Musings on setting a Mass

Someday I'd like to attempt to set a Mass, or just fragments of it.

Anyone care to join me in my musings?

Kyrie - solemn or cheery?

Separate Christe or all in one movement?

Gloria

Symbolic gestures for Et in terra pax ?

How to best set Laudamus te ......

Quoniam rehashes same material as in Gloria?

Fugal Cum Sancto Spiritu?

Credo

Symbolic gestures for Crucifixus and Et resurrexit?

Fugal Amen?

Sanctus slow, Hosanna upbeat?

Sanctus repeats exactly after Benedictus? In the same key? LOL

Dona nobis pacem serene or triumphant?

Chorus alone, solo numbers, or soli+chorus?

The Mass has to be one of the most inspiring texts ever written. Spending a great deal of time considering the text should inform your decisions, although I feel (like Salieri) that a cheery 'Kyrie' often sounds bizarre.* If it's in the major I'd argue that it wants to sound reflective, expansive and tempered by chromaticism. It might be worth looking at Bach's three (virtually unknown) major masses. Obviously Mozart's masses would also prove a veritable spring of inspiration.

Then again, the words are so powerful and resonant that you might just want to reflect rather than be blinded by the brilliance of countless other settings. In what idiom do you hope to compose?

[*Take a look at Mozart's Missa Brevis in F (K.192-186f) for a particularly awkward example. Look at the one from the D minor mass for precisely the opposite. . .]

I'm currently going through a complete CD set of Haydn's Masses. If one gets to write as many Masses as him perhaps it's necessary to take a different approach each time. The Kyrie from Nelsonmesse is quite violent and demanding :)

I'm guessing that division of the text is is an important device that gives uniqueness. I bet only K. 427 sets Jesu Christe separate from the Quoniam.

Undoubtedly - you might even consider polytextuality (i.e. combining multiple texts in one movement). After Mozart did that (apparently illegally), it became substantially more popular. How many masses did Haydn write? I'm not familiar with any of them.

Do you mean, for example, combining Kyrie and Gloria together?

According to my set, Haydn wrote 13 masses (spread over 7 CDs). As you're not familiar with them, let me pick a highlight: the Laudamus te section from Theresienmesse:

http://www.cygnusdei.com

I'm experimenting with playlists etc. If that doesn't work, here is the direct link:

http://www.cygnusdei.com/laudamus.mp3

Thanks for that! It's really something special. I believe Mozart wrote 18 masses, though his last (in C minor) was complete posthumously.

With regards polytextuality, something like combining the Kyrie and Gloria together is exactly what I had in mind (though it's more usually simply overlapping different lines of text) It's unusual, but potential very effective. Some composers have also tried combining the Latin with its translation in their native language, though I think this generally sounds the wrong side of unusual.

well, I think that you have a total freedom in writing as you like, you can divide the text, combine it, but with a logical pattern, you have to know what the latin text says and if it is proper to link that part with the other one.

Other than that, do more researches... not only Haydn and Mozart wrote masses, but also all his contemporary and people before and after them. I'd take a look at as many things as I can, until you find the model/s you would like to follow, or that better represent what you had in mind.

Right now I am writing 2 masses, a Missa Brevis in G major and a Missa Solemnis in C minor, and I am using for both of them different instruments, for the brevis, just strings and SATB (soloists and choir) plus the organ continuo.... for the solemins I am using the same organic, plus oboes, trumpets, timpani and trombones; but you can set the text as you like, make it as you want it.

There's not a standard way, just do what your heart tells you which is always the best advice to follow... what you feel deep inside of you, is what you should do at the end, it is a good thing to consider the advices and evaluate them, but try to follow your heart as first thing.

Anything is possible and right, just do it, at the best you can.

Thanks for sharing your experience punkitititi (can I call you punk? LOL).

I'm interested in your opinion on the use of symbolic gestures, particularly in the Credo (Et incarnatus, Crucifixus, Et resurrexit).

When will we be privy to your two masses?

With regards polytextuality, something like combining the Kyrie and Gloria together is exactly what I had in mind

Anything is possible and right, just do it, at the best you can.

I disagree. Of course I'm a traditionalist, but I still think too much license has already been taken with this sacred text, one of the most egregious examples in modern memory being Leonard Bernsteins so-called Mass - probably the only thing of his I despise.

Whether you're writing a liturgical setting or not, I think it's the best policy to remember (or find out if you don't know) the function and place of each of the movements, and keep the meaning of the text in mind, allowing the music to fit your concept of text's meaning. There are other considerations, but those are of primary importance. Freedom of expression is a good thing, but in the case of a setting of a text sacred to millions, you might temper it with good sense, good taste and respect.

One reason why combining the Kyrie and Gloria together is a bad idea is that although they occur back to back in context, they have completely different significance and liturgical functions. One would only combine these two texts or layer them for the sake of doing what has probably never been done (for good reason).

If I wrote a mass, it'd be something like Messe Pour Le Temps Pr

J.L.G, I concur entirely that the text should, to a large extent, dictate the character of the music to which it is set. I do not however agree that the 'Gloria' and 'Kyrie' could not be effectively combined in one movement, given enough thought and consideration. I've already mentioned that Mozart employed 'sacreligious' polytextuality in his Missa Breves - few hold him to trial on this account, and the effect is deeply powerful. I understand your horror. Such a combination could of course prove terrible (any mass might prove terrible!), yet the concept of antiphony between lines from the middle of the 'Gloria' with cries of 'Kyrie' could potentially be brilliant. Each composer splits the mass differently. There are no longer any hard and fast rules.

In my opinion, doing 'what has never been done before' is the best reason to write classical parodies and pastiches. To write the music you wish had been written. This is a very contentious statement though, and I've not really got my stance on historical-pastiche sorted entirely.

Talking about setting masses is more interesting. Continue!

J. Lee.... i know what you mean.

i am highly classical, since almost all my music is inspired by classical composers, and i am getting more and more involved into the deep study of almost as many authors as i can get from that period.... and i go for the unknown ones that have the best music, bad only that are not heard, and we must thank all the theaters that give no voice to anything but the same things, the same 4 operas, the same 4 concerts and that's it... just because silly dumbs like just that single tune, because they hear it in all tv spots or because they are used to listen to it, and if you give them something of the same author, but something different, they might be not happy. and i tried it with some people i know and i dint have a successful reaction...

plus add the huge work performers must take since they have to "change" the piece in a certain way to make it sound "new", plus add that now there are dvds, cds, and cassettes, so you just go, buy the thing, and u listen over and over...

this just kills everything. and i don't like this... i mean not the fact that you can go buy the cds and listen to the pieces, but the fact that theaters give no room for anything, and both composers of nowadays and also performers does not try to rebel to this situation, and also teachers and students from conservatories and universities (for those universities that have music programs) do quite nothing for this.... it is just ALL sad. hope somebody finds the same thing.

anyway to go back on the tread. i did mean that it is sure you have to keep in mind what you are writing and what is the context and all, but with freedom i don't mean you do whatever you like regardless... unless you want to do something modern, then, anything is allowed. you are free to do whatever you think it is proper and good in the context you are writing. this is what i meant, i am sorry i didn't express clearly before... but we are humans, we make mistakes, and unless we kill somebody, we can correct the mistakes ;)

hehe i don't know if i will post soon my masses here, i have written not that much, just some parts of the kyrie of both masses, and parts of the gloria of the missa brevis. but the fact is that i am working to 10 pieces at the same time... i need to finish a nachtmusik for 2 violins and basso, then a cembalo concerto, and a trumpet concerto, then i have also some violin sonatas to finish and some symphonies too, so when i can i do something of everything... oh i am also finishing a stabat mater for SATB choir, i just did the first stanza and the beginning of the second one, so again, a lot to work and a lot to finish... and these are just the "big" works i am doing, plus add the few small ones, it is a lot of work. :D

oh... haha yeah, ok you can call me punk, but i am not a punk and there's nothing related to that haha

Guys, thanks for reading the spirit of what I meant into what I actually said, which now that I look at it might seem too authoritarian.

I've already mentioned that Mozart employed 'sacreligious' polytextuality in his Missa Breves

I have not heard every one of the many Missae Breves. Are you aware of any instance where Mozart overlaid texts from two different sections (i.e. Kyrie and Gloria)? I've seen instances where he gingerly had two or more texts from the same section going at the same time, using a technique he would later employ to full effect in opera; the multiple texts are carefully set, however, so that they are still intelligible. In this, he interpreted the spirit of the Council of Trent's regulations quite liberally, though still acceptable technically. I would tend to doubt, though, that he mixed incompatible texts. If he did, let me know where to find them, because this I must see.

In any event, Mozart got away with as much as he possibly could, probably, without risking a visit from the Inquisition, in no small part because of the time constraints he was under from the Archbishop of Salzburg, who insisted that no ordinary setting of the Canon of the Mass be any longer than 15 minutes; and lest we forget, he hated the Archbishop, and apparently took delight in annoying him by any means possible. Yet Mozart's settings are still liturgical in nature, that is, they could be (and were) sung as an integral part of an actual liturgy, and I still believe that quality should be the starting point and foundation of any setting; though as you said, there are no hard and fast rules, maybe there should be. Ah, perhaps I'm still too strict. What else can one expect from a Roman Catholic Classical-Revivalist hard-arse?

This is not to say that all settings of the Mass must be liturgically correct. However, whether to make it so is a fundamental question for an historicist. Which brings us to:

In my opinion, doing 'what has never been done before' is the best reason to write classical parodies and pastiches. To write the music you wish had been written.

In the more general sense - not just in setting Masses - this depends on whether one intends to write pastiche, or write authentically. Without making a value judgment, there is a broad distinction. I prefer the latter for myself, and so tend never to do anything that wouldn't reasonably have been done in the period. Imbuing the music with my own soul and sensibility is the way I make it new, not by innovating "inappropriately," for lack of a better term.

I think an historicist needs to decide for himself which of the two paths to follow, and discipline himself (or not) accordingly. Though, admittedly, it might be interesting to hear a piece with the kind of innovations you suggest, yet stylistically authentic to the last detail. Could my heart take it? ;)

Musings continued .... I'm exploring these divisions:

Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero,

genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri;

per quem omnia facta sunt.

This is a statement full of abstract metaphysical allusions, which I haven't heard exploited to its fullest. I'm imagining a slow movement with a construction not unlike Haydn's overture to The Creation; fluid and ever-shifting, as to capture mystical nature of light and matter. The high point/emphasis would be genitum non factum. What kind of gesture would convey this incredible statement?

Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas,

et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris.

Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, judicare vivos et mortuos,

cujus regni non erit finis

This is easier to envision, I guess. Rhythmic ostinato, getting more animated and crescendo (tremolo strings?) building up to a triumphant tutti with brass, cueing the entry of the chorus in unison. Movement develops organically with contrapuntal lines, upbeat. Change of tone dramatically on judicare, bold and menacing, unison giving way to harmony, cadence ....

and then cujus regni non erit finis should be the high point, with fugal treatment. Movement ends with tremendous authority.

:happy:

I've always wanted to set a mass, being semi-Catholic and all. (I'm not much of a believer any more, but I still have a bit of an attachment with tradition and ceremony of the mass.) It just seems hard to do something original with the most common text ever without sounding dated or cheesily "fresh." (I've had to play several vernacular "Gospel" style masses for services...) And I don't really know much Latin, so I don't think I'd have a full grasp of the text just from the vernacular English translation I'm used to.

If I wrote a mass I wouldn't because I'm an athiest

Were the composers who wrote mass highly religious? I think bach and haydn were quite religious, but mozart, schubert, and beethoven weren't too crazy about Jesus right? They just wrote for the money?

Also, out of curiousity, cygnusdei and punk, are you guys writing mass for religous and spiritual reasons?

If I wrote a mass I wouldn't because I'm an athiest

Unless it was a mock-mass, maybe? Perhaps a sarcasm-mass?

See Pierre Henry, or Satie's "Mass for the poor" lol.

Were the composers who wrote mass highly religious? I think bach and haydn were quite religious, but mozart, schubert, and beethoven weren't too crazy about Jesus right? They just wrote for the money?

Also, out of curiousity, cygnusdei and punk, are you guys writing mass for religous and spiritual reasons?

1) Mozart was religious

2) I don't recall him writing a mass, you're thinking of the Requiem....

Mozart wrote sixteen masses, plus too if you count the unfinished C Major 'Grosse' Mass, and the unfinished D minor Requiem Mass. I don't think he was particularly religious, although he was a mason (and wrote a fair quantity of masonic music).

Writing an 'Atheist's Mass' or 'Agnostic's Oratorio' would be quite interesting, although the libretto would be incredibly complicated to write effectively.

Mozart wrote sixteen masses, plus too if you count the unfinished C Major 'Grosse' Mass, and the unfinished D minor Requiem Mass. I don't think he was particularly religious, although he was a mason (and wrote a fair quantity of masonic music).

Writing an 'Atheist's Mass' or 'Agnostic's Oratorio' would be quite interesting, although the libretto would be incredibly complicated to write effectively.

My bad, I must admit I generally stay away from the sacred output of any if not all the composers I come across. I'm really just not interested in it, so pardon my lack of knowledge on the subject.

Unless it was a mock-mass, maybe? Perhaps a sarcasm-mass?

See Pierre Henry, or Satie's "Mass for the poor" lol.

I rather like the sound of that. An atheist writing a mass. No, no. An atheist writing a great mass that becomes so famous that it is heard EVERYWHERE! There is so many levels of irony there that it's not even funny. I'd do it myself if I were actaully atheist. :D

I rather like the sound of that. An atheist writing a mass. No, no. An atheist writing a great mass that becomes so famous that it is heard EVERYWHERE! There is so many levels of irony there that it's not even funny. I'd do it myself if I were actaully atheist. :D

Actually Verdi already beat you to it.

Also, out of curiousity, cygnusdei and punk, are you guys writing mass for religous and spiritual reasons?

I'm not writing a Mass yet. But if I were, the motivation would be more of compositional challenge than religious conviction. Composition is not divorced from spirituality though.

My bad, I must admit I generally stay away from the sacred output of any if not all the composers I come across. I'm really just not interested in it, so pardon my lack of knowledge on the subject.

That's a shame. I share your lack of religious conviction, but to dismiss a large chunk of repertoire because of an ideology seems rather narrow minded. You can't ignore the dominating force in western culture for the last 2000 years or so, and it's resulting art, because you don't agree with it.

Writing an 'Atheist's Mass' or 'Agnostic's Oratorio' would be quite interesting, although the libretto would be incredibly complicated to write effectively.