CE Christ Church Cathedral Oxford 5th November, 2014

[Vox Humana]

I wonder if Simon Preston enjoyed his organist's penchant for passing-notes in the psalms (the Oxford Cleobury brother, of course)!

The organ scholar at Ch Ch at this time can be heard doing similar things on the latest Priory Records psalm series. I'm all for mucking about discreetly in the psalms so long as a perfect balance with the singers is maintained, but the dissonances produced by fiddling before the double bars just sound tacky and inartistic to me. They draw the attention too much towards the organ and grate against the neatness of the singing. Sorry, just my view as always.

But what a well-drilled choir Preston had. I doubt you'd guess that that Parratt chant is in eight parts if you didn't know.

The speed of the Byrd was just fine for a choral performance (bearing in mind that Byrd's published motets are really chamber music), but I could have done without the pauses near the beginning which impeded the flow. Performances of this piece are almost always an incoherent scrabble due to too fast a speed, but Preston avoided this very successfully.

And there really wasn't much wrong with that old organ, was there? Not in the hands of Mr Cleobury at any rate.

A thoroughly enjoyable broadcast.

[DracoM]

Well, yes, the Howells organ vol was a revelation. CCCO's acoustic is quite dry and suits both organ and the registration, and I enjoyed thge mosre analytic approach to Howells. I've heard both Preston and later Francis Grier on same organ, and that was as good as either.

Boys who really did sound like boys, young, but full of disciplined confidence, and did they climb or what? Canticles FAR from easy - that first entry for the trebs in the Nunc is hair-raising. Very 'together' sound - all parts working hard.

I totally agree with upthread about the lovely sense of a real service - low chatter, choir departing, scores etc being collected. Gave a real sense of being 'live' in a real community in worship. And NO tourist information / travelogue!!! Yipee!

More of such archives, please!

[Lento]

Thanks to Dr Rose from me also! It was really interesting to learn precisely the reason for the "noises off". My apologies if any offence was caused.

[Miles Coverdale]

The speed of the Byrd was just fine for a choral performance (bearing in mind that Byrd's published motets are really chamber music), but I could have done without the pauses near the beginning which impeded the flow. Performances of this piece are almost always an incoherent scrabble due to too fast a speed, but Preston avoided this very successfully.

Really? I find that sort of speed quite leaden for Laudibus. It has to have a sense of dance about it for me, and those feet weren't particularly nimble to my ears. I did find the boys started to sound a bit shouty when it got loud, which it did quite often, and the end verged on the raucous. But it was an interesting listen.

[Vox Humana]

Really? I find that sort of speed a quite leaden for Laudibus. It has to have a sense of dance about it for me, and those feet weren't particularly nimble to my ears.

Given that Byrd's motets were envisaged as chamber music for one voice to a part (or not much more), any choral performance is likely to sound leaden by comparison and I tend to accept that as a given. Some small professional ensembles can sing Laudibus quickly and cleanly, but I don't think I have ever yet heard a fast performance by a choir that didn't sound like a train wreck.

Actually, I do wonder whether we need to rethink our reception of "dance" in quite a wide range of music. I think I have mentioned this before, but Laudibus is bedevilled with misconceptions about the interpretation of the triple-time laeta chorea pede section, partly because most cathedral choirs still use Horace Fellowes's old edition which bowdlerises Byrd's rhythm at this point in order to allow the music to plough on at the same speed. Even those who do realise that this section is a proportional one invariably perform it in a dashing tripla proportion, whereas it should be in the much more sedate sesquialtera - this is certain because of a delayed placement of the proportion signature in the Superius which establishes the tempo relationship unambiguously. David Fraser's edition of Laudibus on CPDL here gets the tempo relationship right, as does the out-of-print edition published by OUP and Alan Brown's for Stainer & Bell's The Byrd Edition. This anomalous sesquialtera interpretation of a theoretical tripla is confirmed as quite normal by Thomas Morley in his book. It follows that the triple time section in Byrd's Haec dies à 6 needs to be interpreted similarly. I know that the overall speed for the piece, within which the proportional passage operates, is a separate matter altogether, but the sesquialtera interpretation does suggest that "dancing" music may have been rather less sprightly than we think.

Apologies for the gobbledygook, but I'm sure Master Coverdale will understand.

[ardcarp]

On the subject of Haec Dies I've never performed it or been asked to perform it in any other way than quaver-equals-quaver at the et laetemur which gives the delicious dancing effect of six-eight against three-four. However there is a very old Kings/Willcocks recording where he slows the tempo right down at that point...and it's always seemed 'wrong' to me. It also causes a problem when 'normal service' is resumed in respect of which part goes back to the original metre and when. I am afraid I am not able to match your scholarship, Vox, and I am interested in your point that we should interpret the word 'dance' with care. However both Laudibus and Haec seemed to trigger Byrd's dance button...at whatever speed that might imply.

[DracoM]

'Shouty'? Sorry, just do not agree.

[jean]

...I think I have mentioned this before, but Laudibus is bedevilled with misconceptions about the interpretation of the triple-time laeta chorea pede section, partly because most cathedral choirs still use Horace Fellowes's old edition which bowdlerises Byrd's rhythm at this point in order to allow the music to plough on at the same speed. Even those who do realise that this section is a proportional one invariably perform it in a dashing tripla proportion, whereas it should be in the much more sedate sesquialtera - this is certain because of a delayed placement of the proportion signature in the Superius which establishes the tempo relationship unambiguously. David Fraser's edition of Laudibus on CPDL here gets the tempo relationship right...

I remember previous discussions, but I couldn't quite understand what was being advocated until I looked it up via your link.

To me, the laeta chorea pede section sounds terrible at this speed. Of course dances can be slow, but here the slow section comes suddenly between two fast ones - the dancers would just trip up and fall over.

[light_calibre_baritone]

I remember previous discussions, but I couldn't quite understand what was being advocated until I looked it up via your link.

To me, the laeta chorea pede section sounds terrible at this speed. Of course dances can be slow, but here the slow section comes suddenly between two fast ones - the dancers would just trip up and fall over.

Yeah, gotta agree with Jean... That is astonishingly slow. We could argue for a long time about this but surely it just doesn't make sense aesthetically at such a slow tempo?

It's all subjective...

[Miles Coverdale]

Given that Byrd's motets were envisaged as chamber music for one voice to a part (or not much more), any choral performance is likely to sound leaden by comparison and I tend to accept that as a given. Some small professional ensembles can sing Laudibus quickly and cleanly, but I don't think I have ever yet heard a fast performance by a choir that didn't sound like a train wreck.

Actually, I do wonder whether we need to rethink our reception of "dance" in quite a wide range of music. I think I have mentioned this before, but Laudibus is bedevilled with misconceptions about the interpretation of the triple-time laeta chorea pede section, partly because most cathedral choirs still use Horace Fellowes's old edition which bowdlerises Byrd's rhythm at this point in order to allow the music to plough on at the same speed. Even those who do realise that this section is a proportional one invariably perform it in a dashing tripla proportion, whereas it should be in the much more sedate sesquialtera - this is certain because of a delayed placement of the proportion signature in the Superius which establishes the tempo relationship unambiguously. David Fraser's edition of Laudibus on CPDL here gets the tempo relationship right, as does the out-of-print edition published by OUP and Alan Brown's for Stainer & Bell's The Byrd Edition. This anomalous sesquialtera interpretation of a theoretical tripla is confirmed as quite normal by Thomas Morley in his book. It follows that the triple time section in Byrd's Haec dies à 6 needs to be interpreted similarly. I know that the overall speed for the piece, within which the proportional passage operates, is a separate matter altogether, but the sesquialtera interpretation does suggest that "dancing" music may have been rather less sprightly than we think.

Apologies for the gobbledygook, but I'm sure Master Coverdale will understand.

On the subject of the overall tempo, I think it's worth pointing out that the basic unit of time in Laudibus is the minim (in the original values), not the semibreve. The look of the music on the page is noticeably 'blacker' than in other motets in the 1591 collection. It's not quite nota nere, perhaps, but it's getting that way. David Fraser's edition is in 2/2, while his other editions of motets from 1591 are in 4/2. So I think the notation itself clearly implies that the tempo should not be sluggish.

On the proportional passage, the original notation is a bit confusing, I think. Yes, the proportion sign '3' appears two semibreves later in the Superius (top) part, but those two semibreves rest are written under C-dot mensuration. As the lower four parts are already in '3' proportion while the Superius is observing those two semibreves rest, the minim under C-dot cannot equal the minim under the original C-stroke (as must be the case in a piece such as Taverner's Ave dei patris filia, for example), so the C-dot must indicate semibreve equivalence (i.e. semibreve under C-stroke equals perfect or dotted semibreve under C-dot), which is indeed sesquialtera proportion. So the ensuing '3' in the Superius is now redundant, as the proportion has already been indicated by the mensuration change. (This use of C-dot to show sesquialtera proportion is found elsewhere in English music, for example in Taverner's mass Gloria tibi Trinitas.)

These proportions can be fraught with difficulty, not least because their meaning changed somewhat over time, and composers weren't always consistent. So yes, I think the passage in Laudibus should be in sesquialtera proportion, with the caveat that the tempo shouldn't be slow to start with.

[Miles Coverdale]

'Shouty'? Sorry, just do not agree.

Well, those descending scales at 'concelebrate' at 37:27 (for example) sound a bit pushed to me, as do the last couple of pages.

Having sung there for three years myself, I know that it's an easy acoustic to oversing in if you're not careful.

[DracoM]

Chacun a son avis.

[vinteuil]

Chacun a son avis.

... but some car-rental firms are worth taking more seriously than others.

[Vox Humana]

Yes, the proportion sign '3' appears two semibreves later in the Superius (top) part, but those two semibreves rest are written under C-dot mensuration. As the lower four parts are already in '3' proportion while the Superius is observing those two semibreves rest, the minim under C-dot cannot equal the minim under the original C-stroke (as must be the case in a piece such as Taverner's Ave dei patris filia, for example), so the C-dot must indicate semibreve equivalence (i.e. semibreve under C-stroke equals perfect or dotted semibreve under C-dot), which is indeed sesquialtera proportion. So the ensuing '3' in the Superius is now redundant, as the proportion has already been indicated by the mensuration change. (This use of C-dot to show sesquialtera proportion is found elsewhere in English music, for example in Taverner's mass Gloria tibi Trinitas.)

These proportions can be fraught with difficulty, not least because their meaning changed somewhat over time, and composers weren't always consistent. So yes, I think the passage in Laudibus should be in sesquialtera proportion, with the caveat that the tempo shouldn't be slow to start with.

Yes, thank you for reminding me of that - it's a long time since I looked at the original. However, is the "3" in the Superius really redundant for a sight-reading singer who cannot see the other partbooks, or only for us who can see a score? It's a bit belt and braces, perhaps, given that the rhythm in the other parts should be audibly clear, but...? I agree that Byrd's minim time unit likely does imply a quicker speed than in his motets with a semibreve unit - and the same is true of Haec dies. An interesting result of performing the tripla section of the latter as sesquialtera is that, when the music goes into syncopation (6/4 time against the prevailing 3/2) each unit of 3/4 equals the basic minim beat under the preceding cut-C.

Yeah, gotta agree with Jean... That is astonishingly slow. We could argue for a long time about this but surely it just doesn't make sense aesthetically at such a slow tempo?

It's all subjective...

Well, I don't want to appear querulous, but Byrd's intentions are clear enough (see above) so that rather implies that it's our aesthetics that need adjustment. Actually that's not that difficult, if one has the will. I have adjusted my taste in many ways over the years (including, in Tudor music, my views on pitch and countertenors). Jason Smart's edition of Haec dies here has a sound file which gives the correct tempo relationship for the sesquialtera passage in that piece; Laudibus would be similar. Both motets could have a slightly faster basic beat, perhaps, but I don't think they need it. For the sesquialtera passages, just think galliard - there's your dance.

[vinteuil]

These proportions can be fraught with difficulty, not least because their meaning changed somewhat over time, and composers weren't always consistent. So yes, I think the passage in Laudibus should be in sesquialtera proportion, with the caveat that the tempo shouldn't be slow to start with.

... I am suddenly reminded of my late father, who took up the lute and all that went with it as an avocation; seeking guidance, he found in a second-hand book shop a copy of Thomas Morley's A Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall Musicke - thinking, ah well, that's everything sorted. The look of despair on his face as he tried to grapple with prolation... "Never", he would later say, "was a book less accurately titled than 'A Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall Musicke'... "