So, some basic information to begin with: the piece is in four movements running to approximately thirteen minutes of music in total (maintaining the healthy tradition of slightly overrunning the briefed length), with the third and fourth played attacca. Scoring is on the light side: chamber choir barely dividing beyond four voices, solo soprano and string orchestra with no divisi in order to enable a solo quintet to perform the work. The piece can be categorised as 'tonal' by virtue of the fact it uses key signatures (although pays scant attention to the idea of a tonic-dominant hierarchy), beginning and ending in A major via F major/D minor, E major and C minor.
The formal plan for the work, as explained in an earlier post, was to follow Mozart's example in K.108. To this extent the text is divided between the four movements at exactly the same segments as Mozart (with one important caveat, which we will come to later), and the piece as a whole corresponds (somewhat) to the proportions of a classical symphony, particularly the first movement, which is in a sonata form. Obviously it is not a classical symphony, tentatively a neo-classical cantata, however such a model provides a stimulating point of departure for the composition process.
Although the orchestration for this version exists as keyboard reduction in the vocal score and string quintet in the full, I ought to point out that at some point in the future I intend to produce an 'expanded orchestration' version of this work; not for a full symphony orchestra but for a decent-sized chamber orchestra with winds and percussion, excluding perhaps heavy brass and timps. It only remains to say that the first performance of the work will take place in Andover, Hampshire on December 8th 2012, given by Andover Choral Society.
In the following analysis the musical examples referred to can be found at the foot of the page.
Mvt 1. Regina coeli; A major; 202 bars; crotchet = 120
I couldn't decide whether to mark this movement 'Allegro', Vivace' 'Presto' or 'Maestoso' so decided to leave just the metronome mark. I trust the appropriate character should make itself apparent when performed. The chorus does the majority of the work in this movement, with the soprano making a few interjections and providing more florid versions of choral material (including a couple of top C#s). As mentioned, the movement is cast in a sonata form, with a first subject area consisting of a rising motif which we will call (A), very close to that with which Mozart opens K.108, and a dotted-rhythm idea (B), both very short but ripe for development into longer phrases. Without really being conscious of it, I have ended up structuring this section as a series of different ways to proceed from this motif, with quite a lot of shuffling the order of phrases taking place to make this sequence convincing. I have also ended up obscuring the tonality a little by introducing F# minor to the first chord of all these ideas in A major. The second subject (C), by contrast, is a more drawn-out and tonally stable melody, one which was originally going to open the work. Later I considered it better to deploy this more stable idea as a contrast to the more changeable character of the opening, which once settled upon made the movement considerably easier to structure around it. The choir make a few antiphonal exchanges before entering the development. This is opened by the soprano with a falling motif (D) and features a more extensive passage of counterpoint for the chorus to lead back the recapitulation. I'm particularly pleased with two things in my string writing here, firstly a passage of rich parallel chords, and secondly a somewhat Sibelian series of rising lines in quavers during the climax. The recap itself revisits most of the opening material with a few new passages and ends up neatly in the home key. It took a few drafts to work out how to end the movement at the right point without either 'closing' the tonality too soon (and so spending bars circling around the same notes) or moving to a key area that would have necessitated an over-long transition back to finish.Mvt 2. Quia quem meruisti; F major/D minor and E major; 133 bars; Con moto (crotchet = 110)
The 'minuet and trio' movement of the work is in ternary form, but again eschews a traditional pairing of keys. The material consists initially of falling fourths (E) and another dotted rhythm (F). (E) is then taken up by the choir in unison and then drawn out into a longer melody with a certain plainchant quality, before moving towards the 'trio'. I went through several aborted drafts for a middle Alleluia section (G) before hitting upon a solution to this problem that delighted me - female chorus in close harmony at a pacy 195 beats per minute (effectively one-in-a-bar) with antiphonal exchanges and increasing counterpoint before reaching a firm E major climax. The transition into this also took a little working, but I am satisfied it links the two parts of the movement convincingly utilising as it does the previously heard rhythms. As tradition dictates, there is a shortened da capo repeat and an a capella coda.One aspect of this movement which might need explaining is the omission of the third line 'Resurexit, sicut dixit, alleluia' - 'He was resurrected as promised, alleluia'. There are several reasons for this, chiefly that the piece is intended as a concert Christmas work and not for liturgical use. More pertinent to this purpose was the previous line 'Quia quem meruisti portare' - 'He whom you deserved to bear in the womb'. Dramatically, to include the third stanza would have required a contrasting sub-section of the movement which would been highly problematic to the entire piece - even Mozart relegates the line to a relatively brief sequence of melismas by the solo soprano. I have no qualms about leaving sections out of secular poetry should they not assist the composition (A Child of the Snows misses out an entire verse of the Field poem) and feel the same can be applied to a religious text in this situation. In any case, the word 'resurrexit; appears encoded in as the falling fourths which spell 'Re(D)-So(A)' twice, musically including the phrase through this motif.
Mvt 3. Ora pro nobis; C minor; 49 bars; Andante (crotchet = 66)
The chorus hardly sing a note in this movement in order to give them some rest, for instead the whole construction is an extended soprano aria. Again in roughly ternary form with coda, this is the most expressive movement of the cantata and makes use of a falling motif (D) first heard in the development of the first movement. The strings provide an accompaniment consisting of flowing quavers (again reminiscent of the first movement development) and off-beat chord tones. After the recapitulation, the climax of the movement is followed by a cadenza for the soprano. The chorus are used for only four bars towards the end and are doubled by the orchestra meaning that the movement could be used as a stand-alone work for soprano - albeit with an alternative ending, for the line dissolves into fourth-based chords in the strings that facilitate an attacca into the next movement.Mvt 4. Alleluia; A major; 63 bars; Allegro marziale (crotchet = 128)
A comparatively brief summing-up of previously heard material, barely two minutes in length. The basic tempo remains the same throughout the work, but as the opening section features much longer note values the effect is of two different speeds. Initially, the chorus and orchestra use chords based around different inversions of the tonic but introducing a few other harmonies in similar character to the first movement. This then gives way to rapid string figuration and in succession, melody (C), the falling motif (D) for the soprano and (C) again at full volume, followed by (A) and a brief return to the chords for the coda.
