "Rorate Caeli"); and, for "Gustate et Videte" (8th Sunday after Pentecost or ad libitum use), the 3-part Antiphon is complemented by 3-part Mode III harmonized chant for the Verses & Doxology, which seems to work well. So it is a natural inclination, for me at least, to try something along the same lines for Introits, at least for the Doxology (and Verses, if they are not through-composed separately.

Richard Mix

Just to pick a nit, the performance directions label the verse A, the doxology B and the antiphon C, so that's CACBC. :-P

(I also think I'd prefer a dotted quarter in m16)

mrcopper

Nice waltz! Why not use a B# instead of C nat? bar 3 and repeat at 67. Done by a violin, it would be a nice very flat double comma down note, resolving up in the next bar. bar 68, not an F but an E sharp. At the Allegretto (and later 'tempo secundo') I think Tchaikovski would have kept up the secondary dominant decorative notes, rather than going entirely diatonic A nice melody and structure seems to work well.

Bar 96, your fff is wishful thinking: you only give the player 2 notes to do it with!

CHGiffen

Thanks, William. the C-nat was just more convenient than the B-shp (and at 67, the E-flt more convenient than a D-shp), of course these notes should on a stringed instruments be played low. At 68, the F seems better than an E-shp, because it is part of a 2nd inversion d minor resolving to A major ... and, again, there is the convenience factor, whereby with equal temperament instruments such as the piano, I tend not to go from a natural to a sharp or flat on the same note, but instead move up to a flatted (or down to a sharped) enharmonic equivalent. As a piece for a pianist, this just seems easier to read and execute, even if an enharmonic change might convey a better sense of intonation for a micro-tunable instrument such as the violin.

That said, I have also arranged this piece for cello and piano ... although I kept the same choice of accidentals. It has a pretty nice sound to it that I rather like, and of course the cellist can make tonal adjustments to make it sound even better. As a piano piece, this waltz was written with my late sister in mind when I wrote it, and the cello arrangement reminds me of my cellist mother ... both of whom loved Chopin very much.

CHGiffen

Here's the revision of Rorate caeli desuper, with 3-part harmonized Mode II chant for the Doxology and other modifications mentioned above.

Note: Corrected score uploaded 2014-06-28, fixing some typographical errors, hyphenation, and one wrong note.

JulieColl

Thanks for the waltz, Charles. Perfect for playing on a summer evening!

JulieColl

I forgot to say that your Rorate Caeli setting is exquisite, Charles. I'm putting this in my Advent folder right now. The Doxology is a revelation---such a familiar tone and yet your harmonization reveals a whole new vista. Thanks so much for sharing this!

CHGiffen

Just a note: Above, I have just uploaded a corrected score, fixing some typographical and hyphenation errors, and one wrong note. Sorry for any inconvenience.

mrcopper

How about at least delaying the alto entrance a beat (bar 1) to be in unison with soprano? It's a weak note for sopranos, I just can't see the value of the offbeat soprano entrance which will be covered by the altos anyay. With the delayed alto, assuming female altos, at least you get the change in timbre from men to women on the unision.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories