There was a dancing
king and an Italian composer in the court of Versailles; and a foreign king and
a German composer in the city of London.
In both cities it was clearer than crystal to the patrons of the arts,
that the music they heard was the greatest in Europe...
Handel, like
many Baroque composers, wrote several settings of the Te Deum, his first in 1717. Lully wrote his much earlier, in 1664. Both works caused significant changes to the
careers of their composers – Handel’s got him fired from the German court, and
Lully’s earned him the dubious honour of being the only person to have suffered
“death by conducting” during a performance two decades later.
Lully's Te Deum, composed 1664
Handel's Te Deum, composed 1717
Lully’s Te Deum is composed in sections divided
by “symphonies”, i.e. orchestral interludes.
The sections aren’t markedly different from one another, and there’s no
break between them, so the effect is of one long, overarching movement.
Lully achieves variety within his work by contrasting different combinations
of voices. Often the petit choeur will sing a phrase, and
then the grand choeur joins in for
several more, and they continue on like this for a while. At other times, the two choirs alternate in a
call-and-response pattern, or a combination of solo voices alternates with the
main choir. It’s an effective way of
sustaining interest, but it has its limitations – there are only so many
different combinations you can use, and the work ends up sounding a bit same-y by
the time you get to the end.
Handel’s, on the other hand, is divided clearly into ten movements,
and the longer ones are divided further into separate choruses and solos, each
with a different section of the text. In
comparison to Lully, each section has its own character. Listen to the sixth movement (at 14:36),
which builds up from solo bass voice to full choir, with the orchestra keeping
up a detached quaver-rhythm accompaniment.
The next movement uses the opening two-bar motif as the basis for the
whole chorus, and the sprightly rhythms accentuate the text “Day by day, we
magnify thee”. You can skip forward ten
minutes in Lully’s setting and not notice much of a change, but not here.
The two works differ in the use of harmony as well. Lully’s harmony is very basic – the first
section, for instance, moves between C major and G major, passing briefly
through a few other closely related keys.
The harmonic rhythm is slow, too, usually changing only once per
bar. In fact, there are many places
where the choir is just singing block chords.
There is more harmonic interest in the solo and orchestral parts; even
so, it’s remarkably unadventurous, and the work sits solidly in C major
overall.
Handel’s setting modulates frequently, seldom hanging around in one
key for too long. Where Lully will move
back frequently to the original key, Handel will go on a journey and end up in
a key unrelated to the first one. He
also uses dissonance, such as in the second movement, which builds up a lot of
tension throughout, both in the orchestra and the choir. The impression you get from his use of
harmony is constant movement – it’s never staying still, but always changing.
In fact, constant movement is a key part of Handel’s Te Deum. The orchestral accompaniment is rhythmic and
continuously drives the music forward, even in most of the slower movements. The use of polyphony is also a factor. Handel doesn't use much homophony; when he does,
it’s for specific effect, such as in the third movement at 5:03, with the
strong proclamation of “Holy! Holy!” The slower rhythm and homophonic block chords
reinforce the majesty of the text.
Lully’s Te Deum is mostly
homophonic, and lacks that driving force that Handel’s has. When polyphony is used, it’s quite simple,
with no more than three parts at once, and they usually start and end
together. On the other hand, Handel has
as many as five parts singing different lines, entering at different times, and
tossing the melody back and forth between them.
There is also far more rhythmic and melodic variation in Handel’s
setting. Lully uses very simple
rhythms, mostly minims, crotchets and quavers, and basic dotted rhythms. There is very little syncopation, whereas
Handel uses it widely, often obscuring the strong beat. In Lully's work, though, the
regular beat is very strong. I found this strange, as French Baroque music
is normally fluid with regards to metre.
There are a
few recitative-like sections, such as at 13:28, but they are for solo
voice. I suppose it would be very
difficult to write like that for full choir, not to mention keeping time.
Lully’s melodies are nothing to write home about; in fact, I’m not
sure if I would call them melodies at all.
Taken out of context, they look like my first harmony
exercises, with scalic quaver passages for a bit of variety. Well, I’m overgeneralizing – there are some
interesting ones – but on the whole, they’re quite forgettable. Handel’s melodies have contour and variety, they’re
developed as the movement progresses; they use different kinds of non-chord tones,
and don’t just follow the scale up and down.
You could leave the concert hall humming them.
Reading this back, it’s looks like a whole lot of Lully-bashing. I did enjoy his work though – there’s a lot
of good stuff in it, but it just goes on...and on...I definitely prefer Handel’s
setting, and would love to sing it some day.
No comments:
Post a Comment