Jesu Dulcis Memoria (homophonic), Venite ad Me (polyphonic)
  • McClamrock
    Posts: 29
    Two more compositions for tonight: Jesu Dulcis Memoria (fairly simple three-part homophonic hymn) and Venite ad Me (two-part polyphonic motet). Both are the only multiple-voice settings of these words I know of. Please feel free to mention other settings I don't know of, and also to make any favorable or unfavorable comments. The unfavorable ones may actually result in beneficial changes. Thanks!
    JesuDulcisMemoria.pdf
    33K
    JesuDulcisMemoria.mp3
    1M
    Venite_2part.pdf
    37K
    Venite_2part.mp3
    2M
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen JulieColl
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    It would be helpful to add a rehearsal accompaniment for people of anything 3 parts and above - more will be able to play through and get an earful of your writing. Also, quickly find and use Creative Commons 3.0 attribution rather than copyright...otherwise someone will grab it and publish it and sell it saying, "well, he said it is ok to sing it at Mass."

    If you do not get some horrendous criticism of elements of what you have put on paper here, be disappointed. Here, at times, only the good die young!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • McClamrock
    Posts: 29
    Thanks! The MP3s are intended to let people hear approximately how these pieces sound. Are you suggesting I should add a separate accompaniment for organ in the notation, or what?

    I'll take a look at the Creative Commons 3.0 license, but opinions about such things may differ. Me, I think the difference between "sale" and "use at Catholic Mass" is not too subtle to grasp.

    As for the horrendous criticism . . . well, I'm disappointed, because you said I should be disappointed if I didn't get any, and you didn't give me any. :o) Let me know if you come up with some.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    In the notation...helps for people who have trouble hearing 3 and 4 part music in score form. A heck of a lot more people play piano than can read scores.

    JESU: On the 5th measure, I find the first chord sort of jarring, probably because it is so different from the impression of floating brought about by the first chord in the first measure, which I like a lot.

    VENITE: Mezz and Bars should be honored to have things written for them! Good decision.

    There are parallel intervals that some would not like, but they would not like the first chord either! Nicely written and different. Which I like.

    Creative Commons is standard enough now and has some respect. Took me awhile to decide I wanted to use it myself.
  • McClamrock
    Posts: 29
    I thought I was doing well to avoid obvious parallel fifths! I don't think I'll try to avoid all parallel intervals of every kind; I actually like parallel thirds, fourths, and sixths in moderation. As for the jarring chord, let me see . . . the first chord in the fifth measure is just an F major triad. Sorry, but I'm not grasping why it's jarring. Now, if you'd said the first chord in the third measure (G minor in an otherwise major-key hymn), I could understand better; I wondered whether to make that one G minor or C major.
  • Heath
    Posts: 966
    Just parallel octaves and fifths are anathema; the rest are fine, at least, in theory.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    It's jarring because I feel that it removes the otherworldly quality of the previous chords and says, "OK, NOW WE ARE SINGING A CHORD THAT YOU KNOW AND LIKE. FINALLY, YOU ARE HEARING ROOT POSITION CHORD LIKE EVERY OTHER SONG HAS AND THE REST OF THIS PIECE IS GOING TO BE PREDICTABLE."

    Which, thank goodness, it's not. It's just something that struck me, that's all. Sort of like everything being written in orange and after adjusting to that the sentence begins in black ink.

  • McClamrock
    Posts: 29
    Heath wrote:

    Just parallel octaves and fifths are anathema; the rest are fine, at least, in theory.


    OK, now maybe somebody can explain (or point me to an explanation) what's wrong with parallel octaves. A fifth is a very conspicuous-sounding interval, and parallel ones are even more conspicuous, so they may distract the listener from the music as a whole; not so with octaves.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I'm sorry to publicly disagree with my idol ;-) Heath, but the "PP" (parallel perfects) canon isn't intrinsically anathema to all composition. Rather, it's avoidance is specific to certain stylistic/musicological canons that were virtually drummed into the subconsciences of any music major who took 4 semesters of required theory and paid attention! Add to that courses in Fux and polyphony, Baroque counterpoint, etc. and bake at 450 over five to six years, and boom PP's are anathema. So's the Devil's Interval.
    It wasn't so long ago one of our resident bards offered a very good observation: theory is retroactive and reactionary. It's the 21st century and all bets are off.
    A work either works or not, is beautiful or not, artistic or not.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Heath
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    One of my college composition teachers told me: "If you write parallel 5ths, just have a good reason for doing so."

    Wise advice, I think.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Heath
Add a Comment