404 on link, but this:

Byrd raises the intonation of the harmony by a comma, as if lifting the Host, on the word "corpus" in the first phrase.

got my attention.

But think about it: if we unheralded mortals can think of it, why couldn't a truly great composer conceive it, and figure out how to execute it?

I'm also quite of the opinion that a composer or artist does not necessarily have to be conscious of these things for them to be genuine.

(That is to say: On the spectrum of literary-critical analysis, I'm pretty far over on the 'Reception History' side of things, and think the 'Omniscient Writer' theory is total crap.)

#1, nope [edit] I listened to it again: sounds to me as if they kept some equal-tempered reference note secretly in their ear, so they repeatedly shift back to a nice center pitch ... good, I guess, if you like that kind of thing (some theorists recommend it ... I don't).

#2, yep. I wonder if they knew it, or just sang by sound. Very nice, I'll add a reference to this on my blog post.

As to knowing writer or inspired writer: who knows? I've done both. When I find a felicity in Mozart, or Bach, or Josquin, or Beethoven, or Byrd, or Dallapiccola, or Webern, I think they planned it. But maybe not.

Try singing along. I'm a baritone, so following bass voice comes naturally to me, but I think any voice will tell the same story. To me, #1 was off on the third note.

Adam, who sang the first recording? (Obviously The Sixteen sang the second one.)

I have no idea whether Byrd did that on purpose, nor do I have the faculties to discover such. I am only saying: it is not (for me) required that he knew it for it to still be there "on purpose."

And that, dear friends, is postmodernism ;)

Second phrase complete. Byrd did it again: twisting up the chain of fifths, in a way, raising the intonation of "on the cross". To me this is a sign of intention, as well, of course, of high art. The Sixteen sag just a bit on the second phrase, as if they aren't quite convinced it should tune so high. Same link as above.

William

This sounds like a paper. Or at least a journal article.

Interesting. I'd need a coauthor, I think. Sustained writing of words makes me feel like gnashing my teeth and or eating worms. It's so hard to get the meaning right ... in music, it's comparatively easy.

Adam, what is your Erdős number?

Half of infinity is still infinity ... just as half of nothing is nothing.

Infinity, going on 4.
(My dad's number is 3, and we have some work planned together...)

And that (obviously) isn't really the reason.

I believe I am a gifted writer, but I find mrcopper's theories philosophically maddening and musically incomprehensible.

(That is to say: I lack the wherewithal to understand the really interesting stuff, so I'm left understanding only the stuff I disagree with.)

I'd be happy to lend help as a proofreader/editor, or to offer a few choice words and phrases. (I suggest "ontological." It has a nice ring to it, in almost any setting.)

I do think it would make a fantastic paper, and the more I think about it, the more I want to volunteer (not even knowing if you would want me to). But I really don't think I'm qualified (fishing... fishing) or have the time (that's for dang sure).

Mozart does the same thing in Ave Verum...im writing an article about it.

You two should collaborate and have me write funny footnotes.

dad29, I'm assuming you are just tossing in a funny comment, because of course an elevation is not a genuflection, and in the Bryd there is no particular change at "unda fluxit sanguine". Though I do footnote a proposed accidental mistake in the cpdl editions at that point.

And Adam, if you care to work on your ear musically, see my update re the Eb at "unda fluxit" and the three separate ways to hear it (my way, the Sixteen way, the Tallis Scholar way).

I am in the position of a colour-blind man listing to discussions of shades of green. I can hear no difference between the two recordings that I would not put down to differences in the voices and acoustics. Nothing like word painting: nothing that feels like rising or falling pitches feel.

This is precisely how I feel as well.

I find it historically and theologically of note (interesting to me because I'm weird and also because I have a particular personal affinity to William Byrd), but I cant hear a damn thing.

I have to say that the difference is not readily discernible in this medium. I might be able to notice it live in a appropriate acoustic, which acoustic is in my experience is not typical (it can't be overly resonant, nor dead, nor - and this is the most difficult part - favor one part of the register over another; it must be Goldilocks just-right). I can hear overtone vibrations in live performance from groups like Les Artes Florissantes, for example, that I don't hear in recordings. And that is not as subtle as the difference of a comma of tuning in non-sequential pitches.

Otherwise, it's all washed out.

would never buy Tallis Scholars recordings

And would miss a lot of really wonderful performances.

My only caution with Tallis Scholars is to avoid live performances in an overly reverberant acoustic - the ears will tire fast.

I heard them live last year in a fairly reverberant acoustic (I don't how much you think is too much).

Loved it.

and their name doesn't appeal to me either, like "Telemann Virtuosos" or something.

I'd buy that for a dollar! Telemann is greatly underrated.

I'm quite surprised and a tad perturbed over what I perceive as some cavalier remarks about the TS and maestro Phillips. I've had the pleasure of hearing them at Stanford Memorial, an ACDA National in some hall, and one other place (I'm having difficulty remembering.) Three different acoustics, but the same precision and accuity to my recollection. One ought to remember that these professional ensembles' personnel is routinely a fluid situation, but that when an ensemble with a fine and acknowledged director makes those changes, the circle of acquainted talent is already a known entity. About their name, "choral scholars" is a veritable proper noun in the English Cathedral tradition, as "schola" is the RCC. I don't believe for moment that the acquisition of Tallis's heritage and lineage had anything to do with anything other than scholarship of his specific ouveure.
It doesn't reflect the respect the tradition of the English school to compare TS to 16 to Cambridge to Kings College to Kings Singers to His Majesty's Clerks to Westminster etc. have earned over centuries for we to have a mere popularity contest.

Having heard several Tallis Scholars live performances, owning quite a few of the recordings, and having been in a master class (with Zephyrus) conducted by Peter Phillips, I can echo MeloFluorescent's glowing remarks.

Moreover, I don't know if people are aware of this, but certainly in the past, the Tallis Scholars and The Sixteen have had significant overlap in the singing membership. I'm not sure how much overlap there is currently, but in particular (since I'm more acquainted with them) Sally Dunkley and Francis Steele (both imminent scholars of Renaissance music) have sung and recorded extensively - with both groups - at the same time.

It's also likely that the difference in sound between the two isolated examples is due in large part to differing acoustic conditions and recording specifics (microphone placement, editing, etc.), as well as the initial impression that the sound of each recording makes upon the listener. For instance, the first time I listened to the Tallis Scholars videos, I had the sense of the first chord taking a moment to "gel" or fall into tune (something actually can occur, especially in a live performance).

That said, tuning a live or recorded performance of a cappella singing is a delicate matter. And knowledge of the tonal & harmonic motion of the music is something that professional groups and/or their directors do indeed incorporate into their planning, rehearsals, and (ultimately, if successful) performances. This is not just true of a cappella or other vocal/choral groups.

For a few years, when I was living in Virginia, I was an attendee with my trombonist son at the annual Eastern Trombone Workshop (ETW) hosted by the U.S. Army Band at Fort Myer, and was privileged to attend a workshop on tuning issues for a trombone section given by the trombone section of (if memory serves correct) the Cleveland Orchestra. It was a revelation, and the ease with which trombonists can tune notes together with the purity of the trombone sound (not the mention the intelligence and musicianship of the players) really made for clarity that probably could not be heard as easily (if at all) from recordings.

The real meat of this session was not the tuning of notes of individual chords but in the way the the trombone section handled the tuning of a succession of chords and the sometimes difficult decisions they had to make when issues, such as those raised by William Copper, came up in the real world of application (performance) rather than theory. These are delicate pitch issues, not appreciated by the (probably) vast majority of people (including even a lot of respectable musicians), and they are not easy to hear without some training and practice, for which a honed sense of perfect pitch can be an asset. It's one thing to hear that a chord is "out of tune" by itself (which might depend upon the temperament in which one is working, especially) and another (much more difficult thing) to hear that one chord following another creates some oddity in sonority. Those who have dealt with organs or other keyboards tuned in non-equal temperaments probably appreciate some of this better than those whose experience is dominated by equal-temperament tuned pianos, organs, synthesizers, etc.

I took a lot of musical insight away from attending the ETW during those years ... including two Shires trombones (one a concert trombone, the other a jazz trombone) for my son.

Two interesting comments, Chuck. Trombonists, yes indeed are very keen on tuning. It was my first instrument, in grade school. And that comment about the sonority pyramid, very interesting. The Tallis recording had a slightly too-loud, too piercing soprano (not extreme, though), while the 16 (in this piece) a much better balance, although the tuning is a separate thing that they did better too. I had intended to mention, regarding the two, listen to the chorus tune to the soprano at bar 5 in the Tallis, and at the same place, correctly to the Bass in the Sixteen. But I'm backing away from such subtle things if no one else can hear them.

Hm. I thought having started in the 70's the Sixteen were no longer with us, but just found their web site and they are apparently not gone. My mistake.

Excellent point, Chuck, about the foundational pyramid clearly borne by the basses. I can name that tune in one note: "Chanticleer."
Much has been ballyhooed about Joseph Jenning's heroic work regarding the re-invention of the male countertenor from the Alfred Deller era, and Joseph is the real deal and two skinny tons of fun in real life, but Chanticleer became Chanticleer in no small debt to Frank Albinder. I don't know personally our CCW colleague Matthew Curtis (yet?) but I can't imagine him not ratifying that. And they had plenty of detractors early on in the Bay Area about intonational concerns vis a vis live versus Memorex, but that never detracted from their artistic goals and achievements either.

Bruce raises a very good point concerning timbre in the vocal pyramid: it is not so much volume as brightness in the lowest voices that brings the desired intensity to the pyramid, something that is often missing in so many choral groups.

Francis Steele's bass singing with the Tallis Scholars and Eric Alatorre's basso profundo singing with Chanticleer are fine examples of intensity achieved through timbre rather than just loudness.