When I heard this version for the first time, I had spontaniously a feeling that this would be the correct version. I once heard it with a modernized melody - I cannot stand it. This is quite a rare piece of ancient music.
People dont seem to understand that dissonance isn’t something that should be avoided. It just needs to be used in the right context and thats the style of this song.
This is a mournful and ironic lullaby about a Biblical tragedy, the Massacre of the Innocents. The discord is not only appropriate, it is unforgettable and elevates this version above the rest. IMHO
I love how people still go 'wtf that's so bad' at the dissonance. I think it's one of the best bits of music anywhere, because it's so unexpected and harsh, yet so perfect.
The carol itself is one of the most beautiful things ever written. But the dissonant note doesn't work for me. It gets on my proverbial tits. (I'm a musician, by the way)
Leonhard Scholz Why do you say that? Where was the error made, then? I have a copy of the original tune version of this from the Oxford Book of Carols, published in 1928, and it has the dissonance (not in the refrain, though, consistent with what this video shows, and inconsistent with the recording it uses). They even marked the relevant notes with "sic", so clearly they were aware of how strange it is, but were certain it was correct nevertheless. Do note that there are modern versions. For instance, I have the one by Martin Shaw, with a different rhythm and a 4-part harmony that lacks the dissonance. Were you thinking of one of these modern versions, or is there some other evidence?
With O Come All Ye Faithful, Hark the Herold Angels Sing, The First Noel, O Holy Night, Away In A Manger, Angels We Have Heard On High, Joy To The World, and many other happy carols, why this one?????
This was always my most favourite carol back in school choir! So melancholy and beautiful. Hardly ever gets included in carol services I go to, or gets a mention in those Top Carols surveys!!
I just heard this on the radio yesterday, listening to Hugh Hewitt. Never heard of it before. Beats the living shit out of "jingle bell rock" and similar nonsense. I've always hated commercial Christmas music. This is something entirely different. Beautiful.
There is both dissonance and use of the Picardy Third. Mark is perfectly correct - the dissonance occurs sometimes on the second "by" of "by by" and the Picardy Third occurs on the "Lay" of "Lul Lay" - as a means of resolving the passage with a major triad instead of an expected minor triad. Thanks.
dissonance is an essential component of harmony - Bach, Mozart Handel all used it to great effect. A chord is dissonant only in context of the prevailing harmony,
It's called "false relations", purposely intended. It's the minor scale, when you go up, you sharp the 7th, when you go down you don't sharp it. They just so happen to be on the 7th, one part going up, the other part going down.
All the people complaining about the F-F# dissonance (which is a false relation) should listen to some English madrigals for proper scrunchy false relation heaven. Weelkes in particular, listen to 'O Care Thou Wilt Despatch Me'.
Yeah, the false relation is one of the things that makes this carol unforgettable. Complaining about it is a bit like complaining that there's too much water in the Atlantic Ocean.
F against F# - e.g. at 0:23 - best bit really ;) no problem - the F# resolves up, and the F down - it is common in Purcell - e.g. the end of the hymn tune “Westminster Abbey” - and there’s a similar thing in the slow 2nd movement of Haydn’s string quartet in G - Op 54 No 2 - great stuff ;)
A beautiful version of a beautiful carol. Our choir is rehearsing a new 4 part version of this but it is based on this 3 part version complete with the clashes mentioned above. We are assured that the clash is supposed to be there and for the reasons Jonathan Frost has given.
I listen this time of year, because, this is a Christmas song, but far different from the ones we sing most such as Hark the Herald Angels Sing, Silent Night, O Come All Ye Faithful, O Come O Come Emmanuel, and Angels We Have Heard on High. It's both a unique and tragic song about the evil deed of King Herod.
No matter if it is sung with dissonance (F opposing F#) or not, this song commemorates a terrible event when king Herod slaughtered all male children 2 years of age and under, in his attempt to destroy the Christ child. There is nothing happy or "Christmas" about it! Yet, it still remains one of my favorite "Christmas 'carols' ".
The melody was passed down from "Oral Tradition," but the polyphonic arrangement is the only surviving piece from a mystery play called The Pageant of the Shearmen and Tailors. (16th century). The lyrics are a mystery as the last known copy was lost in a fire. The arrangement of this piece was not lost, and still today it stands as a notable and well-known example of a Picardy third, not dissonance. If the arrangement above came from the 16th century, I would say it was written as a bad joke.
What you hear is not what is written. Others have gone into the detail, needless to say medieval writers were not constrained by later rules of part writing except the avoidance of tritones in the melodic line and leading leading notes at the end of the melody. Otherwise the music is riddled with all sorts of sounds we today think of as dissonant and nasty. Realisations such as this by The Sixteen are always conjectural. Don't worry about the theory, just enjoy the beautiful and poignant sound of this music.
We might be playing an arrangement of this in my school's band. It's kind of difficult because it's slow and and hard to get some of the timing down, but it's very beautiful.
Alors, qui je suis ? je suis Matan Ariel le chef! Tout ressemble à la musique que c’est comme Let it be des Beatles ! Et La panthère noire en peluche du soldat rose ! Et la marche turque de Mozart! Et la chanson de l’extraterrestre de Émilie Jolie ! Et alouette gentille alouette ! Et la chanson paillarde de David Bowie ! Et les comédiens de Aznavour ! Et la chanson des petits pois et carottes en hébreu du dvd de Matan Ariel ! Et la chanson française qui s’appellera Malbrough ! Et diam’s Et Kirikou Et uzi hitman ! Et À la Claire Fontaine Et La Cucaracha ! Et The Entertainer Et lunettes bleues lunettes roses du soldat rose Et afouna ve gezer de Matan ariel Et le soldat rose Et l’encre de tes yeux de Francis Cabrel Et je l’aime à mourir de Francis Cabrel Et when the saints go marching in Et supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! Et lucy in the sky with diamonds Et Eddy Mitchell Et La Bamba Et Cadet Rousselle!
Lully, lullah, thou little tiny child Bye bye, lully, lully O sisters too, how may we do For to preserve this day? This poor youngling for whom we do sing "Bye bye, lully, lully"? Herod the king, in his raging Charged he hath this day His men of might in his own sight All young children to slay That woe is me, poor child, for thee And ever morn' and day For thy parting neither say nor sing "Bye bye, lully, lully" Lully, lullah, thou little tiny child Bye bye, lully, lully
everyone is raving about how the dissonance is original, but I don't think it is. just because it's on the page doesn't mean that's how they sang it- as an orchestral horn player, it's quite common to play a piece and find that an accidental is clearly missing from a part. music should be read like a musician, not like a legalist. great recording and thank you for posting the music, but even the transcription posted doesn't show the F/F# dissonance that's being sung, and when it is written, it has the sharp sign implied in parentheses. I'm skeptical of justifying the dissonance as intentional, considering every other chord harmonizes well, and because the dissonance is only a half step gap in what would otherwise be a sharp.
It's not 'dissonance' or 'discord' btw. The carol's set in a pentatonic scale, not our modern octaves. That's what gives it the truly haunting quality it has
Possibly a silly question, but is the original 'tune' in the top or the middle part? For myself, I find the middle part at least as tuneful as the top part, and I wonder if when it was reharmonised and smoothed out into four parts that they actually reharmonised the descant, rather than the original tune...
Charles Gaskell The tune is the top part you can hear in this. I think it's perhaps just that it is harmonised well and that's why you think the middle voice might be the tune. That voice is just too static to be the tune is all. :)
I kind of like being musically ignorant sometimes; it means that I wouldn't know "dissonance" if it smacked me in the face. All I know is "hey, I like the way this sounds" or "I don't like the way this sounds", and I don't have to worry about whether it's being done "correctly" or not, or whether it ought to have a "second octave to forth" or whatever. All that technical shit must kind of ruin the whole experience, because you'd constantly be hearing everything that the musician is doing wrong. I remember seeing someone in the comments of a song I really liked explaining all about how they were doing it all wrong, because you weren't "supposed" to do it that way. I said, "huh...that's weird, because I listened to it and I thought it sounded great, because I don't have any clue the way that it's 'supposed' to be done". Beauty is in the ear of the beholder. If it sounds good, it is good. That's the point of music. It's art, not science. A lot of people say there's a way you're "supposed" to harmonize in a choir, yet there are other ways to do it. I like polyphonic shape note singing, although a modern choir instructor would probably cringe at the idea of four different melodies being sung at the same time. "That's not the way your supposed to do it!!!" Well, in the Sacred Harp, that IS the way you're supposed to do it. And it sounds awesome.
+justforever96 I know some trained musicians who listen for mistakes, but this small-mindedness usually springs from the listener's insecurity about his/her musicality. But a mature understanding of the many and varied languages of music hardly ruins one's listening experience. As a trained musician, I don't listen for technical devices in composition or performance; recognition of theoretical devices can be valuable, but recognition alone is hardly what enriches my own listening. Rather, musical training gives me the ears to listen more fully-to hear the individual lines as well as the complete texture, and to hear longer lines and connections between notes separated by space. Though anyone can hear what they like and do not like, and anyone can be moved by a piece of music, with trained ears, one can truly hear the fullness of music- to discern the simply powerful from the transcendental. Though I doubt you're as musically ignorant as you say. I would simply suggest, don't self-identify as ignorant; every piece you listen to can be "training" if think of it as such.
Also, practically all choral music (modern or otherwise) consists of four or more independent musical lines. The subject of counterpoint, a cornerstone of modern (and ancient) music pedagogy, studies the interaction and interdependency of musical lines. Even here, though the texture is mostly homophonic, you can listen separately to the tenor, alto, bass, or (more easily) soprano.
+justforever96 I think a lot of people who are musically ignorant would know dissonance - usually it's when two notes sound odd or uncomfortable together. My mum has no idea about music but always refers to the 'out of tune' bit in this arrangement of the carol. I have a fair bit of music theory knowledge - not enough as I would like sometimes! - but I never let it get in the way of the emotional response I get from a piece of music. There are those who will use their education to pick anything apart, certainly, but most with knowledge of theory will still listen with their hearts - they just have the knowledge and language to explain what it is that they've responded to and why.
What I struggle with is the Picardy third at the end of each verse. It is such a bleak text, so why are we to lift the mood with a modulation to major key?
The false relation (F-F#) is far from intended. It is a side-effect of the horizontal compositional method utilised by Tudor-era composers. Later composers used it as a compositional device, but here it is absolutely not to reflect the lyrics of the piece. In any case, I think it's perfect with the original harmonisation.
I'm going to put it simply: This song is about the king's charge to murder of all the babies under age three... It's a mournful lament in the perspective all the grieving mothers who are singing the song. It's supposed to clash with itself. That's the point of the song, but it's a great song.
Good bookshops should oblige, especially in December. OXFORD'S 100 Carols for Choirs, or the half-length Carols for Choirs Vol.1, include harmonies; there will be shorter and cheaper editions. (As James O'Brien reminded us on LBC, it's delightful to be allowed into bookshops again this week.)
+Katie Ross The arrangement being sung does not match the sheet music on screen. On my copy and the sheet music in the video, the D/F/F# chord only happens in the verse, not the refrain. At 0:52, the top line SHOULD be singing an F according to the sheet music, but the recording has an F#. This is an old piece of music, so there is no definitive right or wrong version, it's just that this particular recording and sheet music do not match exactly.
A colleague of mine sent this piece for me to play on my harp wow. I can see why it sounds so melancholy. a male can't call him a man in Bangladesh brutally murdered his baby girl because she was not born a boy. He took her head off just after she was born. because men over there think they are better then females. so I feel I should learn the piece. as a mother with a daughter this kind of goes deep. my daughter has been a blessing to me. I am really grateful she was not born a male.
While the symbolism is understandable, I am not emotionally touched by the harmonic dissonances in a way that is worthy of the tragic events. Sorry, but to my ear it just sounds like plain old wrong notes. While there are artistic ways to allow the music to reflect the meaning of the text, to me, this is not one of them.
That's not what happens here... As a chorister, I recommend you go look for the Shaw setting of this piece and listen to that. This isn't wrong - just not what you're used to. I'm none too fond of this setting myself, truth to tell, but it isn't inaccurate to its arrangement.
Why are they purposely singing wrong notes? By by, lully lillay? The tenor is written D, D, B A-flat, D, D. But he is singing D, E, B. A-flat, D, D. The E natural against the F sharp in the Soprano is most disturbing to what is a very simple arrangement. And SATB is much more pleasant, assuming no nots are altered from the score.
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
So rare to find this with the appropriate dissonance. It's too often cleaned up. I've been waiting to hear this like this since I sang it in college.
When I heard this version for the first time, I had spontaniously a feeling that this would be the correct version. I once heard it with a modernized melody - I cannot stand it. This is quite a rare piece of ancient music.
People dont seem to understand that dissonance isn’t something that should be avoided. It just needs to be used in the right context and thats the style of this song.
This is a mournful and ironic lullaby about a Biblical tragedy, the Massacre of the Innocents. The discord is not only appropriate, it is unforgettable and elevates this version above the rest. IMHO
This song is really fucking scary too
Jins Ego It is a Christmas carol.
Susan DA Yes!
mckavitt13 a scary one about killing children
@@jinsego107 Exact.
That raised and lowered 7th sounding together is so beautiful
I love how people still go 'wtf that's so bad' at the dissonance. I think it's one of the best bits of music anywhere, because it's so unexpected and harsh, yet so perfect.
I know, right? It was considered an auditory delicacy in renaissance times, and I can see why. I love it. Merry Christmas.
I don’t think anyone thinks WTF.
The carol itself is one of the most beautiful things ever written. But the dissonant note doesn't work for me. It gets on my proverbial tits. (I'm a musician, by the way)
that dissonance is not correct.
Leonhard Scholz Why do you say that? Where was the error made, then? I have a copy of the original tune version of this from the Oxford Book of Carols, published in 1928, and it has the dissonance (not in the refrain, though, consistent with what this video shows, and inconsistent with the recording it uses). They even marked the relevant notes with "sic", so clearly they were aware of how strange it is, but were certain it was correct nevertheless.
Do note that there are modern versions. For instance, I have the one by Martin Shaw, with a different rhythm and a 4-part harmony that lacks the dissonance. Were you thinking of one of these modern versions, or is there some other evidence?
This is my all time favorite Christmas Carol. It is hauntingly beautiful.
Mine too.
With O Come All Ye Faithful, Hark the Herold Angels Sing, The First Noel, O Holy Night, Away In A Manger, Angels We Have Heard On High, Joy To The World, and many other happy carols, why this one?????
Exquisite I could listen forever to this timeless carol.
This was a shocking story and this piece reflects that perfectly
This was always my most favourite carol back in school choir! So melancholy and beautiful. Hardly ever gets included in carol services I go to, or gets a mention in those Top Carols surveys!!
Played as the processional music at my beloved late dad's service of thanksgiving.☺️
I just heard this on the radio yesterday, listening to Hugh Hewitt. Never heard of it before. Beats the living shit out of "jingle bell rock" and similar nonsense. I've always hated commercial Christmas music. This is something entirely different. Beautiful.
There is both dissonance and use of the Picardy Third. Mark is perfectly correct - the dissonance occurs sometimes on the second "by" of "by by" and the Picardy Third occurs on the "Lay" of "Lul Lay" - as a means of resolving the passage with a major triad instead of an expected minor triad.
Thanks.
In my opinion it's a beautiful piece of music.
WRETCHED HANDS TAP MY WINDOW, A STRANGER'S FANGS SCRAPE THE WALLS...
I can play this on a recorder
How uplifting is your renditions of this timeless Canticle.
dissonance is an essential component of harmony - Bach, Mozart Handel all used it to great effect. A chord is dissonant only in context of the prevailing harmony,
HOLY CRAP THIS IS SO HAUNTING BUT BEAUTIFUL
Michelle Dilley Did you need that introductory expletive?
It's called "false relations", purposely intended. It's the minor scale, when you go up, you sharp the 7th, when you go down you don't sharp it. They just so happen to be on the 7th, one part going up, the other part going down.
So nice to hear the dissonance - very rare.
the first martyrs of the Christian era , HOLY BABIES PRAY FOR US !
Gorgeous.
Simply gorgeous.
beautifully sung, with great understanding and empathy........well done
All the people complaining about the F-F# dissonance (which is a false relation) should listen to some English madrigals for proper scrunchy false relation heaven. Weelkes in particular, listen to 'O Care Thou Wilt Despatch Me'.
Yeah, the false relation is one of the things that makes this carol unforgettable. Complaining about it is a bit like complaining that there's too much water in the Atlantic Ocean.
Well said. the dissonance is utterly sublime. I get disappointed when I hear a perfectly harmonised version.
F against F# - e.g. at 0:23 - best bit really ;) no problem - the F# resolves up, and the F down - it is common in Purcell - e.g. the end of the hymn tune “Westminster Abbey” - and there’s a similar thing in the slow 2nd movement of Haydn’s string quartet in G - Op 54 No 2 - great stuff ;)
Good analysis, thank you.
A beautiful version of a beautiful carol. Our choir is rehearsing a new 4 part version of this but it is based on this 3 part version complete with the clashes mentioned above. We are assured that the clash is supposed to be there and for the reasons Jonathan Frost has given.
I listen this time of year, because, this is a Christmas song, but far different from the ones we sing most such as Hark the Herald Angels Sing, Silent Night, O Come All Ye Faithful, O Come O Come Emmanuel, and Angels We Have Heard on High. It's both a unique and tragic song about the evil deed of King Herod.
That dissonant half-step interval must be hard to tune up while singing together
No matter if it is sung with dissonance (F opposing F#) or not, this song commemorates a terrible event when king Herod slaughtered all male children 2 years of age and under, in his attempt to destroy the Christ child. There is nothing happy or "Christmas" about it! Yet, it still remains one of my favorite "Christmas 'carols' ".
The sheet music does not match the audio. The score is missing the clash in the chorus.
The melody was passed down from "Oral Tradition," but the polyphonic arrangement is the only surviving piece from a mystery play called The Pageant of the Shearmen and Tailors. (16th century). The lyrics are a mystery as the last known copy was lost in a fire. The arrangement of this piece was not lost, and still today it stands as a notable and well-known example of a Picardy third, not dissonance. If the arrangement above came from the 16th century, I would say it was written as a bad joke.
amazing piece
but the mcdonald’s ad I got at the end doesn’t complement it
A very special performance of a wonderful piece.
Listening on Christmas Day, 2021.
What you hear is not what is written. Others have gone into the detail, needless to say medieval writers were not constrained by later rules of part writing except the avoidance of tritones in the melodic line and leading leading notes at the end of the melody. Otherwise the music is riddled with all sorts of sounds we today think of as dissonant and nasty. Realisations such as this by The Sixteen are always conjectural. Don't worry about the theory, just enjoy the beautiful and poignant sound of this music.
Turn down for false relations!
such a divine masterpiece
Lovely to listen to and to sing. The original is a 3-part carol.
We might be playing an arrangement of this in my school's band. It's kind of difficult because it's slow and and hard to get some of the timing down, but it's very beautiful.
how'd it pan out?
I’m actually singing this for chorus lol
Alors, qui je suis ? je suis Matan Ariel le chef!
Tout ressemble à la musique que c’est comme Let it be des Beatles !
Et La panthère noire en peluche du soldat rose !
Et la marche turque de Mozart!
Et la chanson de l’extraterrestre de Émilie Jolie !
Et alouette gentille alouette !
Et la chanson paillarde de David Bowie !
Et les comédiens de Aznavour !
Et la chanson des petits pois et carottes en hébreu du dvd de Matan Ariel !
Et la chanson française qui s’appellera Malbrough !
Et diam’s
Et Kirikou
Et uzi hitman !
Et À la Claire Fontaine
Et La Cucaracha !
Et The Entertainer
Et lunettes bleues lunettes roses du soldat rose
Et afouna ve gezer de Matan ariel
Et le soldat rose
Et l’encre de tes yeux de Francis Cabrel
Et je l’aime à mourir de Francis Cabrel
Et when the saints go marching in
Et supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Et lucy in the sky with diamonds
Et Eddy Mitchell
Et La Bamba
Et Cadet Rousselle!
That's my favorite from Dr kawashima brain training
Absolutely gorgeous.
Lully, lullah, thou little tiny child
Bye bye, lully, lully
O sisters too, how may we do
For to preserve this day?
This poor youngling for whom we do sing
"Bye bye, lully, lully"?
Herod the king, in his raging
Charged he hath this day
His men of might in his own sight
All young children to slay
That woe is me, poor child, for thee
And ever morn' and day
For thy parting neither say nor sing
"Bye bye, lully, lully"
Lully, lullah, thou little tiny child
Bye bye, lully, lully
so sad , so lovely
The score shown on screen lacks the F natural.
everyone is raving about how the dissonance is original, but I don't think it is. just because it's on the page doesn't mean that's how they sang it- as an orchestral horn player, it's quite common to play a piece and find that an accidental is clearly missing from a part.
music should be read like a musician, not like a legalist.
great recording and thank you for posting the music, but even the transcription posted doesn't show the F/F# dissonance that's being sung, and when it is written, it has the sharp sign implied in parentheses.
I'm skeptical of justifying the dissonance as intentional, considering every other chord harmonizes well, and because the dissonance is only a half step gap in what would otherwise be a sharp.
It's not 'dissonance' or 'discord' btw. The carol's set in a pentatonic scale, not our modern octaves. That's what gives it the truly haunting quality it has
This is not a pentatonic scale.
Possibly a silly question, but is the original 'tune' in the top or the middle part? For myself, I find the middle part at least as tuneful as the top part, and I wonder if when it was reharmonised and smoothed out into four parts that they actually reharmonised the descant, rather than the original tune...
Charles Gaskell The tune is the top part you can hear in this. I think it's perhaps just that it is harmonised well and that's why you think the middle voice might be the tune. That voice is just too static to be the tune is all. :)
First ever carol that is to my heart.x
I kind of like being musically ignorant sometimes; it means that I wouldn't know "dissonance" if it smacked me in the face. All I know is "hey, I like the way this sounds" or "I don't like the way this sounds", and I don't have to worry about whether it's being done "correctly" or not, or whether it ought to have a "second octave to forth" or whatever. All that technical shit must kind of ruin the whole experience, because you'd constantly be hearing everything that the musician is doing wrong. I remember seeing someone in the comments of a song I really liked explaining all about how they were doing it all wrong, because you weren't "supposed" to do it that way. I said, "huh...that's weird, because I listened to it and I thought it sounded great, because I don't have any clue the way that it's 'supposed' to be done". Beauty is in the ear of the beholder.
If it sounds good, it is good. That's the point of music. It's art, not science. A lot of people say there's a way you're "supposed" to harmonize in a choir, yet there are other ways to do it. I like polyphonic shape note singing, although a modern choir instructor would probably cringe at the idea of four different melodies being sung at the same time. "That's not the way your supposed to do it!!!" Well, in the Sacred Harp, that IS the way you're supposed to do it. And it sounds awesome.
I couldn't agree more.
+justforever96 I can't play any instrument, read music, or sing worth a damn, and I fully agree with you.
+justforever96 I know some trained musicians who listen for mistakes, but this small-mindedness usually springs from the listener's insecurity about his/her musicality. But a mature understanding of the many and varied languages of music hardly ruins one's listening experience. As a trained musician, I don't listen for technical devices in composition or performance; recognition of theoretical devices can be valuable, but recognition alone is hardly what enriches my own listening. Rather, musical training gives me the ears to listen more fully-to hear the individual lines as well as the complete texture, and to hear longer lines and connections between notes separated by space. Though anyone can hear what they like and do not like, and anyone can be moved by a piece of music, with trained ears, one can truly hear the fullness of music- to discern the simply powerful from the transcendental.
Though I doubt you're as musically ignorant as you say. I would simply suggest, don't self-identify as ignorant; every piece you listen to can be "training" if think of it as such.
Also, practically all choral music (modern or otherwise) consists of four or more independent musical lines. The subject of counterpoint, a cornerstone of modern (and ancient) music pedagogy, studies the interaction and interdependency of musical lines. Even here, though the texture is mostly homophonic, you can listen separately to the tenor, alto, bass, or (more easily) soprano.
+justforever96 I think a lot of people who are musically ignorant would know dissonance - usually it's when two notes sound odd or uncomfortable together. My mum has no idea about music but always refers to the 'out of tune' bit in this arrangement of the carol.
I have a fair bit of music theory knowledge - not enough as I would like sometimes! - but I never let it get in the way of the emotional response I get from a piece of music. There are those who will use their education to pick anything apart, certainly, but most with knowledge of theory will still listen with their hearts - they just have the knowledge and language to explain what it is that they've responded to and why.
What I struggle with is the Picardy third at the end of each verse. It is such a bleak text, so why are we to lift the mood with a modulation to major key?
haunting!
The false relation (F-F#) is far from intended. It is a side-effect of the horizontal compositional method utilised by Tudor-era composers. Later composers used it as a compositional device, but here it is absolutely not to reflect the lyrics of the piece. In any case, I think it's perfect with the original harmonisation.
I’m so damn terrified what the fuck-
That extraordinary discordant note on the second beat in the second to last note. Is that supposed to be there?
Heartbreaking!
I'm going to put it simply:
This song is about the king's charge to murder of all the babies under age three...
It's a mournful lament in the perspective all the grieving mothers who are singing the song.
It's supposed to clash with itself. That's the point of the song, but it's a great song.
Exquisite.
wonderfully done, this is beautiful
My favourite carol
Weihnachten ohne "Jingle Bells" - Kitsch
Measure 10: upper voices sing F & F# at the same time?
Beautiful
breathtaking!
It's so quiet.
what is the accompanying instrument, and is a score available?
Good bookshops should oblige, especially in December. OXFORD'S 100 Carols for Choirs, or the half-length Carols for Choirs Vol.1, include harmonies; there will be shorter and cheaper editions. (As James O'Brien reminded us on LBC, it's delightful to be allowed into bookshops again this week.)
Why does the 0:23 sound weird? It's a DDF# chord, there's no natural written so why's someone singing it?
+Katie Ross The arrangement being sung does not match the sheet music on screen. On my copy and the sheet music in the video, the D/F/F# chord only happens in the verse, not the refrain. At 0:52, the top line SHOULD be singing an F according to the sheet music, but the recording has an F#. This is an old piece of music, so there is no definitive right or wrong version, it's just that this particular recording and sheet music do not match exactly.
+mattthepie thank you very much for such a helpful reply! :) False relations are beautiful
+Katie Ross the sixteen like false relations. there is also one in 'remember o thou man'
+Suilven Mountain Or, for example, "corporis" by Thomas Tallis' O nata lux.
+Leander Schoormans Thank you :)
prefer just the F# thanks. Maybe do just one verse with the F/F# harmony
Such a terrible event, the massacre of the innocents. A special place is reserved for these babes.
that's why i don't wanna know to much about notes and all this stuff, i've just enjoyed this piece :)
hear him...
It sounds so Orthodox. Beautiful!
Is this where the word lullaby comes from?
I’ve never heard this song till now
Absolutely beautiful.
Where can i get this sheet music?
Ah! So this is thag song! Thank you! I am learning it in Piano :)
That dissonance that people keep talking about. I like it, but it doesn't appear to be written in this score.
the score on the video gives the non-dissonance in brackets. I think the dissonant chord is as in the 1591 original
Who is singing this?
No problem
A colleague of mine sent this piece for me to play on my harp wow. I can see why it sounds so melancholy. a male can't call him a man in Bangladesh brutally murdered his baby girl because she was not born a boy. He took her head off just after she was born. because men over there think they are better then females. so I feel I should learn the piece. as a mother with a daughter this kind of goes deep. my daughter has been a blessing to me. I am really grateful she was not born a male.
a son, in my experience, is a blessing as well.
I don't understand why there's even a # written in parenthesis of the tenor voice.
+Ian Jenkins Because it's not in the original version
+Kavafy But the tenor isn't singing an F# in that measure so why even have one written at all?
+Ian Jenkins It is optional, to be used if the choir wants to avoid the cross harmony that was originally written.
People can't seem to comprehend anything outside of pop music.
While the symbolism is understandable, I am not emotionally touched by the harmonic dissonances in a way that is worthy of the tragic events. Sorry, but to my ear it just sounds like plain old wrong notes. While there are artistic ways to allow the music to reflect the meaning of the text, to me, this is not one of them.
Listen to Tallis Lamentations if Jeremiah, false relations are beautiful
I love the Coventry Carol...one of the vocalists keeps missing a note throughout the whole piece -- practice makes perfect! Keep it up! :O)
er, no.
That's not what happens here... As a chorister, I recommend you go look for the Shaw setting of this piece and listen to that. This isn't wrong - just not what you're used to. I'm none too fond of this setting myself, truth to tell, but it isn't inaccurate to its arrangement.
Why are they purposely singing wrong notes? By by, lully lillay? The tenor is written D, D, B A-flat, D, D. But he is singing D, E, B. A-flat, D, D.
The E natural against the F sharp in the Soprano is most disturbing to what is a very simple arrangement. And SATB is much more pleasant, assuming no nots are altered from the score.
It's supposed to be disturbing, because the carol is very disturbing.
The discordance is part of the setting for this arrangement, traditionally.