Talk:A ce matin (Orlando di Lasso)

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Question: m19 alto should not be sharped? Answer: The F# is correct. The phrase in m18 differs from the previous cadence on soprano melody m9-10 cadences on Dm because m9 remains minor and is not moving harmonically. The cadence in this instance (m18-19) follows the alteration of the harmonic sequence, esp. tenor m18, with a cadence on D major, followed immediately by a return to d minor to begin the next phrase. The harmonic variation is supported by the text and obvious word painting. Paul M Marchesa 21:14, 25 November 2011 (CST)

Question: The tenor in bar 1 is 1/8th longer than the other voices. How to resolve this? What does the original say? I'm tempted to shorten 'ma' to 1/8th. Rp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Answer: You are correct, and have caught an error that escaped comment for 3 years; 'ma' should indeed be an eighth note.

E in tenor, bar 26

I can't bring myself to sing it; The Laughing Bird uses Eb. Rp (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad the Laughing Bird used my edition and I know them well. We discussed this measure. It is a matter of opinion. The original is not flatted, and there are many a flatted 'E' throughout. In this instance it is a matter of choice. If you can't bring yourself to sing E-natural, then by all means sing E-flat. That is certainly more pleasing to the modern ear. The passing tri-tone for a half beat is not an issue here. It is a colorization. I disagree with the flat and stand by the E-natural. Besides, it is easier to add a flat than to subtract it ;) Paul M Marchesa (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The E in the Tenor in bar 26 should be E flat. I have transcribed hundreds of Lassus and other Renaissance works from original prints. It is rather common that E after a B flat is not flatted, though E flat is expected to be sung. This was obvious for people of the 16th century, so they assume everyone knows it so no explicit flat sign is necessary. This logic is quite different from our modern understanding according to which you should note the actual pitches. Often in such a case you find a signed E flat in another voice, which is additional support to the assumption that an E even when not flatted after a B flat is to be sung as E flat. The flatting of E in certain situations (e.g. "una nota super la") was regarded obvious even without putting a flat sign, so that in some cases the E note has a sharp sign in front of it, alerting the singer that the E is not to be flatted. So I mean had Lassus wanted an E to be sung here, he would have indicated this by putting a sharp sign in front of the E.
So you are obviously not reading the original Lassus as it was meant to be read by singers of Lassus's time.

Imruska (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

How good it is to know someone who personally knew Lassus! You must be quite full of yourself having that advantage over the rest of the musical world, to whom what exactly Lassus wrote or intended is a complete mystery! Your reference to reading the original Lassus notwithstanding, most of the material is from copyists or original publications, so no, Orlando did not right a specific note to me. Regardless of your rationalizations, the E-flat works perfectly well and is completely within style, as is often the case with other of his works and his contemporaries. I stand by my preference for E-natural, and as I have said above, you are welcome to flat the E if you prefer since it is NOT clearly defined.
One should also note that the cadence is major, progressing suspension G6 to D.
--Marchesa (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to take this tone with me. Just because you are ignorant of the notational conventions of Lassus's time, it doesn't mean all of us are. What I offered were not rationalisations, they are facts. The E flat IS clearly defined for those who are familiar with the music of Lassus's time and its notational conventions. The Tenor sings c'est d'avoir de l'argent in (modern terms) B flat major, B flat - C - D - B flat (= ut re mi ut) which should be followed by a fa (E flat) and not an E. When Lassus (and other composers of the 16th century) wanted to have an E where according to the conventions of the time singers were likely to sing an E flat (just like this case), they put a sharp sign in front of the E. Well, it's not my fault that you have never seen any instance of this.
Imruska (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Here you can see one instance of E flats not indicated but called for - in the first line the three consecutive E notes are to be sung as E flats (indeed they are sung as E flats by Graindelavoix), and in the last line you can see a sharp before the E, cautioning the singers that this note is not to be flattened.
Imruska (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The link is broken

I have no idea of the theory behind this, but as far as I can tell just by trying things out, the reason I want an Eb there is the following chord, D-F(#)-A. It makes the E(b) resolve downwards to D, which an E cannot do, to my mind. Had the next note been C or F instead, implying a C-F-A chord, the resolution would have been upwards and I'd use E, not Eb. Rp (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

IF you look past that immediate D chord which last for a half beat, the resolution immediately moves to G, for which the passing tone from D major to G major makes complete sense. Additionally one must look at the text, wherein we are at the repetition of "l'argent", a metaphor in the line for "I must be paid" -- or rather, I must be satisfied -- so the point of the E not flatting is pushing and emphasizing the repeated demand for satisfaction. Marchesa (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)