[Lyndon Gehman]

Hey Vincent,

Sorry I haven’t had a lot of time to study this but here’s a few quick general observations. Also a disclaimer, I don’t claim to be an expert in writing modal music.

I like the overall flavor of the piece. There’s some places that feel like they could be better fleshed out to me.

Measures 7 – 14 feel a bit awkward in terms of voice leading and would likely cause some struggles for many congregations, assuming that is your intended audience. The octave leap in measure 8 and the leap of a 6th in 9, for example.

Also, I might question whether this piece is fully in Phrygian mode. It feels a bit like it moves outside of that, especially in measures 7-20. And maybe you intended that?

Just one thought, when writing modal music, I’ve found it easier to think horizontally (each line as its own melody) than vertically (chord by chord). Again I don’t know that I’m qualified to speak on best practices in writing modal music but figured I’d share that.

I also think the whole note at the end of each phrase prevents the forward motion in the piece.

Again, these are just quick observations. Keep working on it! Love to see new work being written!
Lyndon

[Lyndon Gehman]

One other note I was going to add, my ear was listening for the half note in measure 15 to be a Do. The leading tone (Ti) in the previous measure sorta suggests that the Do is forthcoming.

[Lyndon Gehman]

Good morning Austin,
I agree with Lynn. It seems that the refrain in the pdf and mp3 have some differences.

One thing that stood out to me was how much the melody hangs out around the Bflat (So). Each 7 measure line (except for the last) begins and ends on the Bflat. My ear wants the melody to

On your question of repitition. The beginning of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines use the same So, So, Fa, Mi motif. One could argue that it’s not the most unique and identifiable motif but it does bring some repetition to the piece.

Those are just a few thoughts. Happy composing!
Lyndon

[Lyndon Gehman]

Good morning Ben,

This is a nice piece. I love the pedal tone. Like you mention it could be sung between scripture readings. I could see even singing it multiple times, as a call and response type of piece where you have someone reading scriptures and the congregation responding with this song. It has the flexibility of many of my favorite Taizé pieces.

A few notes for your consideration.

1. Measures 2 & 3 felt slightly unintuitive, rhythmically to me. I wonder if it would help to move “for” one beat back, into the pickup of measure 3 (giving it the same C maj chord as “LORD”) and then “He” would occupy the first 2 beats of measure 3?

2. The similar motion between all of the voices in the progression from measures 4 to 5 slightly bothers me.

3. I love open 5ths, but I’ll admit the one on the end of this piece felt a bit jarring to me. My gut reaction is that the open 5th doesn’t quite match the harmonies used in the rest of the piece, especially in places like measure 3.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Love what you’re doing with this piece!

Lyndon Gehman

[Lyndon Gehman]

Ben,

This is very nice.

Two small suggestions I might make:

1. If you started the opening soprano pickup with a Do-Re eighth note slur, it might have a touch more continuity with the beginning of the second half of the song.
2. I might suggest changing the first chord in measure 12 to a vii chord instead of the IV. It would prevent the V – VII progression. See attached suggestion.

I do love the simplicity of this piece.

-Lyndon

[Lyndon Gehman]

Gary. At the congregation I grew up at, this would totally be a youth group favorite! And if it were in the Hymns of The Church, it would also get chosen by someone in the audience at every hymn sing, whether or not they had a history of being able to sing the Neopolitan, well.

I did find measures 2-3 and 8-9 a bit awkward. Having the last syllables of those words landing on the downbeat. Also in the penultimate measure, I could see the F to Bb jump getting “butchered”.

Just my observations after a few quick listen-throughs. I do rather enjoy this piece tho.

Lyndon

[Lyndon Gehman]

I personally enjoy draft 2 the best. One thing that took me slightly by surprise was the 2 eighth note slurs at the end. I like them but they might be slightly less shocking if that figure was introduced earlier in the piece. Just a thought.

[Lyndon Gehman]

Clarification to my initial note. I intended to say Phrygian mode.

[Lyndon Gehman]

Richard, this melody is delightful! It has many of the same qualities that have made the Early American folk tunes stand the test of time. I applaud you for that!

The three Ti’s in the melody at measures 5, 6, and 7 are the only thing preventing it from being a pentatonic melody. This is something you could experiment with if you really wanted to embrace the folk qualities of the melody. I also feel that measures 5, 6, and 7 are possibly a weak spot in the melody.

I would also agree that a less chromatic harmonization might suit the melody better. That said (not to discount Lynn’s input) I do think that pedal tones can be very effective in a more folk-like setting. Alice Parker, for instance, did this a bit in some of her work. (I highly recommend studying her work, btw)

1 other spot in the melody that I would consider is the opening 2 measures. You’re basically arpeggiating the tonic chord. While I’m not saying this is bad, I think maybe something slightly more melodic would “sing” more easily and also strengthen the overall melody.

[Lyndon Gehman]

Gary, I really like the harmonies in this piece!

Every time I sing the melody, I want to go up to the A on the last note of measure 4.

Personally, I think the weakest part of this hymn is measures 5 and 6. I like what you’ve done harmonically, but melodically it feels like it prevents the piece from having a very satisfying climax.

Overall I do really like this piece though!

[Lyndon Gehman]

Vincent, I too can really appreciate this piece!

After listening to it, I’d say my thoughts line up much with Lynn’s.

Some additional thoughts: Going from predominant harmony in measure 4 to dominant in measure 5 and then back to predominant in measure 6 felt a bit awkward to me. Similarly, going directly into predominant in measure 13 after closing out the previous measure with the vi tonic substitute had a similar effect on me. I think opening measure 13 with tonic harmony would be more effective.

On measure 15, I do like that it helps bring the voices together into measure 16 but my ear wishes to hear the V instead of vii.

Good work.

[Lyndon Gehman]

Thanks Ben for the kind words and also for the thoughts. I’m definitely going to think over them a little here. I want to workshop this hymn with some real live humans at some point so those will be some points I’ll try!

[Lyndon Gehman]

Sorry, I believe it’s actually measure 14 (last note on the second line). Looks like maybe your software numbered the pickup to the next measure as 15 and I was going off of that.

[Lyndon Gehman]

Sorry, Not exactly sure what I was going to say. I think it was something about wanting to hear the melody land on notes other than the So.

[Lyndon Gehman]

Thanks for your thoughts, Ben. I’ll give them some consideration. I was curious for some clarification on 2 of your points.

You mention:

“and in the last measure of the second line, my ear wants to hear a V chord.”

Are you saying your ear wants to go to a V in the Phrygian mode or a V of the relative Major?

Also:

“maybe just putting a I chord in would be helpful.”

The same question applies here. Do you mean the I of the Phrygian mode or the I of the relative Major?

I wasn’t sure if I quite followed you on those two points so I thought I’d see if you could clarify.

As a side note…Admittedly, for me, writing modal music is something I’m still fairly new to and trying to get a better grip on (I guess that’s what a session with Wendell Glick is for!). So far I tend to approach it very horizontally vs. looking at the vertical harmonies.

[Author]

Replies