Talk:O salutaris hostia a 6 (William Byrd)

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The issue of ficta is obviously a particularly thorny one in this piece because of the unusual amount of dissonance. The canonic parts do not seem to bear an exact correspondence of tones and semitones, and therefore ficta in these and the other parts must to an extent be a matter of taste for the editor. Without taking issue with those editorial decisions I disagree with only as a matter of preference, there does seem to be one in both editions which cannot but be an oversight. The second note of the fifth part in bar 21 is surely not to be raised, despite the equivalent note in the other canonic parts which precede it being sharpened (scribally or editorially - I do not have access to the source), since the harmony it produces cannot be thought acceptable even in a piece which is so clearly experimental (yet not so much in the type as in the frequency of dissonances). Moreover, the cadence at that point is of a standard type (suspended 4th and 6th, with a typical Tudor added 3rd in the fourth part, as in the cadence immediately following) and it seems unlikely that such an unusual inflection was intended.

The same phrase, incidentally, seems to be missing entirely from the top part in CPDL #6038 (bars 18-20).

Thecagedbyrd 14:38, 7 July 2011 (CDT)

Another (probable) error in CPDL #6038, bar 24, soprano: the E flat should be E natural (following alto 2 in the previous bar). --Peter Hilton (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Errors corrected

The omission of S phrase in mm 18-21 has been corrected in my edition. The E-flat in bar 24, soprano, has been altered to the preferred E-natural, changed upon second look to preserve the canon between the soprano and tenor parts rather than for ficta or harmonic rule. As to the above note regarding the raised pitch in fifth part, bar 21, the note stands for the same reasons. This piece is rather full of cross relations of this type, and I see no reason to single this one out and change it; see e.g., m 26 A2 and T1, m 33 T1 and T2, etc. It is precisely because of the strict adherence to the canon these cross relations occur. It may have been written as an experiment or exercise, but we cannot know this as it is not the only posthumous work of the composer or the period. We have only what Byrd left us. Paul Marchesano --Marchesa (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)