New "Sanctus" that I wrote - SATB with organ
  • frwaldmanfrwaldman
    Posts: 12
    Dear Friends,

    I've been (slowly) writing a Mass for SATB with organ accompaniment. This is one of the movements I completed. It places the most common plainchant of the Sanctus into a chorale setting. The work is completed, and it's open for anyone to use; of course I would accept constructive criticism, too.

    Thanks! - Fr. Noah Waldman
    SANCTUS.pdf
    130K
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    Just a visual comment, since I haven't had time to check deeper. Three SATB+Organ systems per page is too many, making the music difficult to see (and hence to follow). I would suggest using a large staff and text underlay size that would result in two systems per page. When in doubt, err on the side of readability.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,189
    Organ part is not clear regarding the use of the pedal.
  • frwaldmanfrwaldman
    Posts: 12
    OK both of these can be fixed.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,791
    What program are you using? I'm nitpicking, but the lack of hyphens (San-ctus is a better division) and of bar rests (undotted and centered in the measure) stick out. The placement of the treble clef at 58 (rather than at the right hand's reentry) makes it look like something was inadvertently left out.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Looking at this work for the first time, the organ part seems to look more like an organ reduction of an orchestral score - and I certainly here it as an Orchestra Mass. As such some may argue whether or not it is appropriate for liturgical performance. PLEASE DON"T GET INTO THAT DISCUSSION HERE, WE HAD A WHOLE THREAD ABOUT IT. I like what I hear at first sight. (If that makes sense.) I will play through it a few times, the counterpoint looks quite fine.
    Thanked by 1frwaldman
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,967
    I will have to play through it a few times. I don't give a rat's hiney about fonts or hyphens. If I can read it, it is generally good enough.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Fr. Waldman,
    Despite the disadvantage of the mp3/synth method of audition, I'd like to provide you with a cursory and very general response.
    In its construct employing many tried and true devices such as recognizable and well-crafted motifs that are concerted against the very Bach-like arpeggios, and easily palatable tonality shifts, this is a serviceable setting for performance. However, to be honest, it sees more like an effort like an etude, or study. It adheres sonically to diatonicism with little discernable chromatic or other "tension-release" devices that provide the ear with interest and relief. In that aspect it's almost minimalist, echoing Phillip Glass without the interminable boredom.
    Again, it would only be truly fair to hear this done live (even via recording.)
    But I would hope your other movements employ more of the cornucopia of harmonic vocabularies that 1500 years of theoretical development in Western Music provides us.
    Keep composing, by all means. It is a substantial work from a new voice who also happens to be a cleric. Congratulations.

    Thanked by 1frwaldman
  • frwaldmanfrwaldman
    Posts: 12
    Alright, let's begin again. Thank you, melofluent, for your critique which is well-taken. My piece does indeed have a limited harmonic palate. The difficulty was the restrictions involved in setting the chant, since, unlike a Bach setting which can take its cue from the harmonic changes suggested by the Lutheran hymn, the chant does not change in such a way. That limited me. If I could have interspersed a contrasting theme in the middle of the piece so that its structure were A-B-A, there would have been the opportunity for more variety, but I wasn't able to do this. I'll keep this in mind for the remaining sections of the mass.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    I don't give a rat's hiney about fonts or hyphens.

    Charles, you must not be a singer [....] A choral score is supposed to adhere to certain conventions, especially with respect to hyphens in the text underlay for syllabic clarity, and Richard was right to point out that this score lacks the requisite hyphenation.

    It is good that the point size for the staves and text was increased, however. Now my eyes can actually read the score. That is something that other singers and accompanists will appreciate, too.

    [Edited by admin]
  • frwaldmanfrwaldman
    Posts: 12
    Sibelius, the program I used to type in what I wrote, as far as I can figure out does not allow for text hyphenations, opting for a "_________" notation.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    Sibelius does indeed allow for text hyphenation. You type a "-" instead of a space after a non-final syllable, for example: "Re-joice, the Lord is King."
  • frwaldmanfrwaldman
    Posts: 12
    Oh! Thanks I didn't know that.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Off topic, Chuck. Missa Ascensionis... is flying high from "Alleluia" to "Lamb of God." (Saving Kyrie/Glory) for Advent. We've given it six weeks of blending unison with choral so that the peeps can get the motives, but you have a winner!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Fr. Waldman,

    I'm trying to figure out what melodic cause is served by the continuous use of the A-flat to E-natural figure. As a secondary note, the organ does seem tremendously busy.

    I should, in fairness, note that I don't write for organ and choir any more, because my few attempts resulted in wholly un-satisfactory projects. When I recently posted here the Salve Regina, I got no comments through the forum and one through PM.

    Thank you for your priesthood.

    God bless,

    Chris
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • frwaldmanfrwaldman
    Posts: 12
    The "motif" A-flat-E-C (meas. 4-5 / 16-17) outlines an augmented triad - which only occurs one other place, meas. 56. [N.B. Edit: second eighth note in Altos, meas. 56 should have read "D-flat" to corroborate the augmented triad in the organ {score posted above has been changed}]. The piece is meant to be played with vigor and drive, so I think the organ part is fine.

    I'm sorry you feel discouraged in writing music. People especially can be fickle in their reactions. But it's best not to give in to that feeling because you are writing for yourself and for God. If you are sitting around, and you begin to hear music in your head like you're listening to something from another place, then you need to write it down and color it in. It took Elgar years of writing really mediocre pieces before he hit his stride, so please don't despair.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Fr. Waldman,

    Thank you for a speedy response.

    I recognize that the augmented triad was intentional, but what I was trying to understand is this: why sharpen the dominant, of all pitches, since it makes a diminished fourth?

    I would welcome your comments on the Salve Regina, which I have posted.

    As to being discouraged, my writing has improved over the years, so that's not what is "discouraging". I decided to write mostly unaccompanied music because I wasn't writing accompaniments well, and don't think that organs should merely double the parts. Some of my pieces have been well received, and others not.

    Thank you for your priesthood.

    God bless,

    Chris
  • kenstb
    Posts: 369

    Chris,

    Don't allow yourself to be discouraged. Thirty-nine years ago, when I wrote my first setting of the mass, even my parents wouldn't listen to it. My parish still sings the Gloria from that mass at Christmas. Write music because you hear music. It isn't up to you to determine its worth. It is art, and it should be heard. We never know who will be touched by our music. Use your gift. Don't be afraid. Our music is not for us alone.
  • frwaldmanfrwaldman
    Posts: 12
    Why sharpen the E you mean? Well it's not really a dominant there at measure 4, but a leading tone of F minor. (Unless I'm not seeing what you're seeing, so I apologize if this isn't what you meant.)

    Yes I played through the just the beginning of the Salve Regina and I liked its very pure sound - it has a lightness and clarity to it that I like - I think the choice of three voices contributes to this. But I have to play through the whole thing, but now I have to visit the kids at PSR....
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    My impressions more or less echo Melofluent's take on things. In particular, I agree wholeheartedly that new music from your new "voice" is most welcome. While I do understand the harmonic limitations that you feel are necessary, more imaginative harmonic variety is indeed still possible when harmonizing chant.

    By the way, it doesn't seem as if you are making a "chorale" setting of the chant (unless that is a typo and you mean "choral" setting, in which case ignore this sentence).

    As to the augmented triad figures mentioned by Chris, and with your mention of an augmented triadic "motif" occurring three times, I checked and count 8 instances of augmented triad figures: m.4-5 (ten), m.12 (rh), m.16-17 (ten), m.23 (rh), m.56 (alt), m.56 (rh), m.70 (rh), m.74 (rh). By comparison, I count about 27 instances of diminished triad figures.

    The C-flat/C-natural clashes in m.49 are interesting.

    Notation software glitches that need to be tweaked (you should be able to do this):
    m.65: (bc) looks like G-double-flat, but should be two superimposed single flats signs.
    m.68: (bc) looks like E-double-natural, but should be two superimposed single natural signs.

    Congratulations on your hard work, Fr Waldman, and I hope we'll see more of your Mass setting before long.

    Pax Christi,
    Chuck Giffen
  • frwaldmanfrwaldman
    Posts: 12
    Chuck,

    Thank you for your excellent observations. You've got quite the eye (and patience) for analysis! Your basic criticism, that it lacks a sense of going someplace and returning, is not too surprising to me. I mean, I know it. Since I'm new at composing I think I'm too concerned with formal unity, with the results being a kind of rigidity. So I'll focus on expanding my harmonic vocabulary in future parts of the mass I want to do (I've only competed two movements). In time I'll find a balance.

    Also, could you explain to me the difference between a chorale setting and a choral setting? I don't know some of these terms (or, for that matter as you can tell, some conventions of engraving - but that's for another time).

    Thank you,

    Fr. Noah (Waldman)
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    When you wrote "chorale" setting, the image I had was of something like a harmonized Bach chorale (think "O sacred head sore wounded" or "Break forth, O beauteous morning light") ... "chorale" being the generic (basically Lutheran) hymn form. A "choral" setting just means a harmonized setting with 2 or more parts, not necessarily homophonic, and often polyphonic. Now you see my confusion. It seems clear now that you meant "choral" setting. :)
  • frwaldmanfrwaldman
    Posts: 12
    Thank you!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,189
    I would second the critiques offered here also. Sorry for the delay to look at it, but I finally spent some time with it.

    May I suggest you listen to other composers and their treatment of gregorian chant. Check out Durufle and Tournemire and Langlais. Incredible treatments of those melodies. I am partial to Tournemire given my book on him. But check those composers out.

    Good luck and I look forward to other things.
Add a Comment