On 19 Jun 2003 at 5:15, Cecil Rigby wrote: > > Verse Version 1 > > http://www.arach.net.au/~algernon/deepriver/ > ---- this has more passing tones, especially in the bass, than I'm familiar > with, and I've *never* heard a plagal cadence on the last "campground" !
Well, if I were to have critiqued the harmonizations, my message would have been substantially longer. But I'm doing an arrangement myself, and the harmonizations are what is half of what interesting about my arrangement. And the final plagal cadence is how I had it in my head, actually. > > The second variant seems to be what's printed in modern hymnals: > > > > Verse Version 2 > > http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/d/e/deeprivr.htm > ---- My goodness! UGH! Where did that ugly rhythm in the first phrase come > from? The chord sequencing in the verse is all wrong from what I've always > known. Everything about this version is wrong to my ear. I provide it only for the *melody* of the verse, which is completely different from that in version 1, and, hence, the harmonization is different. > > and I find that version highly problematic because of the highly > > repetitive verse melody. Perhaps it takes a decent harmonization to > > fix it (which none of the instances I've encountered actually > > exhibit), or maybe 1/3 of it needs to be chopped out. Either way, I > > can't see it being successful. > ---- me either! But the variant seems to be pretty widespread. > > This version seems to be fairly widespread, though mostly just > > duplicated MIDI files (the first of the two following are the same as > > the cyberhymnal example above, while the third is a slightly > > different arrangement of the same tune): > > > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/ribeim/midi.html > > http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/christmusic.html > > http://members.tripod.com/~kcrowell/christian.htm > ----- it's the third version here which most closely matches what I know, > so far....... But that's the same as as the one that you dislike so much, just sequenced better with better rhythm -- otherwise, there's very little different about it. And the melody of the verse is all wrong to my ear. > > Now, there are other variations, too, only a couple of which seem to > > me to be musically significant. This one seems to be something of a > > cross between the two, and is found on the VirtualGrammaphone page > > (from 1917): > > > > http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/obj/m2/f7/12263.mp3 > ----except for the unnecessary repetition of the campground phrase both > times, and the awful wandering final cadences, this has the harmonic > structure I know, even for the verse. Really, not a bad version at all. > Just wish it didn't sound so schmaltzy in the cadences. The harmonization of this version is very similar to what I had in my head when I started this project. And the verse is not the same as either of the other two variants, though it is closer to the 2nd, as it doesn't have the melodic peak of the 1st. And why in the world would the tag repetition at the end bother anyone? I think it's a very nice touch (one that my arrangement already had in it before I did all this research!). And, of course, it misses the point of my inquiry, which was about the melodic material, not the harmonization or the arrangement. > > Another version has no real discernable melody for the verse, just a > > short bridge: > > > > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/6677/midilink.html > ----this was about as bad as it gets to my ears. I couldn't even finish > listening.......... It's shocking to me how poorly so much of this stuff is done, though I don't see this as the worst offender at all. Tin ears much worse than the one that created this one seem to be endemic out there. This sequence is pretty widely available, actually. Leaving aside the cheesy organ line, there seems to me to be something wrong with the quantization, as the rhythmic "freedom" of the sequence seems very, very jerky. For me the problem with this sequence is the impressionistic approach to the verse, where it's reduced it to a chord progression without the characteristic melodic figure that is in both of the main versions. > > and from a source I have lost, with the same harmonization but a less > > bizarre realization: > > http://www.bway.net/~dfenton/Unknown_deeprive.mid > ----sounds like it's meant to be instrumental only- yuk! Er, aren't they all? I don't think it's a bad arrangement, though the sequence is way too square for my taste. > > The other versions just seem to me to have no real verse or bridge at > > all, at least not with any memorable musical shape. These include: > > > > http://www.lassentech.com/midi.html > ---- horrid Yep! > > http://realdreamy.hak.hokkyodai.ac.jp/musica.htm > ---- maybe it's "dreamy," but I couldn't go to sleep by that one.... > sorry.... misses the basic harmonies altogether I couldn't get through that one at all! I have no problem with repetition, but if you're going to repeat it, you should change something other than the drum track! > > Now, what's my point here? > > > > Well, I was wondering if anyone knew anything about this and could > > explain whether there is any primacy to version 1 or version 2. > [snip] > > Of the two, which do y'all think is the more familiar? > ---- of all these the http://members.tripod.com/~kcrowell/christian.htm > file and the > http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/obj/m2/f7/12263.mp3 file are my choices, but, as I > said before, I'd have to make some major changes to the second one for it > to please me. That doesn't help one bit, as you've chosen versions with the two different verses. [] > An obvious question- are you preparing an arrangement? Have you looked on > the American Memories website to see what they might have ? (a Library of > Congress site....) http://memory.loc.gov/ No! I'd completely forgotten about this source. Excellent! That adds this to the mix: Version 1 http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/sheetmusic/n/n06/n0694/ (original 1917 Burleigh arrangement) Some of the harmonies in that are pretty bad, actually. The other is represented there, too (sorry about the ridiculous URL -- it ain't my fault!!): Version 2 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/I?aasm:12:./temp/~ammem_EdEy::displayType=2:m856sd=rpbaasm:m 856sf=1210:@@@mdb=manz,eaa,aap,aaeo,rbaapcbib,aasm,ftvbib,aaodyssey,hh ,gottscho,mharendt,bbpix,bbcards,magbell,berl,lbcoll,rbpebib,calbkbib, tccc,lhbcbbib,cdn,cic,cwband,cwnyhs,gmd,mtaft,cwar,cola,consrvbib,bdsb ib,coolbib,coplandbib,curt,dag,musdibib,fsaall,mfd,papr,aep,fine,fmuev er,dcm,cmns,flwpabib,afcreed,cowellbib,toddbib,lomaxbib,ngp,afcwwgbib, haybib,raelbib,gottlieb,mtj,alad,wpa,mal,scsm,mcc,mymhiwebib,mmorse,ai pn,ncpm,ncpsbib,afcwip,fawbib,omhbib,pan,afcpearl,vv,wpapos,psbib,pin, presp,lhbprbib,qlt,ncr,relpet,mussm,dukesm,mesnbib,llstbib,denn,amss,u ncall,fpnas,svybib,runyon,wtc,detr,hlaw,lhbumbib,upboverbib,varstg,hor yd,mgw,hawp,nawbib,suffrg,awh,nfor That version is said to be based on Samuel Coleridge-Taylor's piano arrangement, and the copyright date is said to be c. 1916. Interesting that these two sources are so close in time to the Virtual Grammaphone recordings! Well, I've got quite enough material to keep myself busy for a while! Thanks so much, Cecil, for the American Memory URL -- I should have remembered that myself. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
