Just as in common practice counterpoint (for two, three, or four voices), there are sorts of "species" in eight-part writing. These species refer more to the methods described here in an earlier post, rather than to specific "note against note" techniques such as those described in common practice contrapuntal laws. Also, just as in counterpoint, the final "fluid" species is the true master practice of eight-part writing, which combines the other species into one smooth method, transitioning through and complimenting all of the methods at will in any order, at the creative discretion of the composer.
This "fluid" species, or method in this case, is the greatest possible practice of all eight-part writing. As one could gather, this species is a combination of using true double choruses (even switching the dual choruses between "SATB, SATB" and "SSAA, TTBB"), imitative double choruses, driven mostly by full imitative counterpoint and free polyphony, or non-imitative counterpoint, to create a full and complex harmony to accurately reflect the ideas within a given text.
This method is a place for the true musical creative ability of the composer to be shown, almost as if unmasked. The combinations are literally endless, and as I said before, variation is very strongly encouraged. I wish, myself, to pursue a variation in which the voices are grouped in twos, SS, AA, TT, and BB, and move in similar motion with their respective partners, to form an expanded 4-part contrapuntal method. This will be a very interesting project to say the least.
This free form will yield the most interesting and creative eight-part pieces. I take my inspiration for describing this final species from the eight-part "Miserere" section of Otto Olsson's Te Deum. Mr. Olsson uses many of these methods, and of course his own ideas. He layers voices in and out and moves them either alone or in groups of two to create a lush, full, and continuous harmony.
For anyone who happens upon this blog. I would love to receive any eight-part pieces, or any pieces, for that matter, that you are working on or have finished. I will eventually post my own, but I would like to try a few more things before I do so.
I would really like to get a sort of database of pieces going (both choral or instrumental) which I could link to through this blog, so readers can download scores and recordings of pieces submitted by other readers.
Thank you for reading. May God bless you and keep you!
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Requiem
Just a little over a year ago I had the opportunity to attend an All Souls' Day mass at which Mozart's Requiem was performed. I went with a friend and his father, and needless to say, we were all excited. I had never heard the piece before, myself. This event is one that has shaped and continues to shape my life, both musically and spiritually, and has been the driving force behind much of my musical theology and philosophy.
We arrived at the church early and found our seat in a row of pews in the left side of the church, towards the back. I was excited for two reasons. First, this was (and is) my favorite church in the United States, due to its extremely traditional nature and excellent priests, as well as the sheer beauty of the church itself, which is well over one-hundred years old, and second, because I had never heard this wonderful masterwork. One of the advantages of being a convert to classical music is that even at this age, there are many masterworks that I have not yet experienced.
My friend's father had brought along a score. I eagerly looked through it in anticipation of the beginning of the performance. The bell rang, the music began, and the priests and the myriad of altar boys began their long procession to the altar, slow and perfectly reverent, in time with the steady and solemn beat of the music. Immediately my heart sank. I felt as if I had been caught in the act of committing some terrible crime. I set the score down and stood. God had suddenly nudged me: This is not a performance, this is a mass.
My primary reason and joy in being there up to that point had been solely the music. In my excitement I had forgotten what this truly was, a solemnity of all souls, with an emphasis on those who have died and are waiting patiently, being cleansed before their entrance into Beatitude. One of the most interesting things was that after this point, the music did not detract from my being able to participate fully in the mass as one might expect, on the contrary, it added to and complimented the mass. The opening notes perfectly set the atmosphere for such a solemn occasion. Mozart embodied the ideas of an earthy death, the souls awaiting heaven in purgatory, and this transient life that we are enduring and must endure for our earthly lives, all within the first few measures.
God spoke to me through everything. All of a sudden the very church itself took on an air of a solemness and seriousness. Everything suddenly became perfectly reverent. I then understood the value and role of music within a mass. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the primary focus and the music is there simply to aid in portraying the ideas within the mass. I realized that this mass would have been just as wonderful had there been no music at all. The music was there only as a compliment, to further describe the solemnity and point people towards what was happening at the altar, not what was happening in the choir loft.
For those of you who live in Minnesota, the church is St. Agnes in St. Paul. Every year for All Souls' Day, a professional choir and professional ensemble from the Twin Cities performs Mozart's Requiem during the mass. I strongly recommend anyone who is able to attend to do so. You will never once in your life regret it.
May all glory and honor be to God, always, and in all places!
We arrived at the church early and found our seat in a row of pews in the left side of the church, towards the back. I was excited for two reasons. First, this was (and is) my favorite church in the United States, due to its extremely traditional nature and excellent priests, as well as the sheer beauty of the church itself, which is well over one-hundred years old, and second, because I had never heard this wonderful masterwork. One of the advantages of being a convert to classical music is that even at this age, there are many masterworks that I have not yet experienced.
My friend's father had brought along a score. I eagerly looked through it in anticipation of the beginning of the performance. The bell rang, the music began, and the priests and the myriad of altar boys began their long procession to the altar, slow and perfectly reverent, in time with the steady and solemn beat of the music. Immediately my heart sank. I felt as if I had been caught in the act of committing some terrible crime. I set the score down and stood. God had suddenly nudged me: This is not a performance, this is a mass.
My primary reason and joy in being there up to that point had been solely the music. In my excitement I had forgotten what this truly was, a solemnity of all souls, with an emphasis on those who have died and are waiting patiently, being cleansed before their entrance into Beatitude. One of the most interesting things was that after this point, the music did not detract from my being able to participate fully in the mass as one might expect, on the contrary, it added to and complimented the mass. The opening notes perfectly set the atmosphere for such a solemn occasion. Mozart embodied the ideas of an earthy death, the souls awaiting heaven in purgatory, and this transient life that we are enduring and must endure for our earthly lives, all within the first few measures.
God spoke to me through everything. All of a sudden the very church itself took on an air of a solemness and seriousness. Everything suddenly became perfectly reverent. I then understood the value and role of music within a mass. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the primary focus and the music is there simply to aid in portraying the ideas within the mass. I realized that this mass would have been just as wonderful had there been no music at all. The music was there only as a compliment, to further describe the solemnity and point people towards what was happening at the altar, not what was happening in the choir loft.
For those of you who live in Minnesota, the church is St. Agnes in St. Paul. Every year for All Souls' Day, a professional choir and professional ensemble from the Twin Cities performs Mozart's Requiem during the mass. I strongly recommend anyone who is able to attend to do so. You will never once in your life regret it.
May all glory and honor be to God, always, and in all places!
Eight-Part Vocal Writing: Methods
There are three major methods in which eight-part writing can be used:
Eight-Part Homophony
The first of these is homophonic eight-part writing, or that in which one voice sings a melody, and the remaining seven voices add accompaniment and support. It functions identically to four-part homophonic writing. However, the harmonies in this case are much more full, and can provide very strong and complex support for the melody line. In four-part voice writing, the goal is to maintain the individuality of the voices. This usually holds true even in homophonic settings.
In eight-part homophony, the goal is not necessarily to focus on voice individuality. The eight voices should function as one chordal bed, moving similarly rhythmically, on which the melody line rests, thus my allowance of limited parallel octaves. In addition to making the writing easier and offering more options, it also adds unity to the voices, though, as I mentioned in my theory post, it should be avoided unless necessary. Parallel fifths, as mentioned in my previous post are not permitted. This type of parallel motion is too obvious, and results in a sound I would describe as "grinding."
Voices should move the smallest distance possible between chords, adhering to Basic Procedure as much as possible. Smooth movement from one chord to the next is the goal in this type of eight-part writing.
The Double Chorus
The second is the double chorus method. This method is the most common, and can be done in a number of ways. The most common is to split the eight-part choir into two separate choirs of SATB form. However, I enjoy using the other method even more. That is, two separate choirs of SSAA and TTBB. Whichever arrangement of voices is chosen, the two choirs can be used in a number of very effective ways.
One of the most effective is the "call and response" method, where one choir will sing a musical idea, usually ending open-ended, and the other choir will respond with another musical idea that completes the first. Another method is to entirely split the two and use them in conjunction with full eight-part homophonic writing. An example of this would be an opening section in eight parts, followed by the first choir singing an extended musical idea alone, and then the other choir singing another extended musical idea alone.
Throughout these separate-chorus excursions, the other choir can layer in either above or below (depending on how the choirs are arranged) the choir that is currently singing to add an eight-part texture. In this method, I strongly encourage frequent transitions between single chorus and double chorus sections, with the choirs trading off with and overlapping one another (in terms of singing at the same time, not in terms of singing the same notes).
Eight-Part Counterpoint
The third method is the eight-part contrapuntal method. This is the most difficult, but it is the consummation of all eight-part writing. This works identically to four-part counterpoint, but with obvious added complexity. All of the rules of four-part writing apply; none of my eight-part exceptions should be permitted in this type of eight-part writing. There are two methods which can be exchanged or used separately to achieve a desire result.
The first method is the imitative double chorus method, in which four voices hold a chord while the other four move contrapuntally. However, as I said, this is only imitative of a double chorus, so the four voices that move should exchange with the four that hold, and these groups should not contain the same four voices for an extended period of time. This method should then expand into (or start with) other combinations as well, such as three voices against five, five against three, two against six, six against two, and transition fluidly through all of the combinations.
The second method is full-blown eight-part imitative counterpoint. In this method, one voice will begin, and the others will follow imitatively and contrapuntally, just as in four-part writing. This is where one is to maintain the maximum amount of voice individuality as possible. The listener should be able to discern (as best they can) eight separate, moving parts. Contrary motion will be best put to use in this method. Once again, all of the rules of four-part writing apply; without my exceptions.
Out of all the methods, this one will truly offer the greatest potential of any one eight-part writing method.
Conclusion
These are my own conclusions taken from my own eight-part writing, and that of other eight-part writing from other composers that I have experienced. Therefore, they are not perfect. There are more ways to analyze eight-part writing in more detail. These are also not the only ways and rules of theory to write in eight parts. I simply offer my experience and intuition. Put these to good use, and please post your suggestions. I am very interested to see what others have found while attempting this mammoth form of voice leading.
Eight-Part Homophony
The first of these is homophonic eight-part writing, or that in which one voice sings a melody, and the remaining seven voices add accompaniment and support. It functions identically to four-part homophonic writing. However, the harmonies in this case are much more full, and can provide very strong and complex support for the melody line. In four-part voice writing, the goal is to maintain the individuality of the voices. This usually holds true even in homophonic settings.
In eight-part homophony, the goal is not necessarily to focus on voice individuality. The eight voices should function as one chordal bed, moving similarly rhythmically, on which the melody line rests, thus my allowance of limited parallel octaves. In addition to making the writing easier and offering more options, it also adds unity to the voices, though, as I mentioned in my theory post, it should be avoided unless necessary. Parallel fifths, as mentioned in my previous post are not permitted. This type of parallel motion is too obvious, and results in a sound I would describe as "grinding."
Voices should move the smallest distance possible between chords, adhering to Basic Procedure as much as possible. Smooth movement from one chord to the next is the goal in this type of eight-part writing.
The Double Chorus
The second is the double chorus method. This method is the most common, and can be done in a number of ways. The most common is to split the eight-part choir into two separate choirs of SATB form. However, I enjoy using the other method even more. That is, two separate choirs of SSAA and TTBB. Whichever arrangement of voices is chosen, the two choirs can be used in a number of very effective ways.
One of the most effective is the "call and response" method, where one choir will sing a musical idea, usually ending open-ended, and the other choir will respond with another musical idea that completes the first. Another method is to entirely split the two and use them in conjunction with full eight-part homophonic writing. An example of this would be an opening section in eight parts, followed by the first choir singing an extended musical idea alone, and then the other choir singing another extended musical idea alone.
Throughout these separate-chorus excursions, the other choir can layer in either above or below (depending on how the choirs are arranged) the choir that is currently singing to add an eight-part texture. In this method, I strongly encourage frequent transitions between single chorus and double chorus sections, with the choirs trading off with and overlapping one another (in terms of singing at the same time, not in terms of singing the same notes).
Eight-Part Counterpoint
The third method is the eight-part contrapuntal method. This is the most difficult, but it is the consummation of all eight-part writing. This works identically to four-part counterpoint, but with obvious added complexity. All of the rules of four-part writing apply; none of my eight-part exceptions should be permitted in this type of eight-part writing. There are two methods which can be exchanged or used separately to achieve a desire result.
The first method is the imitative double chorus method, in which four voices hold a chord while the other four move contrapuntally. However, as I said, this is only imitative of a double chorus, so the four voices that move should exchange with the four that hold, and these groups should not contain the same four voices for an extended period of time. This method should then expand into (or start with) other combinations as well, such as three voices against five, five against three, two against six, six against two, and transition fluidly through all of the combinations.
The second method is full-blown eight-part imitative counterpoint. In this method, one voice will begin, and the others will follow imitatively and contrapuntally, just as in four-part writing. This is where one is to maintain the maximum amount of voice individuality as possible. The listener should be able to discern (as best they can) eight separate, moving parts. Contrary motion will be best put to use in this method. Once again, all of the rules of four-part writing apply; without my exceptions.
Out of all the methods, this one will truly offer the greatest potential of any one eight-part writing method.
Conclusion
These are my own conclusions taken from my own eight-part writing, and that of other eight-part writing from other composers that I have experienced. Therefore, they are not perfect. There are more ways to analyze eight-part writing in more detail. These are also not the only ways and rules of theory to write in eight parts. I simply offer my experience and intuition. Put these to good use, and please post your suggestions. I am very interested to see what others have found while attempting this mammoth form of voice leading.
Eight-Part Vocal Writing: Basic Theory
Recently I began writing a piece, a setting of the Guardian Angel Prayer (Angele Dei) in the original Latin. Because of the full and lush harmony that can be achieved, as well as the abundant opportunities for using color tones, I concluded that eight-part writing would best suit the setting I had in mind for this prayer. However, as some of you may know, there are no set rules specific to eight-part writing. Here I will expand upon my own findings and methods.
First, the theoretical rules that are common with four-part voice leading:
No movement in parallel fifths No movement in parallel fifths by contrary motion.
No direct fifths, that is, movement in two voices to a perfect fifth by similar motion, except if one voice (usually the higher) moves by a step. No movement in parallel fourths with the bass. This is permitted with the soprano or melody line, though it should be avoided.
Attempt contrary motion as much as possible. * (see next paragraph) Attempt not to double the leading tone.
This will result in parallel octaves that would not be recommended (more on parallel octaves below).
However, one of the leading tones may jump down to the fifth (in rare cases, the sixth), thus avoiding unpleasing parallel octaves, though this motion may sound just as clumsy. Do not overlap voices (one voice sings the exact same pitch another voice sang immediately before). Overlap also occurs if one voice sings a note lower than the next lowest voice sang previously, or higher than the next highest voice sang previously. This type of overlap is acceptable in certain cases.
Do not cross parts. This should be even more strongly avoided in eight-parting writing. It is more desirable to enter into unison and then back out again rather than crossing lines.
Avoid continuously repeated movement of thirds and sixths (more than several times between the same two voices).
Parallel octaves should be avoided but are permitted under these conditions: A voice does not move in parallel octaves with the soprano (or melody line). A voice does not move in parallel octaves with the bass. A voice can only move in parallel octaves with another for ONE movement of notes. Only ONE pair of voices out of the eight can move in parallel octaves per movement of notes. The leading tone, as explained above, should be avoided for a candidate for parallel octaves. It will sound unpleasing and cause the composer to use a clumsy route to avoid them.
Unisons are permissible under these conditions: Two voices do not move in unison under any circumstance (remember, we are writing for eight voices, and we should keep to such as much as possible). There is no more than one unison per "chord," unless:
Melodic and/or harmonic reasoning override this.
The composer wishes to transition down to six, five, or four voices, etc.
First, the theoretical rules that are common with four-part voice leading:
Spacing is not an issue, considering that the harmonies will be very tight to begin with. Contrary motion in eight-part writing will be more than your best ally. It is very, very easy to lapse into prohibited parallel motion with so many voices being involved.
Now for the modified rules (according to my practice) that apply to eight-part voice leading:
As for distribution of chord tones throughout the eight voices, the chord should be as balanced as possible. However, since the harmony is so dense, there is much more leeway in what can be doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled in some cases. When writing in eight voices, let the melodic line determine the distribution of chord tones, and do not be afraid to experiment with unbalanced structures. Sometimes the desired sonority must be achieved by an unbalanced method.
These eight-part theoretical rules are practices that I have found to work. However, they are not set in stone, and another person may find different rules that work just as well, or better. I would greatly appreciate input on this post.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Sonare Coeli
"To make the sound of Heaven." (If my Latin serves me correctly)
This is the highest end of music. There can be no greater musical purpose than to compose for Our Lord and Savior. Through the struggle to accurately fulfill this musical telos, the greatest of all works have been and will be composed. The most wonderful thing about this is that since these composers strive to portray the infinite, they will never reach it, and there will always be one better. After realizing this, I am more than ecstatic.
In this blog I intend to explore this concept, offering my own experiences in composition and performance. I am a young man, and so this should hopefully be an interesting progression of ideas, both personally and universally.
One point that I should make immediately is that I do not intend to damn music that is not sacred, for that is an evil as well. These other styles of music share in the Grace and Goodness of God insofar as they use what sounds He created. I quite enjoy jazz, bluegrass and other improvisatory styles in which music is made for the sake of entertainment and increase in friendship. While I do not state that these other styles of music are inherently evil, I do argue is that each type of music has its own place, and that there is a correct progression of thought that is to go into each. For example, popular styles of music should not be performed during a mass. It is irreverent to bring a jazz combo into a church and play loud, fast songs during communion. However, jazz is excellent for a concert, and is one of the best ways to explore one's musicality, especially as I mentioned before, in improvisation. This is a very simple concept, and I will expand upon it no further for now. Please post if you are troubled and would like greater explanation. I simply state that things done solely for God are the highest things and that ideas solely about God are the highest ideas; this includes music.
Now, for the most important point that will drive the rest of this blog. For one to continue reading this without lapsing into spite, these are the base principles that I build this upon:
First and foremost, there is a God. I call upon St. Thomas Aquinas' proof of His existence. I cannot seem to find what particular work the proof itself is contained in, so a paraphrase of St. Thomas from a friend of mine will do for now; he explains it clearly and excellently:
This is the highest end of music. There can be no greater musical purpose than to compose for Our Lord and Savior. Through the struggle to accurately fulfill this musical telos, the greatest of all works have been and will be composed. The most wonderful thing about this is that since these composers strive to portray the infinite, they will never reach it, and there will always be one better. After realizing this, I am more than ecstatic.
In this blog I intend to explore this concept, offering my own experiences in composition and performance. I am a young man, and so this should hopefully be an interesting progression of ideas, both personally and universally.
One point that I should make immediately is that I do not intend to damn music that is not sacred, for that is an evil as well. These other styles of music share in the Grace and Goodness of God insofar as they use what sounds He created. I quite enjoy jazz, bluegrass and other improvisatory styles in which music is made for the sake of entertainment and increase in friendship. While I do not state that these other styles of music are inherently evil, I do argue is that each type of music has its own place, and that there is a correct progression of thought that is to go into each. For example, popular styles of music should not be performed during a mass. It is irreverent to bring a jazz combo into a church and play loud, fast songs during communion. However, jazz is excellent for a concert, and is one of the best ways to explore one's musicality, especially as I mentioned before, in improvisation. This is a very simple concept, and I will expand upon it no further for now. Please post if you are troubled and would like greater explanation. I simply state that things done solely for God are the highest things and that ideas solely about God are the highest ideas; this includes music.
Now, for the most important point that will drive the rest of this blog. For one to continue reading this without lapsing into spite, these are the base principles that I build this upon:
First and foremost, there is a God. I call upon St. Thomas Aquinas' proof of His existence. I cannot seem to find what particular work the proof itself is contained in, so a paraphrase of St. Thomas from a friend of mine will do for now; he explains it clearly and excellently:
"Axiom: There is a multiplicity (One can deny this, but by denying it [one] admit[s] that the world is a singularity and that dogs and cats are the same thing. If [one] believe[s] in a subject and object, then this axiom should be no problem).
Conditional: There might exist a being whose essence is his existence (that is, a being who is defined only by the fact that he exists; a being who is who is; being per se). If this being exists, then there can only be one of them.
Proof of Conditional: Consider multiple beings whose essence is their existence. Now if being A is defined by his existence, and being B is defined by his existence, then being A is being B (vis a vis a philosophical transitive property), meaning that there is only one of such beings. Therefore if there is a being whose essence is existence, there is only one of them.
Proposition: There is a being whose essence is his existence.
Proof: The fact that there is multiplicity can be accounted for in three ways.
Either
1) Multiplicity just it; it has no efficient or final cause.
OR
2) Multiplicity is its own cause.
OR
3) Multiplicity was caused by something outside itself.
Consider the first way. If multiplicity "just is", then multiplicity is defined only by the fact that it exists, ergo, the essence of multiplicity is existence. This would mean that multiplicity, following the first part of the proof (the conditional proof), is actually simplicity/singularity/one-ness, which is absurd.
Consider the second way. Nothing can be its own cause; if a thing has a cause, then it cannot create itself.
Therefore, multiplicity must have a cause that exists separate from multiplicity. Now the only thing conceivably differentiable from multiplicity is a simplicity who is defined by his existence.
This simplicity that gives being to multiplicity we commonly call God."
Conditional: There might exist a being whose essence is his existence (that is, a being who is defined only by the fact that he exists; a being who is who is; being per se). If this being exists, then there can only be one of them.
Proof of Conditional: Consider multiple beings whose essence is their existence. Now if being A is defined by his existence, and being B is defined by his existence, then being A is being B (vis a vis a philosophical transitive property), meaning that there is only one of such beings. Therefore if there is a being whose essence is existence, there is only one of them.
Proposition: There is a being whose essence is his existence.
Proof: The fact that there is multiplicity can be accounted for in three ways.
Either
1) Multiplicity just it; it has no efficient or final cause.
OR
2) Multiplicity is its own cause.
OR
3) Multiplicity was caused by something outside itself.
Consider the first way. If multiplicity "just is", then multiplicity is defined only by the fact that it exists, ergo, the essence of multiplicity is existence. This would mean that multiplicity, following the first part of the proof (the conditional proof), is actually simplicity/singularity/one-ness, which is absurd.
Consider the second way. Nothing can be its own cause; if a thing has a cause, then it cannot create itself.
Therefore, multiplicity must have a cause that exists separate from multiplicity. Now the only thing conceivably differentiable from multiplicity is a simplicity who is defined by his existence.
This simplicity that gives being to multiplicity we commonly call God."
From this I draw that since there is such a being who created this multiplicity, all things are created by Him, and therefore according to Him. This sense of all things being made according to him is what we call order.
This order exists in the spectrum of possible sounds as well, being that it is made according to God, and therefore there are provided sets of sounds which naturally sound good and naturally sound bad. The goal of any religious composer, and any composer in general, should be to glorify God by finding these sets that naturally sound good and using them in conjunction with the ideas given us by God. Thus the importance of text is stressed as well, or at least subject, considering that not all pieces are written for voices.
As I said previously, this blog will explore these ideas, as well as my own findings in composition. I hope you enjoy reading this, and please comment with your own responses and ideas.
May God bless you and keep you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
