Kyrie for 8 Part SATB

This is a piece for 8 part SATB that I've been working on for quite a while. I've uploaded various drafts of this before, but I'd probably call this my final major draft, (it has to be since I start rehearsing the singers in a week or two). Barring any major problems with the piece, I'll be having this performed at my senior recital in April, so until that point I won't have an actual recording for you guys to hear. However, for those of you that don't mind slogging through the score and the MIDI piano rendering, I'd love to hear any comments you have to make. I'd really like to have this tightened up as much as possible before I start rehearsals, so feel free to comment on whatever aspects you'd like to.

Thanks!

Andy

I want to start with a question. Have you at any point tried singing through the parts yourself? The reason I ask is that I could only just about sing the opening bass part accurately at 100 bpm after three attempts, so I have serious concerns about your entire bass section doing it at 125 bpm, annunciating the words clearly and being able to breathe. You write several different rhythmic permutations here and yet never use the most suitable (at this speed) for the word 'Ky-ri-e', which would be short-short-long (written e.g. semiquaver-semiquaver-quaver). What is also really problematic is a) that you often place the word's weakest syllable 'ri' on a strong beat and b) write the voiced vowels 'ri' and 'ay' as succesive semiquavers making them almost impossible to annunciate properly. The combination of these factors means your poor choir will be having to work incredibly hard to avoid making the opening and subsequent similar sections of your piece sound like an out-of-control tongue twister. I know this sounds harsh, but I have to tell you because this will very quickly lead to serious problems in performance; it really is very poorly concieved for singers, almost unsingable if the text is to be clear. I'm afraid to say several of the same issues crop up throughout the piece; you place the weakest syllable of 'eleison' on a strong beat in the soprano, bar 12; similarly in bar 35 the tenors and basses have the 'e' of 'Kyrie' on the fourth quaver slurred over to the fifth, which lands it on a strong beat, making the word sound like 'Ky-ri-ay-eee'. In bar 48 '-son' in the altos would be much better on the whole of the fourth beat as it sounds more elegant and gives a breathing opportunity.

The top tenors will have a hard time finding the chord in bar 17, as you've written a leap of a tritone from G to Db. Another augmented fourth for the altos in bar 75 (although slightly more permissable as the passage is a section solo). Also difficult is the second soprano leap of a major seventh between bars 140-1.

As well as being unsuitable for singers, I wasn't entirely convinced by your extensive use of somewhat formulaic rhythms - they seemed, as often is the case, to be disguising quite static harmony. I've heard far worse though, and you did vary the interplay between parts quite well. Also the use of counterpoint in bars 23-28 was quite effective, and I enjoyed the harmony in bars 67-78, which even sounded a little like one or two of my own compositions. It was also wise of you to accompany the soprano solo following it with the rest of the chorus humming; this allows the volume to naturally be low even in your richly divided parts meaning the solo can be easy heard. It's a shame that these good points are overshadowed by the problems with the faster sections.

It strikes me that you seem to have written a piece of instrumental music and then shoehorned the text onto it, rather than taking the text and fitting the music to it so that the two work with each other. At the very least you need to do some considerable revision of the rhythmic sections to make them easier to sing, and at the same time look at the sylabbles of the text and how they relate to strong and weak beats. I think that there is, structurally, quite a good piece in here but you need to shape it for the forces you write it for.

I must, again, disagree with Siwi. The piece is EXCELLENTLY written. Beautiful word stress and easily singable. I actually wanted to do it just to show you all it could be done fairly simply, but I think the point here was NOT for the text. I think, yes, your purpose is a seemingly MUSICAL composition in order to convey the meaning of a VERY well known text. If the audience cannot remember the words while they are being shuffled around at least once, then they are just ignorant.

I think the use of counterpoint is wonderful and the harmony, while a little stagnant and underdeveloped, is done very well. For a piece of this magnitude, I would seriously consider this: try a key change or a harmonic shift. Your B section isn't enough to take away from the stillness vertical wise even though the horizontal movement is fine.

Wow...this is quite something!

I agree with you, Morivou, that the piece is excellently written musically, but I have to agree with Siwi that at the tempo indicated, the rhythmic Kyries would be like tongue-twisters. I've sung a lot of difficult stuff in my day, but I wasn't able to get through 4 measures of this without mispronouncing a syllable. Now, there is a BIG difference if the word Kyrie is pronounced improperly, as many English-speaking choirs do (i.e. KEE-REE-AY, with a hard R), but if you pronounce it correctly (i.e. KEE-DEE-EH, with a flipped R), it's prohibitively difficult to sing accurately. Whether it's a well-known text or not, accurate and consistent diction is one of the most important components of choral articulation, particularly in something this rhythmically active.

That said, it's still a hum-dinger of a piece.

@Lee,

While I agree with you to an extent, I really do not think the text is important here. I know I preach about the text being completely clear... but I feel like the point is to feel the pulse of the music.

However, with the two opinions against me, I would have to hear it both ways *gets microphone* to really understand it. I think, to be honest, it would be difficult to perform and shouldn't be attempted by non-professional choirs. I also feel that the wording could be fixed by simply changing the word used in place of Kyrie. I wouldn't, however, know exactly what to call it or how to change it... because I like it the way it is. I would REALLY have to brainstorm on it.

Wow! Thanks for the comments guys.

Re: The Kyrie issue.

My main concept for this piece, and justification to myself for the singability of the fast Kyries, is that I'm going for an almost percussive sound out of the "KEE". I want the "KEE" to come out extremely harsh and accented, while the "dee eh" will come out much less accented, and in a lot of cases, as more texture then word. I'm very aware of the difficultly the singers will face trying to enunciate Kyrie effectively at tempo, and Morivou hit it on the head about the text. Everyone knows the Kyrie text, so my thought was that it would be more interesting for me to present a new take on a very old and well known text, than try to re-jam it into people's heads for 5 minutes. There are places where the Kyrie will come out clear and enunciated, and others where it won't. For the very rhythmic sections in this piece, in my mind, I felt clear diction could be sacrificed in exchange for the very hard and accented consonants, which tie back into my idea for this piece as more percussive and textural than traditionally choral.

As for the strong/weak beats, since I'm thinking about this piece a lot in terms of texture and percussiveness, regular use of strong and weak beats with word stress was never really part of my concept.

With this said, does this change anything in your minds? Or do you guys still have the same views?

Siwi:

Thanks for the heads up on the leaps, I'll look into making those a bit more easy to reach.

Morivou:

I think I agree with you about the key change idea. In addition to being rhythmically contrasting, a solid key change would help the B section be much more harmonically contrasting as well.

Thanks again for the thoughts guys, I really appreciate it!

Very nice.

I would suggest that the last transition back to tempo I at about b.86-89 is a bit too disjointed for my liking, and the return to the rhythmic stuff could've been more 'prepared' or linked into.

However, the piece is great on the whole. Nice ostinato stuff and some cool harmonic ideas.

I liked the quite filmy/dramatic 'Kyrie' in b.37-38 (basses and tenors) and would've liked to have heard it maybe once again.

Hope the performance proves not to be problematic.

I agree with the key-change thing.

In addition, your ending feels rushed without another movement to advance to.

More to come later.

Then add a movement. :) I suggest an Angus Dei or a Lachrymosa (sp?)... One of the slower movements and make a couplet.

I personally don't see a problem with the rhythmic activity of the text in the piece. I myself have composed works that have used similar techniques with rhythm and text and although singers have had trouble during rehearsals it eventually came through.

I also agree on the key change/harmonic shift issue. It would add another dimension of depth that seems to be needed.

I didn't find any problems rhythmically, I thought it was well thought out in regards to spacing for breathing and word articulation.

I would have liked to have more of an open texture at certain points, using the soprano in its higher range and vice verse in the bass.

Great tension and release with the use of chromatics, kept me interested when listening without taking me out of the music.

A definite favourite.

Great work.

Sophie.