Motet a 5 "Kyrie Eleison - Miserere Mei, Deus" in F minor.

In spite of my last failed attempt at writing vocal counterpoint for 5 voices, I refused to give up my endeavours and thus began a new piece from scratch, though still with a similar setup, as well as part of its lyrics remaining the same, the other part being the first verse of Gregorio Allegri's own Miserere.

However, with this one I decided to try out a few somewhat adventurous modulations, following a transpositional pattern of a semitone upwards between both musical phrases, as well as a rather unusual enharmonic modulation of a downward semitone mid-phrase.

Enjoy!

YouTube video link: 

Hi @Fugax Contrapunctus!

Nice motet!  I think the modulations are smooth although the one in the beginning, to E minor is a bit surprising.  I am not sure when listening to this, if the modulations are justified and needed by the music/melodic line, or whether you just included them because it's something that's on your checklist of features you want some of your pieces to have?

Something else I noticed, is that there isn't a single rest in the entire piece!  LoL - not that there necessarily have to be rests, but it would be expected in a piece for choir where people have to breathe.  On the other hand, many singers would be singing this together, so they'd be able to stagger their breathing.  But it does lend the piece a sort of breathless artificiality because the phrase once started seems to just keep going and going without any rest.  Those are my thoughts.  Thanks for sharing this enjoyable piece!

41 minutes ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

[...] I am not sure when listening to this, if the modulations are justified and needed by the music/melodic line, or whether you just included them because it's something that's on your checklist of features you want some of your pieces to have?

Indeed, said modulations are the focal point of this piece, the base material from which its structure was designed and its counterpoint woven. I am unsure, however, on what you mean by "justified and needed by the music/melodic line", since the level of contrapuntal constraints required for a 5-voice setup was main guiding force behind the final resulting contours the melodies took, aside from the proper individual construction thereof.

41 minutes ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

Something else I noticed, is that there isn't a single rest in the entire piece!  LoL - not that there necessarily have to be rests, but it would be expected in a piece for choir where people have to breathe.  On the other hand, many singers would be singing this together, so they'd be able to stagger their breathing.  But it does lend the piece a sort of breathless artificiality because the phrase once started seems to just keep going and going without any rest. [...]

I trust that most professional choirs out there would be able to instinctually find favourably specific moments within the piece to strategically insert breathing commas, such as phrases ending in a half note giving ample space for singers to momentarily stagger their breathing, just as you said. As for the sense of breathless artificiality you mentioned, I suppose it must be a matter o subjective relevance, since it comes off neither as "artificial" nor awkward in any way for me as long as the performing choir can handle it properly, as I hope will be the case under most circumstances.

Regardless of our disagreements, I can only thank you for your thoughts, criticism and kind words, as there will most likely always room for improvement in my compositions no matter how hard I try to perfect my technique and integrate all aspects in which I may find myself lacking, so as to get them as closely as possible to second-nature for me and, by extension, my art.

8 minutes ago, Fugax Contrapunctus said:

I trust that most professional choirs out there would be able to instinctually find favourably specific moments within the piece to strategically insert breathing commas, such as phrases ending in a half note giving ample space for singers to momentarily stagger their breathing, just as you said.

But right now, with the way you've presented the piece, would the performers know whether they should breathe together at certain points to create space (like at the end of half-notes?) or to stagger their breathing, creating the illusion of a continuous line without breath?  I think you as the composer should include breaths/spaces if you mean them to be there, even in an electronic rendition and I think it would grant your music that much more realism and idiomatic-ness.  Space is very important in music for music to sound "alive".

Have a look at your soprano line. Does it sound like a coherent melody? What do you notice about its range?

On 9/8/2024 at 5:35 AM, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I think you as the composer should include breaths/spaces if you mean them to be there, even in an electronic rendition and I think it would grant your music that much more realism and idiomatic-ness.

That could be arranged in the extremely unlikely long-term scenario of my music being performed, if ever. Still, it should be noted that my stance towards setting my compositions to actual, real performances has shifted over the last couple of years, which I supposed must be at least part of the reason why Henry Ng Tsz Kiu stopped reviewing my compositions altogether, once I revealed how my position on this matter had changed. Like I said then and I shall repeat now, computerized performances are good enough for my current intents and purposes. If actual performers in the flesh cannot pause to breathe, that poses no problem at all: the machine shall sing or play what they cannot without issue. Naturally, my usual trade-off with this approach is said sense of "artificiality" to it all. But after every time this has been pointed out without me putting the slightiest bit of effort into mitigating such aspects of my music, it should be evident by now I do not mind it whatsoever, it simply does not bother me. However, if this reasoning does clash with your own perspectives, just as I assume happened to Henry, you are free to join him in leaving me and my works alone.

On 9/8/2024 at 11:44 AM, muchen_ said:

Have a look at your soprano line. Does it sound like a coherent melody? What do you notice about its range?

First things first: this is a five-voice motet. The fact that you implied both the supposed melodic "incoherence" of the soprano line and its relatively high range in the very same comment leads me to believe you should be aware of the constraints set by having five voices in a choral setup. Had I chosen to add more variety to the soprano line in particular, I would have found myself trapped between two different dead ends: either substantial voice crossings between the soprano and mezzosoprano voices, or exceeding even the most extreme ranges for soprano voices. As neither of said options were to be permitted, I had to opt for quite a limited range so as to make rooom for the inner voices. Does this somehow make the resulting melody "incoherent"? Like I have said before, what constitutes a good melody is rather subjctive. All I can point towards in my defense is the meticulous care I put into its construction so as to avoid repeated segments (for example, say, a succession of E F E F with very similar rhythms throughout), that is, the only objective metric by which to judge melodic coherence I could apply in this case.

Quote

 either substantial voice crossings between the soprano and mezzosoprano voices

This is exactly what is permitted in 5-voice counterpoint! Have a look at the Kyrie I and the Cum Sancto Spiritu from BWV 232. You'll see that the voices mostly stay uncrossed, but voice crossing happens very frequently between all parts, and especially between the two soprano parts. You find this in SATB works too, just less frequently. To be honest, my interpretation of voice crossing is that it's more of a guideline: "make voices mostly stay in their lanes".

Quote

relatively high range

Two problems with this. The first is that it's incredibly difficult and tiring to sing something this high for this long - I know you don't care about it but I have to mention this regardless. Second is that your timbre palette is severely limited by having a range of a diminished fifth. It sounds very very odd to my ears - like hearing a violin playing above the ledger line for 2 minutes straight.

Quote

Like I have said before, what constitutes a good melody is rather subjctive. All I can point towards in my defense is the meticulous care I put into its construction so as to avoid repeated segments (for example, say, a succession of E F E F with very similar rhythms throughout), that is, the only objective metric by which to judge melodic coherence I could apply in this case.

I'd like to draw your attention now to your tenor line. This on the other hand, to my ears, is incredibly interesting, fully coherent, and sounds like it was crafted with skill and care. Contrast this with your soprano line. Do you maybe now see what I mean?

Hi Pabio @Fugax Contrapunctus,

Speaking of the music itself I like your counterpoint as always, but as @muchen_ I would hope the soprano to be more melodic instead of staying in in the same high range! That would also make the soprano a bit tired. I like your modulation too.

On 9/10/2024 at 12:36 AM, Fugax Contrapunctus said:

That could be arranged in the extremely unlikely long-term scenario of my music being performed, if ever. Still, it should be noted that my stance towards setting my compositions to actual, real performances has shifted over the last couple of years, which I supposed must be at least part of the reason why Henry Ng Tsz Kiu stopped reviewing my compositions altogether, once I revealed how my position on this matter had changed.

On 9/10/2024 at 12:36 AM, Fugax Contrapunctus said:

However, if this reasoning does clash with your own perspectives, just as I assume happened to Henry, you are free to join him in leaving me and my works alone.

Pabio, seeing this for did make me feel angry and sad. I didn’t review your pieces simply because I didn’t even review most of the pieces on this forum. I didn’t have the energy and mood to do so. I was having an emotionally down period during these few months and I finally crawled back from it, and then I listened to the excerpts in Tauskin’s excellent music history, this time in volume 3, so I seldom reviewed here. To be honest, I hate to be imagined reasons for my not reviewing pieces. I only share my emotions towards my loved ones because I don’t want to burden others.  I won’t stop reviewing at all if I have time and energy to do so, you have to understand. Plus, from my memory you didn’t even review my pieces once. I really don’t know why you request others to review yours, take it for granted, and blamed others when they don’t, while you have never paid efforts on reviewing others’ works. I won’t stop review anyone’s works because we have different perspectives, but I will if I think you are not a good person at all. I’m still angry now when I am typing these words Pabio. I won’t be this angry if I don’t care about you and your works.

Henry

On 9/22/2024 at 2:35 PM, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

[...]

Pabio, seeing this for did make me feel angry and sad. I didn’t review your pieces simply because I didn’t even review most of the pieces on this forum. I didn’t have the energy and mood to do so. I was having an emotionally down period during these few months and I finally crawled back from it, and then I listened to the excerpts in Tauskin’s excellent music history, this time in volume 3, so I seldom reviewed here. To be honest, I hate to be imagined reasons for my not reviewing pieces. I only share my emotions towards my loved ones because I don’t want to burden others.  I won’t stop reviewing at all if I have time and energy to do so, you have to understand. Plus, from my memory you didn’t even review my pieces once. I really don’t know why you request others to review yours, take it for granted, and blamed others when they don’t, while you have never paid efforts on reviewing others’ works. I won’t stop review anyone’s works because we have different perspectives, but I will if I think you are not a good person at all. I’m still angry now when I am typing these words Pabio. I won’t be this angry if I don’t care about you and your works.

Henry

Dear Henry, I am deeply sorry that my remark caused you distress. I had no way of knowing there were other reasons beyond my direct statements for you to suddenly stop reviewing my works, so I assumed it had to do with disagreements over ideomatic compositional criteria, which has managed to become the trademark criticism offered towards my works.

Never have I requested nor taken for granted any reviews, the same way I feel there's barely anything left for me to add almost everytime I come across pieces I could be capacitated to offer criticism for. I simply had an (ultimately wrong) inkling that the reason for this situation was of my own doing, my fault. It seems I have been wrong from beginning to end, and as such I can only apologize for the impression my words may have caused and hope to clear up the misunderstanding.

Best wishes,

Pablo

12 minutes ago, Fugax Contrapunctus said:

Dear Henry, I am deeply sorry that my remark caused you distress. I had no way of knowing there were other reasons beyond my direct statements for you to suddenly stop reviewing my works, so I assumed it had to do with disagreements over ideomatic compositional criteria, which has managed to become the trademark criticism offered towards my works.

Never have I requested nor taken for granted any reviews, the same way I feel there's barely anything left for me to add almost everytime I come across pieces I could be capacitated to offer criticism for. I simply had an (ultimately wrong) inkling that the reason for this situation was of my own doing, my fault. It seems I have been wrong from beginning to end, and as such I can only apologize for the impression my words may have caused and hope to clear up the misunderstanding.

Hey Pabio, I should also apologise for getting too agitated. It’s one of my fault to blame others for not knowing my feelings while I am hiding all my feelings and others would have no way to guess it. I promise I will continue to review pieces including yours if I have time and energy to do so.

Love,

Henry

Great counterpoint! but when composing a motet you must introduce the subject from one of the voices, lets say you intoroduce a peice of subject from the cantus part along with the text. now, on the first BARLINE on the third beat (thats the common thing to do) you should insert the counterpoint from the alto part with the same text, it is usually accepted to write the counterpoint with the same ryhtm of the main subject on the third beat as i said. when the peice of text is over you will do the same thing but from the tenor & bass part, while filling in the blanks of the alto and tenor, after that you can basically do the same thing with the tenor and alto, while filling in the blanks of the bass and cantus parts, with the text of course. its very hard to explain like that but i hope you understand, your counterpoint in general is amazing, it is just the form that needs to be mend. keep it up.

the main point is that motet never start when all the voices are singing on the first barline, no. you need to build it gradually my friend.

On 10/5/2024 at 11:18 AM, Elad_Hevron said:

[...] when composing a motet you must introduce the subject from one of the voices, lets say you intoroduce a peice of subject from the cantus part along with the text. now, on the first BARLINE on the third beat (thats the common thing to do) you should insert the counterpoint from the alto part with the same text, it is usually accepted to write the counterpoint with the same ryhtm of the main subject on the third beat as i said. when the peice of text is over you will do the same thing but from the tenor & bass part, while filling in the blanks of the alto and tenor, after that you can basically do the same thing with the tenor and alto, while filling in the blanks of the bass and cantus parts, with the text of course. its very hard to explain like that but i hope you understand, your counterpoint in general is amazing, it is just the form that needs to be mend. keep it up.

the main point is that motet never start when all the voices are singing on the first barline, no. you need to build it gradually my friend.

First off, I hope you do realize you are referring to a very specific kind of motet. The term has been in use at least since the very inception of the Notre-Dame school of polyphony and ever since, the form covered by the usage of this term has undergone nigh constant change and evolution. I take it you may perhaps specifically be alluding to post-Palestrina motets. Even then, I wish we could move past the nitpicking over non-contrapuntal elements in music.

Like you seem to have appreciated, counterpoint is the main focus in these compositions of mine. To me, contrapuntal standards are the bare basics from which form can deviate in whichever way I see fit. If it were the case that I was studying Palestrina's motets under Fux's tutelage roughly three centuries ago, then I would have no chance but to accept said constrictions in form. Thankfully, after all the evolution that has taken place in the history of classical music, only in exercises are such strict rules expected to be upheld without the slightiest deviation, which is one of the main reasons why I refuse to accept the labels "exercise", or worse yet, "pastiche" stapled onto my compositions. Had every composer since Palestrina or Fux followed the same set of rules without letting their own originality redefine them, at best we would still be stuck in the Early Classical period.

I can, to a degree, understand the formal expectations when it comes to this kind of pieces. I shall not, however, blindly acquiesce to every single one of them. In case you are interested in checking out other pieces of mine which follow your purported guidelines, you can check these out: 

On 10/17/2024 at 9:38 PM, Fugax Contrapunctus said:

First off, I hope you do realize you are referring to a very specific kind of motet. The term has been in use at least since the very inception of the Notre-Dame school of polyphony and ever since, the form covered by the usage of this term has undergone nigh constant change and evolution. I take it you may perhaps specifically be alluding to post-Palestrina motets. Even then, I wish we could move past the nitpicking over non-contrapuntal elements in music.

Like you seem to have appreciated, counterpoint is the main focus in these compositions of mine. To me, contrapuntal standards are the bare basics from which form can deviate in whichever way I see fit. If it were the case that I was studying Palestrina's motets under Fux's tutelage roughly three centuries ago, then I would have no chance but to accept said constrictions in form. Thankfully, after all the evolution that has taken place in the history of classical music, only in exercises are such strict rules expected to be upheld without the slightiest deviation, which is one of the main reasons why I refuse to accept the labels "exercise", or worse yet, "pastiche" stapled onto my compositions. Had every composer since Palestrina or Fux followed the same set of rules without letting their own originality redefine them, at best we would still be stuck in the Early Classical period.

I can, to a degree, understand the formal expectations when it comes to this kind of pieces. I shall not, however, blindly acquiesce to every single one of them. In case you are interested in checking out other pieces of mine which follow your purported guidelines, you can check these out: 

Oh yeah i have been a follower of your youtube channel for a long time tbh, been enjoying your compositions for harpsichord and organ a lot!

your counterpoint skills are not to be questioned, they are great. better than most composers out there i think, catholic as i may be.... when composing a motet i just think there's a spesific structure/form to follow, if there are more ways to write a motet that i didnt hear of, then forgive me.

please continue writing music. 

On 10/17/2024 at 9:38 PM, Fugax Contrapunctus said: