Talk:Spem in alium

Renditions

A rare performance of Spem in alium was given in Westminster Abbey May 1999, at the memorial service for recently deceased Ted Hughes. The 40-part rendition was at the behest of the Poet Laureate himself (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199905/ai_n8839468). Kavrod (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured prominently

Is it worth mentioning the above in the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.81.13 (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say no. It's one thing to mention its use in film and television, and public performances; but including mentions in literature just seems a little trivial to me. Robofish (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Davies quote

I looked at the reference for the quote from Davies, but it appears that he is referring to a CD, rather than Tallis's Spem in alium. The quote should either be removed, or an unambiguous reference should be added into the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What's the idea?

Idea seems to be a musical term. A link to an article on 'idea' or to a definition would be helpful to non-musical readers. Rintrah 17:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Excellent point. It has been done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Strigio hypothesis incoherent

The 30-part motet could have travelled as sheet music, not necessarily with the composer, so the search could be broadened into another composer: we know, for example, that the Choir of La Pieta in Venice was of that order of size, long before Vivaldi's day. And it wasn't alone, far from it Most motets are family-sized units, designed to be sung at home and so what we have here are 8 family groups - and where you have 8, the configuration must be mutable, so 6 is quite possible too. The work will be less complex, however before just junking it, some thought should also be turned to whether there is actually a 30-part core unit within this, as a "lite" configuration for times when a couple of families might be unable to attend. Faith in his day was rather a matter of discretion (where many families remained Roman in the teeth of Protestant reform, indeed he was such himself, so it is quite possible that elements of his work were adjustable to allow for the absence of families marking irregular observations of a disparaged creed - and you should note I'm not saying which - as Goldsmith's poem The Vicar of Bray so aptly portrayed. Just going through my own repertoire throws up a Byrd SSATB family motet Justorum animae, for example. Subchoirs are useful from a conductor's viewpoint, as they force singers to become confident in their own line, without getting lost in the ensemble. The Gabrieli O Magnum Mysterium is exactly another such case in point, 2 x 4-part choirs, this time with the San Marco Venice choir in mind. I have several other Double-Choir compositions too - but 8 parts isn't 30. Working through my library, I came across exactly what I am talking about, in the Paminger In dulci jubilo - two arrangements of the same melody, one in 4-part and one in 6-part harmony. It was clear he was writing for variable forces. Part of what was happening is the death of monody. With the theological brakes removed, composers started writing for the forces they had available, and often for the forces commissioning their work. However, the Vicar of Dibley constraint still rules, what do you do if you have someone unable to do the gig? Where you have a 10-woman Soprano section, that's not a problem (and similar forces in ATB, the same), however if you have S1...S10 A1...A10 T1...T10 B1....B10, then losing one leaves a gap. This is why they tended to stop at 6 voices - but had to make mistakes first, getting there. Eventually, in the mid 17th Century, you start to get the more conventional SATB ruling the roost, and this four-square puritanism ruled the roost (with rare exceptions in solo and descant lines) until very recently, when the likes of Sir Karl Davies started working in more polyphonic lines. Robert Hugill, for example, has a 30-part motet still waiting for a choir to handle it! So, in conclusion, I feel it unwarranted to "correct" the "30-part" comment: as a historian, unless you have absolute and conclusive proof that the author had made a mistake, you must leave your source intact, restricting yourself to a footnote comment raising your concern. Ignorance is not that level of knowledge, it simply disqualified the editor from acting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.248.255.224 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)