If the preface to the hymn book, Tallis(I assume) wrote: “The Tenor of these partes be for the people when they will syng alone, the other parts, put for greater queers [pronounced qway-airs! I.e., "choirs"], or to suche as will syng or play them priuatelye.”
Love the arrangement, and I have to agree with "mush01". I like writing arrangements for this song and I usually like writing with the lower parts having melody. But I do have to say, the song, in my opinion, should maybe be a bit slower, just to bring out its "grandiose".
@AnAmericanComposer Why does everyone keep referring to this (rather melodramatic) performance as an "arrangement"? This is Tallis's original setting of his hymn, not a specially composed arrangement for this, or any other, modern ensemble.
And while typical American listeners are conditioned to expect "grandiose" and melodramatic, I doubt Tallis had such musical aesthetics in mind. He composed this for religious devotion, not for musical theater, concert halls or YouTube entertainment.
@chazwyman It's meant to be "sight"... bad interpretation of old printing methods which used to have that character for S that looked a lot like lower-case F. Unfortunate indeed.
I find it interesting that in Stile Antico's arrangement the tenor seems to carry the tune, unlike the Vaughan Williams arrangement (and many other ones I've heard) where the soprano takes precedence. It gives it a slightly different feel to other versions.
@mush01 It took me a while to realize this, but pretty much every other part, but the bass (which isn't very melodic) has some mutation of the Phrygian mode, which this piece is supposed to be in. I guess they thought the tenor was important for the piece to still be rooting in Phrygian.
@mush01 It's probably because the tenor usually was the "melody" in Renaissance and Medieval music. I'm sure Stile Antico is just used to singing like that. Plus, when doing that, this psalm tune stays in Phrygian. Either way though, it's still beautiful!
@radioplug14 All the added parts are in the Phrygian mode. For technical reasons, it's sometimes necessary to sharp some notes (g, f and d). E.g, if you left out the accidentals, you'd have an rotten chord (b-d-f) at the end of m.4, cross relations and a tritone. g is raised when it serves as a leading tone, and if preceded by f, the f also has to be raised to avoid an ugly aug. 2nd, as in the last 2 measures. Such alterations do not alter the mode.
@radioplug14 The term "tenor" (from the Latin "tenere" = "to hold" ) originally referred to the part that sang the cantus firmus aka plainsong, usually in long slow (i.e. HELD) notes against more active counterpoints. The term did not originally refer to a particular voice range. A "tenor part" could appear in any voice range and be marked "tenor", and in medieval church music was often the lowest part.
@wcbroccoli The tenor part is still in Phyrgian without any accidentals. The tenor part by Tallis' time was not the lowest part anymore. See Palestrina, esp. The tenor dissolved from having the CF by Josquin's imitative counterpoint, which Tallis is after historically. However, it was still crucial to many composers for setting the mode. I like to think of the accidentals as chromatic colorations by the composers - see Victoria (all) and Lassus' secular works. But thanks for your comments.
Tallis composed the tenor part (the CF) first, so it's not surprising it has no accidentals, and I never said it did; only sop. & alto have accidentals. I said (originally) a "tenor part" could appear in any voice range and be marked "tenor", and in MEDIEVAL church music was often the lowest part. Tallis is Renaissance, not Medieval. Regardless of mode, the CF may appear in ANY voice part. I accounted for the accidentals in Tallis' hymn SETTING. But thanks for your comments.
@wcbroccoli I'm glad that your insightful comments educated a person with over 2 years of 16th century counterpoint courses and pre-Baroque music history courses... *sarcasm* (You realize nothing you said has contradicted anything I've said, right? But keep riding your pedestal, because clearly you are the only person who knows about Renaissance music. I mean, you do know Palestrina was Renaissance, right? [see previous comment])
@radioplug14 I was merely setting the record straight as to what I actually said. What sarcasm? I merely ended my comment the same way you ended yours. One doesn't "ride" a pedestal. As for Palestrina, I never mentioned him, and I don't see how it has any bearing on the accuracy of my comments. Thanks, again, for your insightful comments.
@wcbroccoli What record was there to set straight? I mentioned Palestrina as an example of a contemporary of Tallis - they wrote in the same time period - Renaissance. I know Tallis isn't Medieval just like how I already knew everything you said here. You're not saying anything contradictory to my posts. You might be thinking I said something else - such as my reply to another post. But I see that your need to "educate" someone is overriding general kindness. I'm sorry but your posts are rude.
@radioplug14 If you read my earlier comment, you will see that "I was merely setting the record straight as to what I actually said." I don't know why you keep mentioning Palestrina. I'm familiar with the dates of every composer you've mentioned. I never suggested that you said Tallis is medieval. You seem to be misreading (as opposed to misunderstanding) my words.
@wcbroccoli I realised this later - I was just starting to develop an interest in Renaissance music at the time, so you'll have to forgive my year-and-a-bit-ago self's naivety :)
@mush01: Stile Antico is following the instruction left by Mr. Tallis - "The Tenor of these partes be for the people when they will syng alone, the other parts, put for greater queers, or to suche as will syng or play them priuatelye."
You deserve a comment! I've left a couple to others regarding this same Tallis piece and so, I acknowledge your efforts as well. I'm delighted to hear the source of inspiration for the glorious Vaughan-Williams "Fantasia." Lovely, and oh, too brief! Makes me long for more. Thanks so much for posting it.
who are the singers? this is wonderful. is there a full version with all 9 psalms by the same group?
darushkii 3 months ago
@darushkii ensemble - Stile Antico
Elizium1970 2 months ago
Peeps be fum'thing 'n fighting...
hobojoe9127 4 months ago 2
If the preface to the hymn book, Tallis(I assume) wrote: “The Tenor of these partes be for the people when they will syng alone, the other parts, put for greater queers [pronounced qway-airs! I.e., "choirs"], or to suche as will syng or play them priuatelye.”
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
"Why fum'th in fight the Gentiles spite, in fury raging stout?
Why tak'th in hand the people fond, vain things to bring about?
The Kings arise, the Lords devise, in counsels met thereto,
against the Lord with false accord, against His Christ they go."
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
I beg a citation-performers/date/location/what recording. Need to add in these credits!
tonytonytonyargh 1 year ago
if you could please make a video with the lyrics to it. Then please send me a message to let me know it happened.
ZombieDragonhawk 1 year ago
Love the arrangement, and I have to agree with "mush01". I like writing arrangements for this song and I usually like writing with the lower parts having melody. But I do have to say, the song, in my opinion, should maybe be a bit slower, just to bring out its "grandiose".
AnAmericanComposer 1 year ago
@AnAmericanComposer Why does everyone keep referring to this (rather melodramatic) performance as an "arrangement"? This is Tallis's original setting of his hymn, not a specially composed arrangement for this, or any other, modern ensemble.
And while typical American listeners are conditioned to expect "grandiose" and melodramatic, I doubt Tallis had such musical aesthetics in mind. He composed this for religious devotion, not for musical theater, concert halls or YouTube entertainment.
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
Call anyone tell me what 'Why Fum'th In Fight' means?
(in a literal sense)
chazwyman 2 years ago
Explained in the next line "in fury raging stout" he asks, why are you so angry?
fum'th as in fuming mad.
japethjapeth 2 years ago
@chazwyman It's meant to be "sight"... bad interpretation of old printing methods which used to have that character for S that looked a lot like lower-case F. Unfortunate indeed.
UnOxonien 2 years ago
@UnOxonien "Fight" fits the context of the rest of the hymn text:
Why fum'th in fight the Gentiles spite, in fury raging stout?
Why tak'th in hand the people fond, vain things to bring about?
The Kings arise, the Lords devise, in counsels met thereto,
against the Lord with false accord, against His Christ they go.
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
@chazwyman "Why fum'th in fight the Gentiles spite, in fury raging stout?"
Why does the malice/contempt of the Gentiles escalate/turn into fighting, into fury raging boldly/forcefully..
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
I find it interesting that in Stile Antico's arrangement the tenor seems to carry the tune, unlike the Vaughan Williams arrangement (and many other ones I've heard) where the soprano takes precedence. It gives it a slightly different feel to other versions.
mush01 2 years ago 9
@mush01 It took me a while to realize this, but pretty much every other part, but the bass (which isn't very melodic) has some mutation of the Phrygian mode, which this piece is supposed to be in. I guess they thought the tenor was important for the piece to still be rooting in Phrygian.
radioplug14 1 year ago
@mush01 It's probably because the tenor usually was the "melody" in Renaissance and Medieval music. I'm sure Stile Antico is just used to singing like that. Plus, when doing that, this psalm tune stays in Phrygian. Either way though, it's still beautiful!
radioplug14 1 year ago
@radioplug14 All the added parts are in the Phrygian mode. For technical reasons, it's sometimes necessary to sharp some notes (g, f and d). E.g, if you left out the accidentals, you'd have an rotten chord (b-d-f) at the end of m.4, cross relations and a tritone. g is raised when it serves as a leading tone, and if preceded by f, the f also has to be raised to avoid an ugly aug. 2nd, as in the last 2 measures. Such alterations do not alter the mode.
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
@radioplug14 The term "tenor" (from the Latin "tenere" = "to hold" ) originally referred to the part that sang the cantus firmus aka plainsong, usually in long slow (i.e. HELD) notes against more active counterpoints. The term did not originally refer to a particular voice range. A "tenor part" could appear in any voice range and be marked "tenor", and in medieval church music was often the lowest part.
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
@wcbroccoli The tenor part is still in Phyrgian without any accidentals. The tenor part by Tallis' time was not the lowest part anymore. See Palestrina, esp. The tenor dissolved from having the CF by Josquin's imitative counterpoint, which Tallis is after historically. However, it was still crucial to many composers for setting the mode. I like to think of the accidentals as chromatic colorations by the composers - see Victoria (all) and Lassus' secular works. But thanks for your comments.
radioplug14 9 months ago
@radioplug14
Tallis composed the tenor part (the CF) first, so it's not surprising it has no accidentals, and I never said it did; only sop. & alto have accidentals. I said (originally) a "tenor part" could appear in any voice range and be marked "tenor", and in MEDIEVAL church music was often the lowest part. Tallis is Renaissance, not Medieval. Regardless of mode, the CF may appear in ANY voice part. I accounted for the accidentals in Tallis' hymn SETTING. But thanks for your comments.
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
@wcbroccoli I'm glad that your insightful comments educated a person with over 2 years of 16th century counterpoint courses and pre-Baroque music history courses... *sarcasm* (You realize nothing you said has contradicted anything I've said, right? But keep riding your pedestal, because clearly you are the only person who knows about Renaissance music. I mean, you do know Palestrina was Renaissance, right? [see previous comment])
radioplug14 9 months ago
@radioplug14 I was merely setting the record straight as to what I actually said. What sarcasm? I merely ended my comment the same way you ended yours. One doesn't "ride" a pedestal. As for Palestrina, I never mentioned him, and I don't see how it has any bearing on the accuracy of my comments. Thanks, again, for your insightful comments.
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
@radioplug14 I too am glad I could educate even someone as learned as you.
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
@wcbroccoli What record was there to set straight? I mentioned Palestrina as an example of a contemporary of Tallis - they wrote in the same time period - Renaissance. I know Tallis isn't Medieval just like how I already knew everything you said here. You're not saying anything contradictory to my posts. You might be thinking I said something else - such as my reply to another post. But I see that your need to "educate" someone is overriding general kindness. I'm sorry but your posts are rude.
radioplug14 9 months ago
@radioplug14 If you read my earlier comment, you will see that "I was merely setting the record straight as to what I actually said." I don't know why you keep mentioning Palestrina. I'm familiar with the dates of every composer you've mentioned. I never suggested that you said Tallis is medieval. You seem to be misreading (as opposed to misunderstanding) my words.
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
@mush01 Why do you refer to this as "Stile Antico's arrangement"?
This is the original hymn setting by Tallis, not an arrangement.
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
@wcbroccoli I realised this later - I was just starting to develop an interest in Renaissance music at the time, so you'll have to forgive my year-and-a-bit-ago self's naivety :)
mush01 9 months ago
@mush01 We all start out naive about these things. I hope you have continued to pursue this interest.
wcbroccoli 9 months ago
@mush01: Stile Antico is following the instruction left by Mr. Tallis - "The Tenor of these partes be for the people when they will syng alone, the other parts, put for greater queers, or to suche as will syng or play them priuatelye."
gerubach 4 months ago
You deserve a comment! I've left a couple to others regarding this same Tallis piece and so, I acknowledge your efforts as well. I'm delighted to hear the source of inspiration for the glorious Vaughan-Williams "Fantasia." Lovely, and oh, too brief! Makes me long for more. Thanks so much for posting it.
oakmag 2 years ago 3