English Responsory - Critique, please.
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    I've adapted what appears to be a traditional mode VI responsory tone to suit an English text. As a matter of critique, should I drop the first neume for a simple punctum? This particular responsory is for Sunday Vespers I, Psalter Week III.

    It has been bugging me for a few years that I have suitable music for just about everything else in the Divine Office except the responsories.
    Vespers Responsory.png
    940 x 560 - 49K
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    The style I am going for is akin to that of By Flowing Waters.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 998
    This is how I would do this particular responsory:

    image
    Thanked by 6bonniebede Adam Wood Aristotle Esguerra Ben hartleymartin CHGiffen
  • PhatFlute
    Posts: 219
    I love these 2 ! Both are great, wo,
    Ph
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Looking back at a Latin version ("Quam magnificata sunt") in the 1934 Antiphonale Monasticum, I made a version imitating some of the features from that melody, and adjusting a few melismas to fall on accented syllables:

    image
    resp-how-great.png
    457 x 382 - 23K
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    Much thanks for the advice, everyone!

    I've attached my edited version. I was primarily concerned about making the Response too complicated, and I think we all agreed that I was trying to preserve too much of the original melody on too few syllables.

    I thought that the first note of the second half of the response was supposed to be the same as the last note of the verse, but having sung this one through a couple of times, I don't think that it should be a problem.

    I decided to keep the first neume on the verse as is. It harks somewhat to Tonus Peregrinus, perhaps not an authentic interpretation of Tone VI, but I rather like it in this final version.

    Now I just have to go and make up all the other adaptions of the Responsories and Antiphons, and I'll have my own English Breviary! Now I understand why it takes years to compile all this music in translation. Although, I am still annoyed that there remains no official music edition of the Divine Office whilst there have been numerous Graduales made available.

    I'm also annoyed that there exists two different versions of the Office in the English-speaking world. Surely the English spoken in the UK/Australia isn't so different to American English that we cannot share the same prayer books!
    Vespers Responsory.png
    1000 x 560 - 52K
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    I'm just glad that back in the 1970s *somebody* had reasonably good English texts in their Office books, even if it wasn't us. :-)
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    The Divine Office UK/Aus edition has a few errors in translation. I believe that it is still based on the original Grail Psalter rather than the Revised Grail Psalter. The Grail psalms are not bad translations, although I think that some of the translations of the antiphons could have been better.

    The choice of publishing the full office in 3 volumes is a bit puzzling to me. They have a single volume "Daily Prayer." It would seem to me that they only need to publish a second book with the office of readings and the whole office would be easier to navigate.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    The single-volume book requires a lot of page-flipping. I can comprehend wanting to reduce that (at the cost of adding a lot of repetition).
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 998
    I was trying to preserve too much of the original melody on too few syllables.
    For the responsories, a melodoic formula is used. It might be worthwhile to compare different responsories set to the same formula and see how the formula adjusts. My advice is not to keep every single note of a melody when using an English translation. The same holds for office antiphons, which also uses type melodies and centonization.

    The single-volume book requires a lot of page-flipping.
    I can attest to that, as my Dutch breviary is a single volume, except for the lectionary of the office of readings. Lots and lots of page flippings!
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,394
    My advice is not to keep every single note of a melody when using an English translation.

    I wholeheartedly agree with this advice. Trying to retain too much of the notation used for the Latin text often leads to an English setting which sounds somewhat artificial, especially in the treatment of prepositions and articles. Specifically in this setting:

    How great our your works, O Lord. I prefer the smvanroode setting but think having FA RE FA on "works" and SOL alone on "O" is a tad better.

    In wisdom you have made them all. smvanroode's use of a podatus on "you" gives too much emphasis to that word. "Lord" has already been voiced in the previous phrase, so there is no need to emphasize the subject pronoun "you" in this phrase. The emphasis in the text should be on the past participle "made" (as all three settings have it). hartley's podatus on "in" is not good. Prepositions and articles should receive the least emphasis in an English text. For this phrase I prefer chonak's setting but think having three LA's on "-dom you have" better than three SOL's.

    Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Again, I think it better that a podatus not be used for the preposition "to." It overemphasizes the preposition. A better solution, IMO, would be to equally deemphasize the three "to the"

    Glo-ry to the Fa-ther LA LA LA LA LA_SI LA
    and to the Son SOL SOL LA SOL
    and to the Ho-ly Spir-it. FA FA FA SOL_FA SOL SOL. LA.
    Thanked by 2smvanroode M. Jackson Osborn
Add a Comment