>Suppose we add one more parallel 5th by moving that 3 to the 3rd >course? (and then eliminate or even disguise it by scratching out >the first zero of the following measure--which, of course, breaks >the rule of thumb of one fix per typo). But you're right, that chord >sounds naked w/ out a 3rd of some sort.
Well now, I think you are right. I think the 3 sounds best on the 3rd course, but I don't think we need to get rid of the following 0 on the 2nd. The parallel 5th movements are consistent with the bars before and right after. Yes, I like the voice leading and balance of this solution best. Playing it again just now, I think there can be no musical justification for such a dark spot in such a thoroughly 'major' sounding piece. > >The big quibble I have about that juicy Ab is that usually that that >sort of thing usually happens in a ficta context. What is a ficta context? >I can't imagine the words (being a laudate) would support it either >tho I'll ask my singer who seems to be up on that stuff. But I'll >try it a few more times and try to let it state its case. Any >guesses as to who wrote it? No. Thanks for revisiting this piece again. -- Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/
