CE Durham Cathedral Consort of Singers Wed, 28th Feb 2018

[Miles Coverdale]

Made me think how brave he was in writing such unequivocal music.

But is it unequivocal? Is it an impassioned plea on behalf of England's oppressed Catholics, or is it just some verses from Isaiah?

Yes, I'm well aware that the former is the preferred interpretation, but any lawyer worth their salt could convince a jury that the latter is the case.

[DracoM]

So Byrd is subtler than we all thought - pretending to be and yet not being a Catholic, so that, like Shostakovitch, he can survive in a difficult regime yet keep his freedom while still writing music that has pretty uncomplicated texts and but, speaking volumes, sub-texts? Hmm.
Well, that helps my understanding of his music quite a lot.

[Miles Coverdale]

So Byrd is subtler than we all thought - pretending to be and yet not being a Catholic, so that, like Shostakovitch, he can survive in a difficult regime yet keep his freedom while still writing music that has pretty uncomplicated texts and but, speaking volumes, sub-texts? Hmm.

I didn't say he was pretending to be anything, merely that it would not be reasonable to 'convict' him of being a Catholic just because he had set that particular text. You originally said that he was brave in ‘writing such unequivocal music’. I was trying to point out that setting a text which is susceptible of more than one interpretation is not really being unequivocal. Personally, I'd have thought that publishing the three masses and the Gradualia was rather more more unequivocal than Ne irascaris.

Well, that helps my understanding of his music quite a lot.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being sarcastic.

[Dafydd y G.W.]

I was trying to point out that setting a text which is susceptible of more than one interpretation is not really being unequivocal.

Indeed, that's more or less a definition of equivocal.

But the conventional view is that the way Byrd sets it moves it out of that category. The text is equivocal, the musical setting of the text isn't.

[Miles Coverdale]

But the conventional view is that the way Byrd sets it moves it out of that category. The text is equivocal, the musical setting of the text isn't.

Well, it's been the conventional view since Joseph Kerman first put forward the idea of the 'political' interpretation of certain of Byrd's motets. However, and at the risk of flogging this particular dying horse, it could be argued that Byrd is merely responding to the affective opportunities afforded by the words; he just did it rather better than most of his contemporaries. However attractive the 'political' interpretation is, I don't think it can be argued that either the text or Byrd's setting of it proves his motivation.

[Dafydd y G.W.]

Well, it's been the conventional view since Joseph Kerman first put forward the idea of the 'political' interpretation of certain of Byrd's motets. However, and at the risk of flogging this particular dying horse, it could be argued that Byrd is merely responding to the affective opportunities afforded by the words; he just did it rather better than most of his contemporaries. However attractive the 'political' interpretation is, I don't think it can be argued that either the text or Byrd's setting of it proves his motivation.

In the absence of direct evidence of Byrd's intention there is "observational equivalence" between that hypothesis and Kerman's. Does the circumstancial evidence (the condition of Roman Catholics in Elizabethan England) tilt the balance? Well, one could argue that for ever ....

[DracoM]

But given the religious / political context of the time, surely Byrd's own circle and those watching it from outside with 'an agenda', cannot have failed to at the very least draw some inference on hearing so passionate a response to this dramatic text?

WE may justifiably debate / argue its motivation: I just wonder if both friends and not-friends at the time would have been as objective.

[Dafydd y G.W.]

But given the religious / political context of the time, surely Byrd's own circle and those watching it from outside with 'an agenda', cannot have failed to at the very least draw some inference on hearing so passionate a response to this dramatic text?

WE may justifiably debate / argue its motivation: I just wonder if both friends and not-friends at the time would have been as objective.

If I knew that was so I'd have an answer to the question!