Forestier Missa l'Homme Arme: New Edition & Critical Report
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,802
    Attached is a Draft of an edition of Mathurin Forestier's (fl. c. 1500) 'Missa l'Homme Arme' that I am working on. Currently, only the transcription of the Kyrie and Gloria are *partially* completed. I am transcribing this 1:1 from the original part-books: two MSS D-Ju MS 3 (JenaU 3) and Capp.Sist. 160 (Vat. 160). I am trying to preserve as much as possible the look and feel of the original: including the mensural contrast between Perfect tempus (O) and Imperfect tempus (C) in the Christe and Qui tollis (cut-O and cut-C).
  • Salieri,

    On page 5, in the top part, there appears an open square bracket which doesn’t have a closing counterpart. Is this intentional?
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,802
    Thanks for catching that. The corresponding end-bracket should be after "-son." at the end of the line. So the text in the Superius at the top on pg. 5 should be:
    Kyrie [eleison.]
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,778
    Beautiful job! But I'm going to pick nits (because you asked for it):

    We are going to have measure numbers, right? You'll have to go with the non-canonic parts, and let the c.f. singers figure it out. My choice would have been to regularize the time signatures, but what you've done is legit and has advantages, just a different choice.

    Also, in general, I'd like to see less "critical report" material in the actual score, particularly when it starts making the staff look like a Novus Ordo hymn. I'd have chosen the D-Ju reading in the Kyrie, and put the simple version in the backmatter. The issue with breaking note values in the c.f. is handled inconsistently.. I like the "Adora-mus" way better than the small-type notes way.

    Also wondering why you chose to put the contra below the tenor and its resolution.

    But I appreciate the care that's gone into this. It's just that in the inevitable conflict between a scholarly and a performance edition, I'd tilt toward the performer. At least this CAN be used as both; there are editions on cpdl and IMSLP that are virtually useless to the non-specialist performer (CPDL needs a Boolean search: "NOT Renato Calcaterra").
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,802
    Thanks, JQ.

    Many of the things that you mention are going to happen once I get the whole thing transcribed into modern notation from the original parts. As I said, this is a Draft, and a very rough one at that, but I want to get as much of the 'stuff' out of the MSS and into the computer as possible, that way, I don't have to go digging through the MSS looking for something quite so often. Much of this stuff will go into a "critical report", along with the ossia, except for the canonic rubrics, which will be in the main text.

    The final version will have measure numbers, or perhaps letters a la orchestra/band parts, but either way that will involve doing some arguing with the software, which I'm not spiritually prepared to do at this point.

    I have thought about resolving the mensuration in the canons--Adam Renner did this in his "cheat sheet" for the comes of the Canon of the Qui tollis, resolving from cut-O to cut-C--but for the moment, it was easier to keep the C.F. in perfect tempus when doing the transcription. Also, re. breaking up long notes in the C.F.: In the "Qui tollis" I copied the text underlay directly from Renner's "cheat sheet", so things are dealt with differently there than in the un-realized bits of the Canons.

    Thanks for the input about the text underlay for the CF: I was wondering whether it would be better to do the small-notes or the "Adora- mus" version, I was leaning towards the latter. The other option, once the rough transcription is done, is just break up the Breves without comment in the main text, and mention that it was done in the "critical report".

    Regarding putting the Contratenor below the CF: its to do with clefs: The CF is written in C3 clef (aka Alto Clef), the Contratenor is in C4 clef (aka Tenor clef), so mentally it was easier to put the Contra under the CF; the three voices are roughly the same ranges, but the CF is more an Alto part (range G-a) than the Contra (which is D-g). And even though the comes of the canon is the lower of the three middle voices (range C-e in Kyrie-Gloria), I kept it immediately below the CF for my own sanity.

    I don't have the original choirbooks in front of me at the moment, but I think that in D-Ju the parts are labelled as:
    1(left top). [Blank]
    2(left bottom). Canon
    3(right top). Contra[tenor]
    4(right bottom). Bassus

    In Capp.Sist.160, IIRC, they are
    1(left top). [Blank]
    2(left bottom). Canones super voces musicales...
    3(right top). Contratenor
    4(right bottom). Bassus
    Thanked by 1Jeffrey Quick
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,379
    Looks good so far, and my own preference is not to need to go to backmatter. At first glance the underlay seems fussy, but that's maybe because my workflow style is to leave those decisions for last (or even rehearsal). I'd very much like to know which program it is that you wage spiritual warfare with: bar numbers are essential imo. You should at a later point add ambituses, which might justify the ordering of the parts. But in choirbook format the facing

    Cantus Altus

    Tenor Bassus

    is more usually put into score as

    C
    A
    T
    B
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,802
    I'm currently using (hold your breath) MuseScore 3.5.

    The ordering of the parts struck me as well: when I first saw that the cantus firmus (tenor) was in C3 clef, I immediately thought "OK. High clefs"; But then looked closer and saw that the superius and bassus were in their normal clefs (C1 and F4, respectively), then saw that the Contratenor ("alto") was in the C4 clef that tenors are usually written in. So I said "OK. This is different. Maybe it will make sense later."

    One writer called this Mass 'One of the most idiosyncratic of the many Masses written on the "L'homme arme" cantus firmus', and it certainly is.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,379
    You've made an excellent advertisement for open source, even if I can't estimate how much vexation MuseScore causes you behind the scenes. Sibelius 7 is the devil I know.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,802
    Attached is an updated version including the Credo ('Patrem omnipotentem') thru the end of the 'Et incarnatus'.

    The 'Et incarnatus' was an interesting movement to transcribe: The 'Tenor' with the C.F. is silent, and the phrases of the C.F. are passed primarily between Superius and Contratenor, but the Bassus has a phrase as well. There is another 'free' tenor part (called here 'Septimus', editorily, since I already allotted 'sextus pars' to the second 'soprano' part for Agnus III) which only appears in Capp.Sist.160 in a later hand and in a different tint of ink: The original copyist used the section for the 'residuum' of the Tenor to continue the 'residuum' of the Superius, skipped a line, then used the remaining stave for the over-flow from the Bassus on the facing page. The extra tenor for this movement is completely lacking in D-Ju Ms 3 and in the so-called 'Occo Codex' (all three of which were copied by Petrus Alamire): both Occo and D-Ju leave the 'tenor' section blank, though with ruled staff-lines.

    Further, the mensuration is interesting: the over-lapping perfect tempus (O) of the C.F. and the imperfect tempus (C) of the free parts, almost creates the feeling of perfect minor modus. In the Superius and Bassus there are (at different points) syncopated semibreves when the mensuration changes from imperfect to perfect tempus. (I have not transcribed the 'Et resurrexit' yet so I don't know if the other have of the breve is in that section, or if it just disappears into thin air.)

    There is also in interesting 'problem' of perfect tempus in diminution (cut-O) used as duple proportion in the Superius: I am attaching two versions: One with the mensuration sign in brackets, with the original note-values halved so that the written values stay consistent; the Second version uses the proportion sign, and keeps the note values as in the original, so that at this point a breve in the Superius is equal to a semibreve in the other parts, where the signs remain ut jacet.

    I am inclined to used the diminished note-values (with commentary in the 'critical report'). But I also like the look of the other one, where the note-values of the C.F. stay consistent.

    (NB: I also just noticed some barlines where note-values cross over, that need to be turned into quarter-bars. Also, as with the first up-load this is rough; and most of the 'critial report' stuff will end up out of the score and into front- or back-matter.)

    EDIT: New file below.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,802
    Here is the completed Mass. There are still some things that need to be cleaned up, and I am working on the critical report. There lyrics are in a state of flux, and I haven't quite decided how to handle breaking up the breves of the Cantus Firmus for text.

    Let me know, please, if there are any glaring errors.

    EDIT: See below
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,802
    COMPLETE EDITION WITH CRITICAL REPORT.

    Again, if anyone catches anything, let me know.

    Thanks!
    Thanked by 1sdtalley3