Indeed no program is given of the 'incidental music'. Only for the songs and psalms that are to be sung are printed.
I see, that how it is for us, though most of the music that is performed is liturgical, I guess you could say every church family is music minded in that they are able to sing praise songs
As I don't know what an anacrucis is you'll have to tel me how exactly this fits in with the rest of the score.
As for dynamics, that is well possible on a organ with a swell register, and dynamics are widely used in romantic and modern organ music. Baroque organs of the kind I favor don't have that though, and I cannot say I ever longed for it. Organists can create dynamic changes by a certain extent through different articulation (more or less air between the notes).
Didn’t know that about dynamics. I have listened to some Wurlitzer music and now that I think about it there was some vibrato in one of the songs in my collection Victor Herbert’s “Kiss me Again” not at all classical, but that is interesting to hear about dynamics used in organ that early. From what I know there aren’t a lot of pieces back in the baroque period that used forte or piano, though fermatas were used perhaps like a catch-all end- the- piece- with- impact type directive. Also when I say anacrusis I mean the introduction as is written twice from the top in the c charp minor score.
I'm afraid you remember it wrong (hopefully your teacher didn't)
You’re right-- I remembered it wrong
. It was the opposite of what it would seem to be, that is, the A sharp resolving to a B and B flat resolving to an A, not to parallel keys as I thought.
Thanks for taking the time to give me some feedback, and re-writing score, talk about a chore, that requires lot of computer work and it is much appreciated! I liked the alternate score you came up with for Werner in his prelude piece I agree that C sharp minor works more efficiently as a key signature for this piece than a minor or c major.
You have created an interesting piece. You have taken a basic simple motive and explored its possibilities. This is the type of technique that you often find in Bach, Beethoven, and Haydn to name a few.
Thanks! Interesting that you bring up these great composers for the example. The style I had in mind was something like that of Alban Bergs Sonata no.1, though this piece does not resemble the same form or tonality of the work, the idea of expanding upon a theme is what I took from it.
As far as the title, remember that "requiem" simply means "rest". Its association with the "Mass for the Dead" is from several centuries of usage. It was derived from the initial prayer "Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine" – "Grant them eternal rest, O Lord". Though in the standard form for the Roman Catholic mass there are specific texts to be used, composers since at least the mid-nineteenth century have often taken substantial liberties. Brahm's "A German Requiem" gets gathered his texts from Martin Luther's Bible. There is no "Dies Irae". There are other examples of unusual "Requiem" compositions.
Thanks for the word history, I wasn’t aware of it. I suppose Requiem has been stretched these days to work as in “requiem for a dream” the movie or requiem: momento mori the videogame.
As far as notation, this is an area that you can use some practice. Consider that music notation is a "picture" or "graph" of the sound. One should be able to get a sense of the music visually, to be able to get a sense of the rhythmic flow, the melodic shapes, and the harmoncic movement without having to pick up an instrument. It is one thing to spend time working on technical and interpretive problems, it is quite something else to need to spend time deciphering the notation. I have taken the liberty of re-notating your piece so that you can see the difference.
I agree that a piece much easier to read, and better to make sense of visually when it makes full use of the five lines and does not go overboard with accidentals.
As far as the meter, most of the piece is decidedly in 3/4 time. In your notation in 4/4, the piece contains numerous ties across the barline, often in ways that look as if there will be a lot of syncopation when in reality there is only one moment of syncopation caused by a tie across a bar line. The 4/4 notation contains about 21 ties, in 3/4 there are only about 10.
The reason there are so many ties is because for some reason this editor will not let me place two notes of different values on the same metric beat or sub-beat (for example a whole note A on beat one with a C eightnote going to a E on the and of one) About the ties, I’ll take 10 over 21 any day
Though I will say, even if there is fewer ties, visually, to me, a piece is strange if it doesn’t have phrases filling measures evenly. For example, if a phrase starts on beat one of measure one, but ends on beat one of measure three instead of beat four of measure two unless its jazz, it would kind of strike me as silly if I was reading it with the expectation that it was “classical music.” So in my defense that is why I would keep it as 4/4
About the 9th measure from the end, the piece does seem to switch to 4/4. This transition to me is a little awkward.
Yes it is weird, I see why you pointed it out, it is the part of this piece that I have been wrestling for weeks at how I could fix it, (it really sticks out) but it seems even if I delayed the ¾ section longer, sooner or later it has to become 4/4 before the final ¾ 3 quarter fermata ending.
In my notation, there are a few spots that I retained 4/4. These measures occur at cadence points and probably would be best handled with a ritardando and/or a fermata. There is a 5/4 measure that works similarly. This occurs at the transition into the 4/4 feel.
I am a little wary of switching from 4/4 to ¾ to 5/4 so often, as you have written in the c sharp minor score. I see why you did it, and it looks a hell of a lot cleaner than the borrowed division tuplets with the listesso tempo directive that I wrote.
As far as the "3 bar anacrucis", in 3/4 it is actually 4 measures (actually repeated) and is nothing more than an introduction. An "anacrucis" or upbeat is what your initial Ab is -- it actually occurs on the third beat before the downbeat Db. It is by its nature weak and prepares for the strong downbeat. Your introduction ends with a masculine perfect authentic cadence on tonic which is a strong ending and is complete in and of itself.
For the 4/4 measures you put in the introduction (I will stop calling it anacrusis now as it seems to be causing confusion
) I now think it could be more efficient as a 2/4 bar with the second beat with a fermata and just putting repeats measure 1-5. A question I have is how did you notate this score? Did you enter it using a mouse or a keyboard?
Concerning pitch notation, when I first saw the piece, I expected something somewhat atonal. There is a unique mixture of sharps and flats. In several instances, such as in the first measure of the main piece, you have the same pitch notated with two different notes -- C# in the pedal and Db in the bass clef. This is confusing to read and helps to obscure what is really happening in the music.
Another huge issue is the use of augmented unisons, and in a few cases doubly augmented unisons. These are different inflections of the same basic pitch. For example, the first measure in the manual bass cleff contains Db and D#. In other cases you have a string of D's -- Db D Db D Db. Visually these look like the same note and obscure the melodic line.
I agree, the pitch notation could be better, and I think you fixed that with your score. Though I wouldn’t be that hard for me as a player to see a note sharped then a note natural then a note sharped then a note natural (Db D Db D etc..), though I admit it would look better one step up and down. And just something I noticed of your score the and of beat three is incorrect it should go to the e natural not the d natural.
Anyway, in the pdf that I'm attaching, I have re-notated the piece in C# minor. It could potentially be done in G# minor since that is how it ends but C# minor seemed a bit more logical simply because the tonal areas that you explore are most related to C# -- F#m (sub-dominat), E (relative major), G#m (dominant minor).
You may wonder why C#minor or G#minor and not Db minor or Ab minor. Db minor would be the relative minor of Fb major which would require a Bbb in the key signature! Ab minor's relative major is Cb major -- a perfectly legiimate key but uncommon.
I think that you will see that the melodic shapes and the step-wise motion that occurs throughout the piece is much clearer. Also the harmonic movement is much clearer.
I agree and as far as key signatures go, I think your reasoning here is sound. I can’t imagine reading Bbb... and I don’t know of many pieces that have Cb as key signature. Albeniz Evocacion is one, though I think I could understand it more clearly if it was in B major. Going back from 7 flats seems harder to me than going forward one half step with 5 sharps.
One final note, your final G# pedal is below the range of the pedal keyboard, which ends at the 2 leger line C below the bass clef.
I didn’t know this about pedal range. Will have to see about building an organ that has 20+ foot pipes! Sidenote, I actually heard of a grand piano that was built that had about 15 keys added to the bottom of the normal 88. Can’t imagine what that would sound like
Getting back OT, I probably should have consulted a book on orchestration to know the range of the instrument I was working on! About your pedal notations, I think they are a good idea, though I can’t imagine doing double stops on the pedal board (that is using both feet in a two note chord as you direct in your score in the first full measure -the c sharp octave ascending-) from what I know about the organ, and admittedly I don’t know much
, the pedal is to be used for reinforcement of the lower manual (bass clef of the manual) for homophonic music, typically calling for whole notes or on the short side articulations per every beat (so yours does this and it works) but doing a lot of moving around down there (even having the feet imitate the great movement that the hand offers seems like an implausible task, though it is intriguing.
I hope this helps. Keep up the good work.
Thanks again for your help and look forward to your piano recordings,