Josquin Ave Verum Corpus a 5

mrcopper

What a lovely edition, first!

I began working with it in order to apply my intonation heresies, and see if they worked or failed.

(EDIT)
I deleted much of my comments, having resolved some of the questions, finally. I believe the simple movement of the syllable "Na- " one note earlier will fix the original at that point; the intonation issues remain interesting: the second scale step intonation must fluctuate frequently: high against a fifth scale step, low against a fourth or tonic.

William

Adam Wood

I'm interested, but also a little confused.

Are you attempting to show what a performance of the piece would sound like according to your "intonation heresies" (performance practice change), or are you attempting to fix the composition itself? (Or both?)

And (because I really don't know...) how does your tuning "system" (from a performance practice standpoint) compare with what is typically done by expert performers of unaccompanied Renaissance music (which, already, is not equal-tempered)?

mrcopper

P 1: Both; I wouldn't dare criticise Josquin, but I am asking if perhaps C.H. might have made a typo or a questionable interpretation of whatever original he was using at the measure in question.

P2: It is similar, I believe, though I differ with, for example, Duffy in preferring to lower a second when sounded with the fourth, rather than raising a fourth when sounded with the second.

My hypothesis was that in this music, my intonation system would reveal that Josquin was a forerunner in the School of Intonalism, and that all I have to do is extend it to tonal modulations.

MBW

I don't know your intonation signs. Do you have a table which explains them? I am very interested in the practical performance applications of older tunings and how to make those tuning easier for singers.

CHGiffen

Could the original notation be interpreted differently, as I have posted in the "alternative" version?

Hi William,

Unfortunately, your "alternative" is quite at variance with the original source, and my transcription is accurate. A few comments, first as regards your suggested changes in the Cantus part in (your) bars 9-11:

1. Your version has the unfortunate consequence of introducing a non-Josquine dissonance at the beginning of bar 10 between the Cantus and Bassus part.

2. The stepwise descending series of notes ending with a descending third in the Cantus is not out of place and is clearly notated so in the original.

3. I'm not sure what "third of a triad doubled at the octave" you see, unless it is at the beginning of your bar 10 (the A's in Altus and Cantus), where the Bassus has moved to an E while the F in the Tenor is a note that has already sounded. I haven't any real problems with it, however, due to the low E.

4. Overall, although halving the note values is commendable and even appropriate for modern day singers, the doubling of the number of bars in your edition is completely out of place. The original time signature is O2, meaning triple rhythm with duple subdivision, and you have made it 3/2 + 3/2 (or 6/2) out of what (in today's notation) should be 3/1. The whole note (in your edition) is the tactus (albeit very slow), not the half note. It is only in recognizing this that one sees the rhythmic structure and flow of this movement.

Finally, lest you wonder about the source, I enclose extracted partbook PDFs for the Josquin work from the Cantiones Trigenta Selectissimae, for comparison. The results of such studies are quite interesting.

mrcopper

Hi, Watson, I have not yet made a table specifically for this question, but the same symbols are used in other music of mine. In the preface to "Holy Day Overture" they are described as clearly as I could. An excerpt, including that table, is attached here.

mrcopper

Thank you very much for the pdfs, I will study them; I see your point about the dissonance, and agree. My alternative was a complete guess, just that as given there was something not quite right (in my opinion, and I am completely interested in changing that opinion if I can). I also was unsure about the time signature, and agree that the longer bar is more correct ... only it would be very difficult to conduct.

Adam Wood

there was something not quite right

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
but in ourselves- that we are underlings."

CHGiffen

... it would be very difficult to conduct.

It has to be conducted in a subdivided 3 pattern, maybe something like:

3.5
3

1.5 1 2 2.5

mrcopper

My attachment, re meaning of symbols, has disappeared twice: perhaps too large?

It is available on my web site: http://www.hartenshield.com/0499_holyday_I_excerpt.pdf

mrcopper

Edit: deleted comments, no longer relevant.

CGM

Some years ago a friend made this Lilypond score for me. I asked him to transpose it up into this key, which has better ranges for mixed voices (SAATB). I think it works as a performing edition:

mrcopper

CGM, thanks for posting that. I now have three version, all with mistakes. My own mistakes are clear; I believe that CH Giffen's has rhythmic issues in the lower voices; and the one you just posted also, i believe, is faulty in interpreting the rhythms. Hard to see how Josquin is considered such a great composer, since we can't even agree on how to interpret it. I am relying on the partbook pdfs Charles posted. Will post more later, am still (three nearly full days work so far ...) working on it.

Adam Wood

Are you correcting the edition, or correcting Josquin?

mrcopper

The edition(s)!

CHGiffen

A few days ago, I revised my edition, correcting two semibreves to a dotted semibreve followed by a minim in m. 2 & 5 of the Discantus part and m. 3 & 5 of the Bassus part, as well as one very minor text underlay change. Today I have uploaded the revised PDF and MP3 sound files to the CPDL page for this work.

These changes do not substantially alter the score in the places questioned by William Copper, and I maintain that my edition is as close as possible to Josquin's intent.

One other point. My edition, except for note values, transposition, and a rather different take on filling in the text underlay for ij-repetitions, is subtantially the same as the one posted by CGM above. There is one quibble with that score at the very end of the tertia pars: It is clearly indicated in the Tenor partbook which I posted above that the second voice of the canon is to stop and hold two notes before the end. Thus, in CGM's score, the final 3 bars of the first Alto part should be three F's tied together (the G and subsequent F are to be supressed), presumably with the syllable "-men" moved to that 3-bar F.

I have also prepared a transposition of my final edition up a whole step (in G) which would probably be better suited to SATTB voicing, at least with present day choirs. I'll attach a PDF score of that transposed edition. Shortly, I'll post this score together with an MP3 sound file at CPDL (the MP3 has been compressed within CPDL's 5 megabyte limit, but compression to MSF's 2 megabyte limit is not feasible).*

Edit:
* The transposed edition (score and sound file) have been published at CPDL. Also, the attached score and the scores at CPDL have been updated as of 2013-08-27.

mrcopper

Thank you for that update. I can see that the places you mention might be interpreted either way. The first place I questioned was resolved by a simple text underlay change, M. 6, discantus (shift the "na" a semibreve earlier).

Now I have a new place to question: my intonation markings indicate a need for two questionable intonations: a musica ficta natural B in M. 11 and a changing intonation on one note, the G tied from M. 10 to M. 11. (on my reduced score, M. 30-34, and in key of G the respective notes are C# and A).

Charles, if you have the patience to look again, I wonder if something rhythmic might be amiss there?

I made a new recording, and the music (imo) is beautiful until around that point, and then cloudy again. http://www.hartenshield.com/aveverum_a5_G_begin.mp3

Work-in-progress attached (also in G, not F, for practical reasons)

Adam Wood

Now I have a new place to question: my intonation markings indicate a need for two questionable intonations

Excuse me for saying so, but this reminds me of one of the most annoying problems in dating the composition of various biblical texts...

The date of this book is clearly later than Year X.
What's your proof of that?
Because it is prophesying Event A, which happened in Year X.
So you're saying a prophecy could never actually fore-tell an event?
Correct. Prophecies that seem to predict historical events are always re-told after the fact.
What's your proof of that?
Tons of examples! Look, right here. This book is prophesying Event A. And we know that it was written later than Year X.

CHGiffen

Adam...

I am reminded of something that appears in the index to The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 1 by Donald Knuth, of Stanford University. If you look up "Circular reasoning" you are instructed to see "Reasoning, circular" ... and of course if you look up "Reasoning, circular" you are instructd to see "Circular reasoning" ... just one of Prof. Knuth's many instances of humor sprinkled throughout his writings.

Knuth, a devout Lutheran, vacillated and eventually chose physics over music as his major, but then switched to mathematics receiving both a B.S. and M.S. degree in 1960 from Case Institute of Technology, then a Ph.D. in mathematics in 1963 from Cal. Tech.

A devout Lutheran, Don Knuth has maintained his passion for music and had a pipe organ installed in his home many years ago.

Adam Wood

Yes. I think my favorite Knuth index joke is in one of the subsequent editions of that book, where, "Royalties, use of" cites a page with a picture of that organ.

chonak

He also deserves mention as the inventor of the TeX typesetting system, on which the Gregorio and Lilypond engraving programs both depend.

Adam Wood

Yup. Dude's got cred.

mrcopper

I too own and admire that book; never perused the index! Adam you are a determined sceptic: do you admit that a perfect fourth or fifth should be tuned pure? Do you admit that a unison should be tuned pure? How about an octave? There is nothing more complicated than those rules in question here. I admit to perhaps trying Charles' patience, he has done a fine edition and I propose all these questions; the truth is all I seek in truth.

Adam Wood

I admit nothing.

My skepticism lies in the notion that you can apply a system such as this to retroactively "fix" a composer's work. I know, I know- you're just taking issue with the edition. But not really- because the assumption is that your tuning system will prove the composition.

Forgive me if I seem unduly hostile toward this approach- I should simply ignore it, since it I think it is, in essence, a form of intellectual hogwash. But I am of the opinion that this sort of intellectual hogwashery is the primary problem with 20th Century academia (in all fields).

Strike that. I think this has been the primary problem with all fields of academia since the Classical Greeks: "My logical system tells me there is no movement. Yet I see movement everywhere. Clearly the movement is an illusion." Really? It couldn't possibly be that your logical system is faulty?

mrcopper

Hm. Actually, I'm quite sympathetic with your view in general. But this is MYYYY system, so clearly you are wrong. Let's see ... how do I do purple ..

And one thing you have wrong, at least: the assumption is not that my tuning system will prove the composition. Rather, my hope is that a very fine composer like Josquin will help to validate my system. I'm also working on a Mozart edition, and have plans for perhaps a Perotin, a Lassus, and maybe a Bach (though I think Bach's own 'system' of well-tempered music may be in opposition to my system of perfect tuning.)

And btw, another project these days is a piano quartet, also using these ideas about intonation. Someone on a string forum said, in nearly Adam's words, "have you ever had anything you've written performed?" . I wanted to say: "ADAM WOOD!!! HI!!!"

or perhaps "grrrrr".

Adam Wood

Rather, my hope is that a very fine composer like Josquin will help to validate my system.

This makes sense, though I suspect you will find that it doesn't work out.

That is to say, I don't think any complex of definable rules can capture what any great composer was doing. Even basic theory rules (voice -leading, etc) are "violated" all the time. And why? Not because the composer was breaking the rules (ridiculous), but because the "rules" are just an explanation ex post facto.

Of course- the basic rules of theory are useful inasmuch as they help explain something about what composers were doing.

So- I could imagine your system having some partial value in explaining or understanding some aspect of non-discrete tuning practice. But it seems a bit overambitious to think it could (or should) do much more than that.

But- you know- that's just my OPINION, man! I am far from an academic theoretician, and this sort of music-theory academic rationalism is why I abandoned a composition major.

And btw, another project these days is a piano quartet, also using these ideas about intonation. Someone on a string forum said, in nearly Adam's words, "have you ever had anything you've written performed?" . I wanted to say: "ADAM WOOD!!! HI!!!"

String theory- way above my head.

And you have to admit it IS a reasonable question when encountering something that seems so onerous to the performer. (Layering another level of notation on top of an existing one.)

CHGiffen

William...

Since the first two semibreves of (my) m. 6 Discantus are a ligature (that's the meaning of the horizontal square brace over those two notes), it is not possible to assign them to different syllables. The only displacement of syllables that might make sense at that point would be to move "-pus na-" so that "na- begins on the first beat of m. 6 (which is the first note of the ligature in question) and "-pus" is moved to the last note (semibreve) of the preceding m. 5.

While I do indeed subscribe to the judicious use of musica ficta in the performance of some Renaissance works, I did not undertake an analysis of what, if any, ficta places should be indicated (whether or not actually applied). The raised note you mention, however, does not fit the generally accepted principles for application of musica ficta, and it actually creates a seventh chord (dominant seventh of the dominant) that was not in the harmonic lexicon of that era. I think you would have to look for a different solution to any intonation problems there.

The tied note (in your score) that you say requires a different tuning on each half is not a tied note in the original, occurring as it does in mid-measure in triple meter. I'm not sure yet how to reconcile this theoretically, and I tend to think that intonation adjustments were made, if not on the fly (as it were), by subtle alteration of surrounding pitches, sometimes by replacing a wide (9/8) whole step by a narrow (10/9) whole step, and other such things.

mrcopper

Leaving aside intonation, in that same place (and the following measure) there are two parallel fourths between Tenor and Altus, and a skip to a dissonance (the seventh you refer to). So far, have failed to find a different interpretation, but (despite

Even basic theory rules (voice -leading, etc) are "violated" all the time.

) Josquin didn't break any rules anywhere else, that I can see.

"-pus na-" as you suggested seems to work better. I can't find my old Jeppesen but I feel sure I remember one rule of polyphonic word placement was no continuation of a melisma by a leap in the same direction as the preceding stepwise motion.

CHGiffen

Parallel fourths were not at all uncommon in Renaissance writing. There are also parallel fourths in m. (8), 14 (Discantus & Altus), m. (9) (Altus & Tenor) of the Prima Pars.

Adam Wood

From CHGiffen:

The raised note you mention, however, does not fit the generally accepted principles for application of musica ficta, and it actually creates a seventh chord (dominant seventh of the dominant) that was not in the harmonic lexicon of that era.

From Wikipedia:

The dominant seventh-type chord is so important to barbershop harmony that it is called the "barbershop seventh"
[...]
When tuned in just intonation (as in barbershop singing), this chord is called a harmonic seventh chord.

Just, you know, sayin'...

melofluent

I dont know why it's taken me 30 posts to find this conversation! Keep it going, gentlemen, it is of great interest.
Adam, you scamp you, are you tickling Mr. Copper's nose with the dominant seventh/barbershop reference.
I, for one, am grateful to Wagner, if for just this: the obliteration of the fixed notion of the upper/lower leading tone functions of a dominant seventh chord. Yahoo.
Chuck, the II7 to V(7) certainly has no purchase (there I go again) in counterpoint polyphony, but there's a host of jazz musicians laughing it up heaven that the "turnaround" of the circle of fifths via dom7 seems to be musical natural law.
Mr. C- did I miss any examples of your comps/arrs'. being performed live by humans via YouTube, etc.?

Adam Wood

Adam, you scamp you, are you tickling Mr. Copper's nose with the dominant seventh/barbershop reference.

Me? I can't imagine why'd you think me capable of such a thing.

I really should stop giving our new friend such a hard time.
(But then, how would he know if I liked him or not?)

CHGiffen

there's a host of jazz musicians laughing it up heaven that the "turnaround" of the circle of fifths via dom7 seems to be musical natural law.

How well I know, Charlie ... and not just jazz musicians, too.

During one of my sons somewhat meteoric trip through jazz music (as a trombonist par excellence and budding jazz composer), before he turned away from music as a profession and pursued mathematics instead, I learned a lot about the jazz idiom and even used jazz elements extensively in the Kyrie of a subsequently abandoned Missa Polychromia that I worked on back then. Of course, the accompaniment included the winds (saxes and brass), but not the drum set, of your typical jazz band, augmented with three flutes, string quartet, harp, and grand piano. It was way too grandiose an endeavor that I realized would be woefully out of place in the celebration of Mass.

mrcopper

You scamp. Anyone sez barbershop again, I'm a gonna do something bad here. Mess with the forum color scheme or something.

As to Josquin, I am nearly there: Charles, you added a rest in the tenor (and altera voce) part, and imperfectly imperfected the bass, altus, and discantus. See bar 14 for the tenor rests; somewhere between 11 and 14 the other voices have to lose a semibreve.

mrcopper

Melo, I have two music orders to fill right now that I'm not doing because I'm fixated on Josquin, but (if you don't mind high school performances) there should be a flute quartet somewhere near you and some chorus music.

Charles, I have paid (relatively) large sums of money to music editors to scrutinize my editions, so please feel that you are getting free editing, not that you are getting irritating scrutiny for no reason!

CHGiffen

William, a count of beats in the Discantus, Altus, and Bassus parts seems to indicate that the Tenor (and Altera Vox) parts come up a beat short. The three breve rest that I give in bar 14 in the Tenor (and a bar later in the Altera Vox) is indicated as only a two breve rest in the Tenor part book, but my feeling (as I recall it) was that that was a copyist error. The only other possibility that "fits" is for the following note, a breve, might possibly have been intended to be a longa but is missing its right hand stem. I should have pointed this out in my edition notes in the score. I shall parenthesize the added third breve rest in each ot the Tenor and Altera Vox parts. Somehow, I don't feel that changing replacing the following breve note by a longa is the intended solution, even if it works, so I'm not sure if I'll give that as an alternative choice, as I did at the beginning of the Tertia Pars (Discantus), unless people think that is advisable.

As for paying (large) sums of money to music editors for scrutany of my editions, that is somewhat of a nonstarter for me, since my editions of early music are all made freely available through CPDL. I don't make a cent (and spend considerable time, effort, and money) making works available for free which should be free in the first place. It's what I do in my retirement years to give back to sacred music what sacred music has given me over the years.

That said, I have relied in the past and continue to rely on the helpful advice and criticism from various colleagues, including yourself. So my hat is off to you in thanks. My goal is to present the best possible editions given present knowledge and scholarship ... free of encumbrance.

Chuck

CHGiffen

Just a note that I have updated the scores at CPDL and the higher pitched score above to reflect the change in text underlay discussed along with clarifying an extra breve rest or longa note replacing a breve note being necessary to make the work scan properly.

mrcopper

Thanks, Chuck, I do appreciate your continued friendliness.

I'm sceptical, naturally, about a copyist error in such a clear place, and in a copy where other rests are notated rather scrupulously clearly. I admit I'm having trouble knitting together the beginning of Part I with the end of Part I across your measures 11-14.

To me, in bar 11, it appears that the tenor part has a ligature on 're' of "Vere passum", two minims (filling up the 'perfection') rather than two semibreves.

I

CHGiffen

If only George Frideric had lived in the right era, we might have had Handel's soliloquy:

To perfect or not to perfect — that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to perfect an imperfection and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, imperfect a perfection, and thus, by opposing, end them?

Anyhoo ...

To me, in bar 11, it appears that the tenor part has a ligature on 're' of "Vere passum", two minims (filling up the 'perfection') rather than two semibreves.

If that were the case, then by comparison with the other partbooks, the first note of the ligature should have a left stem, as in the ligatures in the Discantus part on "na-" (bar 6) & "ve-" (bar 10) and in the Altus part on "na-" (bar 6), "vir-" (bar 8-9) & "ve-" (bar 10). Additionally, the interpretation as a ligature at this point seems doubtful to me, since the Tenor (and Altera Vox) are essentially a rhythmically augmented (and very occasionally ornamented) cantus firmus on the "Ave verum corpus" plainchant.

It is a sticky wicket trying to fit the beginning and end of the Prima Pars together. And we have to deal with the evident fact that there has been some sort of copyist error(s), which I have treated, by analogy, with the similar problem at the beginning of the Teritia Pars.

"Tis an imperfection I'm willing to live with.

mrcopper

Well, howzabout this one: Altus part. Doesn't change the total length of the part, but it does make the interpretation of other parts change a bit. Attached file: staff 1, as in the Altus; staff 2, as I interpret it; staff 3, as you (Chuck) interpret it (bar 8-10).

Last two notes on staff three are a step too high (I'm still working in G and brought that measure in after re-transposing to F ) Next time I make a pdf I'll correct this & edit the post.

The perfecting ligatures ought to end a perfection, I believe.

( I take the liberty of using Chuck, since you signed that way: you may call me Will if you care to, or anything else ...)

Ps I found my Jeppesen "Counterpoint" book, he has very detailed rules about text placement and when dissonance may and may not be used ... not sure how closely his Palestrina-oriented text tracks to Josquin.

CHGiffen

Will,

Stick your interpretation in with the other voices ... and chaos results, with unacceptable dissonances (tritone, minor second).

The editorial practice of other works in the Cantiones Triginta Selectissimae (a collection compiled and published in the latter half of the 16th century, not late in the 15th or early in the 16th century) simply does not support your interpretation. The ligature in question is invariably interpreted at two semibreves (in my 3-breve tactus, two minims in your 3/1 tactus), and never as two minims (two crotchets in your notation). Also, if you are to halve the duration of the ligature in question, then must you also halve the following ligature on "Ve-" of "Vere passum"?

My other editions (at CPDL), together with my own personal copies of Tambling's editions, of other works from this collection are quite consistent on this point, and, although I do not know who prepared it, the edition that CGM posted is very much in line with my own and does not vary one iota on the ligature you question.

It would take a major reinterpretation (or manipulation) of the other parts to make something harmonically compatible with your suggestion. If you can do it, I would love to see the result, but I just don't see how to jiggle the note values in the other parts to accomplish this.

I'm not sure just how Jeppesen's principles on text underlay relate to Josquin, either, since Josquin died in the year of Palestrina's birth (1521) and thus most of Paletrina's work was on the order of three-quarters of a century after Josquin's. Where possible, I tried to provide the underlay as given in the C.T.S. partbooks as accurately as possible.

Chuck (yep, I'm called Chuck by nearly everyone ... couldn't stand "Charlie" with a nasal twang as a youth, so told everyone in college I was "Chuck")

JulieColl

It's what I do in my retirement years to give back to sacred music what sacred music has given me over the years.

Multas gratias for all your fine work on CPDL! I spend hours going through the music there and have found many treasures.

mrcopper

Yes, I agree totally with the thanks for Chuck's work.

Part I of Ave Verum Corpus done, and it turns out my differences with Chuck are minor. That tenor rest, I agree as copyist error; the ligatures previously mentioned, yes, as Chuck says. A few text placement issues remain (where changes of syllable are proposed after a quaver), but those are minor. A bass note in error, possibly; the seventh mentioned earlier either a copyist error or an unusual secondary seventh (dominant seventh of the dominant). Both footnoted in my edition, attached. Footnotes at end.

Update: I attempted the clearest yet explanation of how to use the intonation markings. I'm no writer of words, so it isn't easy. See the end notes, and please comment if you care to.

Yesterday, in the midst of all this, the local country store cashier asked me if I had any cents ... I was forced to reply, "not much".

Recording at http://www.hartenshield.com/Josquin_Ave_verum_a5_part1.mp3

pssst, Adam: my 'system' works!

mrcopper

Final update on this: parts 2 and 3 done, also very lovely. Doubling the tempo of part 3 seemed to work well, as did making part 2 much slower.

Score for the entire work attached, footnotes at end.

Recording at http://www.hartenshield.com/Josquin_Ave_verum_corpus_a5.mp3

Hypothesis: If Josquin is such a good composer, his music should sound good.

QED

William

Adam Wood

pssst, Adam: my 'system' works!

So does mine.

See figure one, an explanation of my system:

Oh wait, no sorry- that's my Music Ministry Management system.

You were referring to a system for harmonic and tonal analysis.

I have a system for that, too:

Adam Wood

Hypothesis: If Josquin is such a good composer, his music should sound good.

Oh how I wish this was an actual criterion for someone being deemed a good composer.

mrcopper

One more comment about tempo: the time it takes to sing three tempora (a perfection) in part I is about 7 1/2 seconds, and that's a good approximation for the reverberation time in a large church. In Part II, two tempora at a slower speed is the same time. In part III, four tempora a double the speed of Part II is also the same time.

So I rerecorded with a reverb taken from a cathedral (slightly longer, but it becomes inaudible after about 6 seconds).

Part 1: http://www.hartenshield.com/Josquin_Ave_verum_a5_part1.mp3
Part 2: http://www.hartenshield.com/Josquin_Ave_verum_a5_part2.mp3
Part 3: http://www.hartenshield.com/Josquin_Ave_verum_a5_part3.mp3

And a final pdf score posted below, with a preface giving indications for how and why intonation and musica ficta choices were made.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories