In reviewing the score to this work, I've come to the conclusion that it might (or might not) be better with the addtion of two musica ficta in the form of two sharped notes in m. 19 of the alto part. A version of the score incorporating these ficta is attached, and here is the link to a synthesized MP3 recording with these ficta.

Giffen-Ave Maria-ficta

I'm interested in finding out which of these versions people prefer.

Thanks, Francis! Actually, I don't have a problem with parallel fourths (unlike parallel fifths) in my ear - or theoretically - especially since the motion is not in lock-step (the upper note is sounded before the lower note, which is moving from a third). Also, note that in measure 5, there is a similarly constructed non-lock-step parallel fifth between the soprano and bass (which in my canon is allowed).

The only difference between the two versions is in measure 19, where in the "ficta" version, I suggest that the E, F, G, A in the alto part might be rendered as E, F#, G#, A (musica ficta style with the sharps placed above the two notes in question). I don't completely ascribe to these, which is why I notated them so. It is much the same when considering modal as well as melodic issues with earlier Renaissance works, especially some (Franco-)Flemish polyphony, where it is all too easy to assert too much alteration, following principles that make better sense in terms of later performance practice (as far as we can tell) but, quite possibly, were not as prevalent as the "let's alter every note that could conceivably fit the rules we have concocted" crowd.

For example, if one looks at my editions of Gombert's Je prens congie and the prima pars of his motet Lugebat David Absalon, there is a difference (the Je prens... has more altered notes). In the performance notes for the Lugebat... I wrote:

We have been generally conservative with inserting musica ficta, in an effort to preserve what seems to be the unique character of the music as reflected in the tragic text. This is in contrast to our edition of the composer's Je prens congie whose music is nearly identical to the Prima Pars of the present motet and for which musica ficta were more liberally applied (albeit with some reservations about the modality of added E-flats near the end).

The point of ficta is that they are possible suggestions - which for singers of the era might have been second nature to then contemporary performance practice. And these would probably have been rendered "on the fly" when singing madrigals (and motets) one to a part, but would have been agreed upon beforehand when sung with two or more singers on each part. In present day annotations of such music, the editor must take into account the musical era, the (local perception) of modality, the style (eg. secular madrigal versus sacred motet), and the likely number of singers per part - as well as "rules" that (like species counterpoint) were formulated, after the fact, from observed (and nowadays perceived) performance practice. I'm still learning and find that, as I learn more, I tend to be more conservative.

For the present work, though, it is more a question of, "What sounds better?" That criterion is often (over-)applied nowadays to early music, but makes perfectly good sense for a modern composition written in a somewhat generic Renaissance style.

Rant-aissance mode off. :)

other voices cover up the 5th measure instance. just number two shows the naked interval.

It's a beautiful piece! I would do it here in a heartbeat.

"O God, bring a full SATB choir to our parish. Amen"

usually 1s (sometimes 2), sometimes 1a, 1t, 3b