Ireland - Jubilate in F

[mrbouffant]

Dear wise ones,

I was playing Ireland Jubilate in F yesterday and was struck by the metronome markings.

The Jubilate itself is minim = 72 and marked Allegro.

The Gloria is minim = 88 and marked Maestoso.

Recordings I have heard take the Gloria slower than the Jubilate, so what is going on?

Is the minim = 88 a misprint in the Novello edition?

Hope you can help... Many thanks !

[Robert Bowles]

I'm not sure if I am a "wise one", and I don't have a copy of Ireland's morning service in F. I do however have a first edition, copyright 1915, of the evening service in F, (original printed price 3d, overprinted 4d = 2p). There are NO metronome marks in this edition. The words in italics at the start of the various sections include: Moderato, Dolce,Maestoso, Tranquillo ma non troppo lento. Those seem to me to be all about mood rather than metronomes! And the last one suggests that he was concerned that things might be sung too slowly... So if I were you, I'd ignore editorial metronomne marks in later edtions and just do what sounds right in the particular acoustic with which you are blessed!

[Philip]

I've found a recording on Spotify of St Albans under Barry Rose singing the Jubilate, and it comes in at 2:50 if that helps. The Gloria is the same as for the Mag & Nunc in F. I've clocked the Jubilate at about minim = 66 and the Gloria at about minim = 70. I don't have the music in front of me, but I can only assume the Jubilate is written in four but the Gloria in two, hence the different tempo markings - but minim = 88 would seem rather fast. I don't really know the Jubilate though - I've played the M&N in F but I don't think they're particularly inspiring - the Gloria perhaps being the best bit.

[Vox Humana]

I don't have a score of this piece, but I have played and heard it many times. I am used to the Gloria being faster. Consideration of the notation shows that the canticle moves primarily in crotchets (= 4/4) but the Gloria is closer to a minim movement (= 2/2), so an increase in speed is not illogical.

[Malcolm Kemp]

At risk of being called an anorak, obsessive, or even pedantic, the Jubilate is NOT, and never has been a canticle. It is a Psalm and nothing can be both a Canticle and a Psalm. Admittedly the Jubilate can be used as an alternative to the Benedictus in BCP Morning Prayer (the compilers of Common Worship had better liturgical understanding that the compiler of BCP and didn't give this option) but liturgically the Benedictus is the fixed, immovable centre of Mattins (during which the altar is censed when the office is sung solemnly) just as the Magnificat is the fixed centre of Evensong (during which the altar is censed) and should never be replaced by one of Cranmer's alternatives.

 

Even as a very young choirboy - aged 9 or 10 - many thousands of years ago, I used to ponder that Mattins sung to Naylor in G Benedicite and Noble in B minor Jubilate, both fine works in themselves, were hardly suitable pieces for use during Advent and Lent. Perhaps I was just a strange child? (Don't answer that!)

 

Malcolm

[Vox Humana]

liturgically the Benedictus is the fixed, immovable centre of Mattins (during which the altar is censed when the office is sung solemnly)

 

Since how long? The Benedictus was not part of Matins at all until Cranmer put it there and he certainly didn't envisage censing. It was central to Lauds and, without checking, I don't think there was censing at Lauds. There are other canticles that Cranmer could have chosen in the place of the psalms after lessons. His choices were not a matter of liturgical understanding or misunderstanding; he was simply providing biblical songs. An appeal to traditional liturgical understanding (although I appreciate you did not mention tradition) should logically replace them all with responds. I actually quite like high church Anglo-Catholicism, but it is only one liturgical option and doesn't much of it have more to do with latter day Roman practice than that of the historical British church?

[sbarber49]

I don't have a score of this piece, but I have played and heard it many times. I am used to the Gloria being faster. Consideration of the notation shows that the canticle moves primarily in crotchets (= 4/4) but the Gloria is closer to a minim movement (= 2/2), so an increase in speed is not illogical.

You can find two versions on CPDL: http://www3.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/John_Ireland

(Still under copyright here, of course)

[Vox Humana]

Yes, I know that, Stephen, but they are other people's performing editions and therefore not automatically trustworthy. I have recently had a long rant about CPDL elsewhere, so won't repeat my views here.

[Malcolm Kemp]

Vox - I agree with you entirely (just this once!!!!). Free download choral music is generally very poorly edited and proof read, frequently going totally contrary to what the composer intended. Often the actual music itself is out of print because it's such rubbish music anyway. I say this, having had to play several Latin Mass settings in recent times that are available only from these sources; full of misprints, poorly laid out, difficult to read and not worth doing anyway. For example, Paulo Giorza'a Mass No 8 in Bflat.

 

Malcolm

[Vox Humana]

Vox - I agree with you entirely (just this once!!!!).

 

[Malcolm Kemp]

BCP Matins (or Mattins) is a combination of Matins and Lauds from the Breviary. The Benedictus fulfilled the same role at Lauds as the Magnificat at Vespers and the altar was censed during both. Until the early 1950s the Easter Vigil Rite was normally done on Saturday morning and finished with a shortened version of Vespers in which, during the Magnificat, the altar was censed. From the mid-1950s onwards when older version of the Rite were restored and the timing moved to very late evening, or even early morning, Lauds replaced Vespers and the altar was censed during the Benedictus. Now neither is done in either the Roman or Anglican official Holy Week liturgies.

[mrbouffant]

Thanks all who were able to answer the question that was posed.

[sbarber49]

Yes, I know that, Stephen, but they are other people's performing editions and therefore not automatically trustworthy. I have recently had a long rant about CPDL elsewhere, so won't repeat my views here.

True, but in this case they are just typed-out versions of the printed score, I think (though I've only glanced at them).

 

I think CPDL is a fantastic resource for choirs: yes you need to proof-read scores and note any mistakes. I think, like wikipedia, that there is now more discussion of the scores and that reliability will improve. Wikipedia was a joke in the early days.

 

Editions of music are a different matter - there you are in the hands of the editor. Very dangerous and, indeed, worrying.

 

Scores which are just typed out from the published version can be easily checked, though I'm not sure what happens when no-one can afford to publish choral music and there are no authoritative scores to check with.

 

IMSLP is very good and, because most of it is scans of old editions, you know what you're getting - and it's no different from all those Dover reprints, is it? (Though, admittedly, sometimes hard to read.)

 

The "original compositions" on CPDL seem to be pretty dire, from the small number I've looked at: musical literacy and basic knowledge of harmony rather lacking in many cases.

[sbarber49]

I say this, having had to play several Latin Mass settings in recent times that are available only from these sources; full of misprints, poorly laid out, difficult to read and not worth doing anyway. For example, Paulo Giorza'a Mass No 8 in Bflat.

Though this appears to be a scan of a published score, from IMSLP, not CPDL. Shouldn't have too many misprints or be poorly laid out. (At least I can't find it on CPDL)