Luke 4:23

I mean, it's not worthy of inclusion in the same breath as the Gabrieli or the Willan or the Victoria...but it's pleasant, if nothing else.

.

Anybody who identifies himself as "distinguished" (even when it's his title) does sound a bit silly. I hope the humorous aspect was intended.

But his "O magnum mysterium" is lovely. He wrote a solo version of it also, in case that might be useful sometime.

...but it's pleasant...

Yes, Schonbergian, but does it 'knock your socks off'?

No, I was thinking of the 3/4 section of Gabrieli's!

If you tire of the Victoria (and who could?), this will come a close second:
https://youtu.be/dSq4wM-yAqA

I'm chuckling while I listen to the Lauridsen Magnum. Yep, it's nice......... Nice...........

I'm thinking of George Carlin when I think of the word..............nice.

It's not a bad piece, does it sound pretty much like all the rest of his stuff? Yep.

But it is...........nice.

The Byrd O magnum mysterium doesn't sound Palestrina-ish to me at all. But it definitely sounds rather English-ish of the period, and it's quite lovely!!

Of course it is lovely. The many colors of William Byrd. For some reason, it strikes me as less emphatically English-ish than other works (when I see the score, it's less striking, but the first few times I heard it I didn't immediately place it as Byrd in the way I can with other things by Byrd).

I (heart) Byrd.

So, to list some of the most well known works in what we might call his 'mature' style (he is the author of a number of earlier works that had important performances):

Any of the 'Nocturnes', but particularly the Neruda setting and the Agee 'Sure on this shining night'

'O nata lux' from 'Lux Eaterna'

The aforementioned 'O magnum mysterium'

'Les Chansons des Roses,' and let's take particularly 'Dirait-on'

These pieces don't sound the same to me! Perhaps my ears work differently! (I'm sure they do.) But on a basic level each piece is going it's own way. In particular I would say that Lauridsen has a melodic gift that is easily overlooked.

(Of course, Mozart pieces all sound the same. Depending on what you mean by that!)

And, by the way, these pieces are easy to sing. There are no 'compositional' problems that hinder singing of parts. Unless you mean that Lauridsen doesn't follow Fux-style species counterpoint procedures. Because— why would he? It's the 21st century. His pieces are beautifully worked out. Listen and learn!

Lauridsen may not go down in history as a heavyweight, but he has written lovely works that will be sung and enjoyed by folks for years. Whether or not you are impressed by the person represented in the video, the work is significant. Lauridsen has added a new voice to the conversation. Not many can say the same!

For all the folks who are enjoying damning Lauridsen with faint praise, I simply say: go ahead and try to write something as successful! Or even something that sounds like it!
(Or, for a real challenge, try and write something that sounds like Schoenberg. Easy to make fun of, but real hard to imitate the expressive language!)

Humility in our opinions is something that is gained over time. The wisest know how much they don't know!

The "-ish" suffix is a play on Liam's "Palestrina-ish". I meant simply that Byrd work sounds rather like the English, "of the period" meaning simply or the Renissance era in England. To me, Byrd's style in the Magnificat cited simply did not sound all that much like the style of Palestrina.

Oh goodness!

a whole dissertation on vocal writing

That would be fun! Although, in general, I think it's probably a good policy to assume that your colleagues have AT LEAST the background/knowledge/experience that you have.

Lauridsen composes at the piano

As did Stravinsky, famously, and Britten and Copland, among well-known 20th century composers. Your point?

without great thought for the character of the voice.

So you've actually listened to some Lauridsen pieces, yes?

with the exception of Beethoven, perhaps

Or Bach, or Handel ('all we like sheep'?), two composers who definitely deserve a scolding regarding the non-vocal nature of their vocal writing! On the other hand, I am straining to think of a single measure of Lauridsen that poses any particular vocal problem.

No, Mozart doesn't all sound the same.

Yes, that was the point! Although some one could argue on a very superficial level that Mozart is just all major/minor scale passages and triadic figures and such-and-such cadential figures and this or that blah blah blah... I've seen it done! But of course that's silly. All composers develop tendencies—my mind just went to Berlioz!—but, Vivaldi, anyone? (In my youth, I thought I was so smart by saying Vivaldi and Haydn (!) were just writing the same piece over and over. True story. Hah. Ah, to be young and have opinions!) But, to return to Lauridsen, I've led performances of all of the above listed works, or the major works from which they are drawn, after having sung/played them all in the past, and I am here to say that they are each different music! And well worth studying by any young musician, especially one with ambitions as a composer. There is much more going on in these pieces than you seem to be aware, 'lightweight' though we may deem Lauridsen's overall output (as compared to more significant composers, which is not to say that Lauridsen's stuff isn't still pretty good!)

I am reminded of Randall Thompson (sp.? being lazy), whom one might call the Lauridsen of the 40's-60's. It's not late Beethoven, but generations enjoyed singing/listening to his music. It's pretty well-written and interesting stuff, and pretty much always manages to sound like Randall Thompson. It's really quite an admirable achievement.

"I need that chord, so, pooof, I have that chord."

Like Herr Handel's treatment of choral tenor parts - but at least they had more of a (sometimes maddening) line and logic.

JS Bach could do that, too, but it was not as frequently merely opportunistic.

I certainly understand what "composed at the [keyboard]" is a condensed symbol of in compositional terms because I've experienced it frequently in the past.

I am not competent to judge how lively and long Lauridsen's works will remain in repertoire. But I am competent to note that, as a choral singer in the past, I tired of the compositional style (he's hardly the only representative of it). I do think we are living in a time of richness for new choral music (not large works, but lots of commissions of smaller works that may prove to have legs over time if they become more widely known - to put it another way, I'd say new choral music gets out to a wider audience in local terms than new orchestral music), but I don't think of Lauridsen as an exemplar of that.

without great thought for the character of the voice.

Ermmm...you've sung Beethoven? He may respect "character" but does not think that there are "limits."

When we did the O Magnum, the 190 voices had no problem with tuning whatsoever, by the way. No, it's not Bruckner, but it's good stuff.

Yeah Beethoven is right up there with Mozart

We shouldn't fault any composers of any era for writing music that 'nobody can play' or that doesn't consider the limitations of the performer's medium. Were they to write only music that someone could play at a given time in history we would still be struggling with parallel organum. There were, after all, fewer than half a dozen people in all of Europe in Bach's time who could play some of his organ works, works which now can be rattled off by many a talented student. And didn't Beethoven say, lament, or boast that certain of his works were for future generations? (Yes, he did.) We have nowadays high school seniors and college freshmen who could play circles around many PhD's or virtuosos of a few decades or generations ago. As music becomes more challenging there always will be those who can pick up the gauntlet and reap a laureate's wreath.

Any given person does not have to like any given music, but 'it's unplayable' is no rational foundation for that dislike. It is, rather, an admission of relative incompetence. Such persons are in a league with teachers and others who assert that 'children (or 'people') can't sing chant'. This, upon reflection, is nothing more than an admission of personal incompetence to perform or teach chant, or whatever.