William,

The fact that the piece clearly does not intend to have the congregation singing is no obstacle to its appropriateness for use at Mass.

I have a different question, since I haven't been able to listen to the recording. The middle voice sometimes seems to be written in the correct octave, and sometimes to be written an octave out. (The setting of Jesu, Rex Admirabilis that we use has the same problem: we sing it SAB, instead of STB.)

I am playing with the idea of the congregation singing the 'theme'

There are a handful of good, a capella Mass settings that do some kind of congregational melody with "choral accompaniment." I think it is an excellent way to balance the multiple concerns of selecting settings for the Ordinary.

Interesting- since I stated my "preference" for congregational Ordinaries in the first place.

There is nothing illicit or inappropriate in either a congregationally focused setting, or a choral setting. My understanding of the mind of the Church (ha!) is that it is desirable for the congregation to sing the Ordinary normally. Others disagree. And even from my understanding, there is plenty of room for choral Ordinaries.

Anywho- if you want to write something for congregation + choir, you should do so. If you want to write something for choir alone, you should do that.

(Anyone with the intellectual audacity to attempt to remake modern intonation and notational practices should write whatever music he damn well wants to.)

Mr. Copper,

As I said, I lacked the skill to do it well. I liked what I could hear of your setting in my head, but I wouldn't try to "adapt" it to allow or encourage congregational singing.

There is nothing illicit or inappropriate in either a congregationally focused setting,

says Adam, but his own language makes an important distinction if perhaps by accident. None of the chant ordinaries are "congregationally focused", but they can be sung by ordinary parishioners. Some are easier than others. Some can be learned well and quickly by rote, while others are only sung well by those who have the music.

To write so that a congregation can sing is not a bad thing. To write navel-gazing music, such as has polluted our parishes for well nigh 40 years, on the other hand, is not a good thing, and is in fact wholly inappropriate for the sacrifice of the Mass.

To write navel-gazing music, such as has polluted our parishes for well nigh 40 years

Do tell us exactly how you feel.
No, really, please tell us exactly how you feel, thank you.

Thanks for the usual wide range of opinions! Even though I made a comment much like the above in another thread regarding the perils of trying to make concert music suitable for congregational singing, I have gone forward with it that way.

Chonak, you might be right: this little theme was in a dream (a rare thing, for me anyway, to wake up and remember music from a dream). It was music accompanying ice dancing, a long long line of moms each with two very small children on skates, a slow, synchronous, dignified dance to this music. The only lyrics I could remember were "igloos are amazing, amazing".

Anyway an updated score in the first post, and the same link with music updated ...

"syncopation": I don't think that's a correct description: there is no offbeat stress involved. If Messiaen were notating it, he'd use quarter -dottedquarter -quarter -eighth.

"dance-like": yes, a dignified, serious dance is a good interpretation. See Genesis 1:2, "God moved on the face of the waters" and, somewhere, "... and God so loved the whirl, he gave his only begotten Son".

"igloos are amazing": I think, on reflection, in my dream I was hearing either John the Baptist in Aramaic, saying ".. behold the Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world" or possibly, John the Apostle, in Greek, telling the story of John the Baptist. Since I don't speak either Aramaic or Grek, it sounded like "igloos are amazing" to me. Either way, with all those moms in my dream, there had to be a John nearby.

I am, Charles, I am off it. Why not try discussing the piece?

Well, the only times I had dreams like that.....

I did mention that I like the piece. Dance-like is not always a bad thing. In this case, it seems to work.

Relax, Charles. It's the Weight Watchers getting to you. Have some chocolate cake and ice cream. ;-) Actually, don't. You are probably better off without it.

Thanks for the opinions, really. Sometimes one is unable to take even well meant suggestions: for instance, the notion of alternate words makes sense, but after a few hours of work on the piece I was writing for these words, and just don't feel that it's possible to change horses, so to speak.

As to congretational use, I accept the unlikeliness of use. At the moment, I put a note in the score saying "congregation optional": is that too tacky?

I also changed the notation, cleaning up the page and making it look more clear, though less traditional.

All this is after all a work in progress, so I really do appreciate hearing opinions even if they may not change what I can or cannot write!

New notational score attached here.

Update, now finished. I'm resigned to it being taken as "syncopation", but that's the way I hear it and I can't change it.

Recording and score updated in first post.

Thanks for the comments.

Intonation notation choices attached: secret (ie, no markings), explicit symbols, or explicit pitch graph?

My philosophical opinions aside...

It seems to me that if you want a choir to perform it the way you intend the tuning notation is essential.

Moreover-
If you have any hope of a choir (especially an amateur choir) singing much of your music, there needs to be a video series and ear training exercises that explain not just how it works, but gives people a chance to hear how it sounds, and (more importantly) how it sound DIFFERENT than what people are used to.

A Capella traditions (Barbershop, Shapenote, contemporary "college style", etc) each have a mostly unspoken "system" (more like a grammar, really) for how they tune intervals- both melodically and harmonically. Most of the singers of these traditions couldn't tell you the first thing about what that system is or how it works- they just do it because it's what sounds right - like speakers of their own native language (and I would argue that, like natural language, there's a lot of exceptions to any 'rule').

My point is- I don't think very many singers (even those used to singing in an a capella tradition) would be able to make much of your notation and explanation, without direct aural exemplers (and a lot of practice).

Well, then, if the notation isn't needed...

I have asked here and elsewhere for opinions regarding the notion of explicitness in printed scores, and have gotten silence.

I'm not sure anyone knows what to make of it.
(Which has never stopped me from forming and disseminating opinions, but most people are more prudent than I am.)

I do still think that a living composer has some obligation to move the course of music along in whatever way he/she can

Philosophically, I disagree with this. That is, if you are saying what I think you are saying.

this contribution of mine is more significant than all my skeptics here think

I should hope that you would. Anything worth doing is worth putting up with skeptics over.

I remain skeptical myself, but again- that is largely a philosophical matter, not a musical one. I'm curious about the opinions of all of this from people who are skilled enough to understand the technical details, and not just the artistic/philosophical implications.

I personally thought that question was purely rhetorical.

If I may be so bold as to venture a comment in re the tuning notation:

From a purely visual standpoint it makes the score look cluttered and unpleasing to the eye; I also fear that it might prove too distracting for many singers (and conductors) to cope with. It reminds me of the heavily edited 19th/20th century editions of polyphony (G. Schirmer, anyone?). If you want to use the tuning notation, greater staff and system distance, while using more paper, would probably help make the score look cleaner and more accessible; it, after all, seems a very accessible work.

New simple and optional organ accompaniment added this week. Updated preface gives more info about tuning in a cappella score.

who is using an arrangement which secretly uses these intonation innovations:

If it works when secret, why the need for all those funny symbols?

I think I've been your loudest critic here, but I also have consistently liked your compositions. So, there's that...