[Wendell Nisly]

Good words, Lynn and Lyndon! Another thought I’ll throw in — every measure has three syllables in four beats, set up 2+1+1. I’m wondering whether setting it in 3 might help it flow better. It feels like it takes a good bit of time, though I grant that the opening text does lend itself to that.

I do think the melody sings easily and is winsome, though I agree with the above sentiments concerning the need for more coherence (repetition).

[Wendell Nisly]

Hi Lyndon,

I echo the “good work” sentiment from Ben. My sense is that generally the voice leading works well, and I enjoy the tonal shifting. I’m asking myself how this will play with singers. My own sense is that congregationally it will be a stretch; it has a more choral sound to me. As Ben mentioned, the sense of meter is a bit unstable — which adds interest but makes it more difficult to sing. It has a similar tonal ambiguity, which again will make it tougher to access for the average congregation. I think that is particularly true on the last system, where the key ambiguity barely gets resolved (to my ear) by the cadence. This is particularly true, I suppose, with the soprano ending on the dominant. My hunch is that have significant ambiguity in both the meter and the key will be a hurdle for singers.

I agree with you about getting it in front of singers, and see how it actually works for them. It might settle in more quickly than I think.

[Author]

Replies