Purcell - Fantasies and In nomines

1/12/2013

3 Comments

 
Wow, just getting the hang of Weebly...

Since we've thus far featured either 20th century works (Ligeti, Shostakovich) or very well-known works (Beethoven's piano stuff), this week I wanted something early.  I wanted to go with a composer I know I love, but whose instrumental music I didn't know, so I went with Purcell.

After some scouring for his instrumental pieces, I came upon an album of assorted "Fantasies and In nomines" by The Rose Consort of Viols, an English Viol ensemble.  If you search Spotify for "Purcell: Fantazias," you'll find the album.  It doesn't include all of his Fantasies and In nomines, but it includes 14 of the 18 he composed in 1680 (one of which was incomplete), so it's probably about the most complete picture we'll get of these works.

I did some very cursory work researching what, exactly, a "Fantasy" and an "In nomine" were in the Baroque period, and I think the following somewhat basic definitions may suffice:

Fantasy 
(Baroque) typically a piece for keyboard instruments with alternately slow and fast sections
(Renaissance) typically a piece for a consort (instrumental ensemble), often of viols, that mimics vocal motets and features rapid fugal sections alternating with slower sections; these latter types of sections often feature clashing harmony

In nomine - a piece for a consort - again, often of viols - that features one instrument on the cantus firmus and other instruments on complex imitative counterpoint

I feature all of this information, particularly both Fantasy definitions, because despite Wikipedia's claim that Purcell's fantasies were Baroque, I think they're more of a mix of both styles.  I really hear a lot of similarities between these fantasies and the vocal motets I know from the renaissance, but I might just be hearing similar harmonies.  The In nomines are pretty much standard, from what that definition tells us.

I've listened to a little bit of these already, and I must say that I find them incredibly captivating.  To me, Purcell is woefully underrated because his primary output was vocal, but he does some pretty fascinating things here.  I'd go into it more, but I don't want to influence your listening.  I will say that I'm glad to have a week of what I consider "morsels" of music as a break from last week's "feast" - no offense, Michael!  I liked the Shostakovich, but I also like that, since these aren't really meant to be heard together, we can listen to them all at our leisure without musician guilt.

Enjoy!  I know I will.
3 Comments
Michael link
1/21/2013 12:42:34 pm

I'm so sorry it took me so long to comment on this. I had completely forgotten about it!

For starters, here's the scores on IMSLP: http://javanese.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/6/6d/IMSLP21566-PMLP49666-fantazias.pdf

Something I'm drawn to, just looking at the album: why are things done out of order? If you look at the IMSLP page, these actually all go together. For whatever reason, the Rose Viol Consort chose to present these in a different order.

My guess on that might be the number of voices per piece: Purcell presents them in ascending order of the number of voices. They probably thought it would be more compelling to start with a 4-voice piece than a 3-voice one.

That brings me to my next point: voices. When you look at the score, it's not specified what instrument plays what line. Typical of a lot of music from this time, everyone was just expected to pick up whatever instrument they knew how to play. And hopefully everybody could read alto and tenor clefs better than I can.

Now for some little thoughts about specific pieces:
No. 5: The way the first part is repeated almost makes me expect it to be in sonata form, but that hadn't been codified yet. It's interesting how the tempo change isn't marked in the score - I guess the performers of that time just knew what to do. My guess is that calling them fantasias clued the audience/performers in to the idea that these pieces were of contrasting tempi, as Rameen pointed out above.

No. 8: The harmony in this one is wild! Check out m. 43. No composer from the Classical Period would ever write something that interesting. Yes, I'm using loaded words here.

No. 4: Not as interesting as 8 - I noticed tempo markings, though, so I checked 5 and 8: 8 has them, too, but 5 does not. There haven't been any repeats in the others, either.

Fantazia upon one note: The one that includes your idiot cousin who can only play middle c the whole time. Oh, if I could only write choral music that has the tenor sing one note the whole time. But Pärt already did that with the soprano solo in his Magnificat: http://youtu.be/c1b8BbENwlA - and I fucking love this piece. And that soprano solo is actually crazy hard to keep a beautiful, clean tone on just a c. Anyway, I loved this fantazia for its painful, slow-to-resolve dissonances in the slow section. Also, weird that the alto and tenor lines were both written in alto clef.

No. 7 - This one does not play around with its dissonances. It lets you know pretty much right away that it means business. I'm liking the slow sections in all of these more than the fast sections, because it seems like either Purcell has more freedom to give us dissonances, or we have more time to hear them.

No. 12 - I wonder why Purcell chose that clef for the soprano line. It doesn't go any lower than middle c... it would have looked just fine on a treble clef.

No. 3 - Fugues! Just when I was starting to get bored, it gave me something to look and listen for. It's interesting how many of these are ending on incomplete cadences.

No. 2 - This on just made me sleepy.

No. 1 - This one is really fun! I like how the three voices almost seem to be finishing each other's sentences, and then comes the jaunty little idea starting at m.19. M. 35 is nuts.

In nomine a 6 - I'm wondering which line is the cantus firmus... the second tenor line, since it comes in first? You'd think it's the bass line, but the bass line comes in so late. I wasn't too taken with this one, actually.

No. 9 +10 - To be honest, at this point I'm sort of getting tired of this sound. This is still cool stuff, but I'm looking for a little more variety or color. The compositional conventions are starting to get a little more prevalent.

No. 11 reminds me of Bach's "Zion hört die Wächter singen." Unfortunately, that's all the brainpower I can muster at this point. I'll rally for the last piece.

In nomine a 7 - I love this one. The sound seems like it's wrapping around you as you listen. It's interesting how the second soprano line is just as solo-ish as the first soprano line. It's also interesting how there are so many unisons on the same note in this piece. That's a compositional no-no now. Most of the part-writing rules have been thrown out the window, but you really should avoid having two solo instruments or voices on the same pitch (unless one of them is piano). It's nearly impossible to be exactly in tune with only two, so it creates a clash. Three or more, though, and that clash just turns into a warm sound.

All in all, I give these Purcell pieces a four, five, whatever comes after seven, and keys to a hotel room.

Reply
Rameen Chaharbaghi
2/23/2013 12:59:57 pm

Don't worry, Michael - I took FAR longer than you and it was my own submission! Some thoughts I have:

No. 5: I really love all the variation here. To me, this music is engaging because it either denies or delays many of my expectations. I keep expecting the opening harmony to be major, but each time it approaches that, it becomes chromatic instead. The middle section is a really effective transition into the suddenly virtuosic final section. The whole thing almost feels like three entirely different pieces, which wouldn't have been unheard of in this time period, but Purcell creates more variation in harmony here than most composers of this period might offer.

No. 8: I think this one is really beautiful because, harmonically, it's so interesting, as Michael said, but the lament really carries through all four voices. A lot of less interesting laments in this period probably would keep the theme just in the top voice, but frequently in this piece my ear couldn't tell which voice had the theme. This layered effect creates a sadder overall feeling for me.

No. 4: This one's not doing it as much for me. It feels more typical for this era, although the frequent back-and-forth rhythmic shifts (moving to stagnant and back again), as well as the harmonies in the second section, are kind of neat. It does feel kind of like a less interesting version of 5.

Upon one note: I like that the single-note voice keeps “reeling everyone in” – the other parts spill off of it or around it and eventually stop to leave it by itself again before forming a new idea. It makes me think of those old screen savers that would start as one line, form a bunch of shapes, and go back again. Am I the only person who used to have those? Anyway, a lot of the material here feels typical of the period, but it’s still fun. Typical doesn’t always mean bad.

No. 7: This one’s cool because, if you aren’t listening carefully, it doesn’t sound all that unusual for a little while. However, there’s always that one note that ruins the chord, and it’s easy to miss sometimes! It almost felt like a musical puzzle – listening for the one voice that’s going to change everything. Michael, I could still hear the dissonances in the fast section, but since almost all of the dissonances here are (ultimately) passing, in the fast section, they’re harder to notice, as you suggested. Does that make sense?

No. 6: Michael, I think you skipped this one. The voice leading is interesting – most voices approach a note from one direction and suddenly shift away entirely before reaching their destination. It has a kind of kaleidoscopic effect because it causes the melody to keep gradually changing. Maybe that’s been happening in all of these and I didn’t notice… The harmonic change at 82 is kind of jarring.

No. 12: This one isn’t exciting me quite as much. It feels a bit too expected and the melody isn’t that pretty.

No. 3: I’m never as jazzed about fugues as most people seem to be, but this one is nice because the melody is interesting. This and some of the others on the list really do prove Purcell to be a master of the lament. Also, kudos must be given to the Rose Consort for really playing the shit out of this music.

No. 2: This writing isn’t groundbreaking by any means, but I find this to sound really sweet and charming. It’s the first one that doesn’t feel really intense and it’s nice to get a breather. It gets intense at the end, though.

No. 1: Some Baroque music (particularly good stuff) reminds me of jazz, and that comparison has often been made elsewhere. The first part reminds me of that. When it slows down, though, those harmonies are really crazy – almost nightmarish, and that’s not something I can really say of most other Baroque music. The players are really bringing out the dissonance, too.

In nomine a 6: A lot of the shifts Purcell used in the other pieces don’t work quite as well here for some reason. I think it’s because they just aren’t as satisfying as resolution would often be for a piece like this. I’m not sure how else to put it. It almost feels like he’s trying to make it stranger in places and then giving up halfway.

No. 9: I think this one might have sounded better in the original order, because it’s a little too similar to the nomine that’s before it on this album. There are a few interesting shifts in color, like the sudden quiet moment near the beginning, but what happens in between those moments isn’t all that engaging.

No. 10: The rocking motion in this one is nice without getting too syrupy, like a lot of similar pieces tend to do. I think it’s because of the chromatic notes. The fast section has some interesting voice leading that makes it pop and crackle a little. The third section feels a

Reply
Rameen Chaharbaghi
2/23/2013 01:14:49 pm

ARGH, cut off again. Thank God my pores produce diamonds...and I didn't close out of Word yet.

No. 10: The rocking motion in this one is nice without getting too syrupy, like a lot of similar pieces tend to do. I think it’s because of the chromatic notes. The fast section has some interesting voice leading that makes it pop and crackle a little. The third section feels a little phoned-in, overall, but I liked the last section a lot. It’s standard in some ways, but again, that’s not always bad.

No. 11: This is probably my least favorite. It sounds strangely unlike Purcell – Michael’s comparison to Bach makes sense (although I don’t recall that particular piece). The fast bit is fun, but again, not very characteristic of him.

In nomine a 7: For some reason, I can’t get the image of people embracing one another out of my head each time a new voice gets a moving part in this. He does an effective job of tying things together just enough to create intrinsic crescendo and decrescendo (i.e. m. 23) effects when he wants them. Maybe the performers are making those choices, but it does feel kind of implied in the voicing, if that makes sense. This one is really lovely. From 49 to the end in particular is wonderfully lush.

I really like these pieces. They’re clearly Baroque, but they have a lot of interesting twists in them that make them stand out. Sometimes, those twists become themselves predictable, but I think if we listened in order or only listened to a few, that effect may be lessened. Purcell is a great composer, and it saddens me a little that he’s only held in esteem for being a good English composer. He’s a good composer, and should be easily as lauded as, say, Handel or Vivaldi.

Reply



Leave a Reply.