David Rayl Is Director of Choral Programs and Associate Dean For

David Rayl is director of choral programs and associate Ryan Kelly is assistant professor of choral music at dean for graduate studies and research at Michigan State West Chester University in West Chester, Pennsylvania University in East Lansing, Michigan <[email protected]>. <[email protected]>. MMozart’sozart’s MMisericordisericordiiasas DDominiomini, K. 222/205a, is among his most distinctive small choral works. Unfortunately, it is seldom performed. Its pervasive imitation and extensive repetition of musical ideas can seem daunting to the conductor studying the score. However, a thoughtful analysis of the work’s formal structure, a careful consideration of its musical style, and an historically informed assessment of the written and implied articulations in the score, can lead to a dynamic interpretation and a compelling performance. Th is article is intended to pique conductors’ interest, facilitate personal score study and performance choices, and motivate more frequent programming of this striking piece.1 We begin with information about the work’s genesis and early reception, then consider the challenging issue of the formal structure of the work, the style in which it is written, and the interaction of the formal structure with the score’s explicit and implicit articulations. Finally, we off er a commentary on available scores and recordings. CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 2 19 MMozart'sozart's MMisericordiasisericordias DDominiomini: A Conductor's Guide GGenesisenesis AAndnd RReceptioneception Lent.2 Mozart immediately composed his student on his progress.6 his Misericordias Domini for SATB voices, It is unclear how satisfi ed Mozart Mozart traveled to Munich with strings, and basso continuo.3 The work’s was with the work. He wrote Martini his father in December of 1774 to text, “Misericordias Domini cantabo in that he was “obliged to compose this supervise the production of his op- aeternum” [I will sing of the Lord’s mercy motet in a great hurry” due to the era La fi nta giardiniera at the court forever], is from Psalm 89(88):1. Elector’s imposed deadline. He later theater on the Salvator Platz. The trip In 1776, Mozart sent a manuscript to referred to the work as his “offertory in extended into early 1775. A few days his composition instructor Padre Mar- counterpoint in D minor,”7 identifying it before Mozart’s departure, Maximilian tini for his comments.4 Martini affi rmed by the style in which he was instructed III Joseph, Prince-elector of the Holy Mozart’s efforts, writing that the piece to compose. Otto Jahn interprets this Roman Empire and Duke of Bavaria, had “all that is required by Modern as evidence that Mozart merely com- who was himself a skilled musician and Music: good harmony, mature modula- posed the work “as an exercise,”8 but composer, requested that he write a tion, a moderate pace in the violins, a he obviously admired the work to some contrapuntal offertory in time to be natural connection of the parts and degree, as he took a manuscript with copied, rehearsed and performed by good taste.”5 Martini also congratulated him on his 1777 journey to Mannheim the following Sunday, the fi rst Sunday of and Paris.9 The work must have been some- what popular in Mozart’s lifetime, as a number of manuscript copies, including a set of parts in Leopold’s hand, have been located in Bavarian churches.10 None other than Antonio Salieri is believed to have performed it for three A leader in performance tours for over 35 years different imperial coronation ceremo- nies in the early 1790s.11 Nineteenth-century critics were divided in their assessment of the work. In his 1843 biography of Mozart, Alex- ander Ulibicheff praised its “Bach-like science” combined with the “profound sentiment” typical of Mozart.12 Jahn (1882) commended the work for its “artistic and elaborate” counterpoint “harmoniously expressed and so consistently sustained.”13 Similarly, Franz Gehring (1883) called it one of “the noblest pieces of church music ever written, both on account of its psy- chological qualities and its delicacy of construction.”14 Such praise was not Let your music be heard universal, however. Anton Thibaut, the early nineteenth-century champion of Palestrina’s music, criticized the work You have musical gifts to share. as expressing two contrasting musical 800-GO WITTE affects when the text represents only We have a team of experts [email protected] one thought. For him, such gratuitous wittetours.com to make it happen. treatment of the words led to an inco- herent musical expression of the text: 20 CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 2 Mozart's Misericordias Domini: A CConductor'sonductor's GGuideuide The words are capable of division into two short sections: Misericordias Domini (the mercy of the Lord), cantabo in aeternum (I will sing forever), but the division is not a real one. For there can be only one fundamental idea—either ‘Misericordias Domini’ or ‘cantabo in aeternum.’ If the former, then the ‘cantabo’ should be subordinate; if the latter, the ‘Misericordias’ must be included in the exultation. Mozart has so far given way to the love of the picturesque…that the ‘Misericordias’ is to be sung softly, but the ‘cantabo in aeternum’ energetically and in a lively fugued passage.15 More recently, H. C. Robbins Landon described the work as “austerely mag- nifi cent”16 and Wulf Konold praised “its attention to the emotional content of the text.”17 Hellmut Federhofer described it as a “contrapuntal mas- terpiece [that] unites polyphony with expressive, tension-laden harmonies.”18 FFormalormal CConsiderationsonsiderations Mozart sets only one Latin sentence in the seven-minute piece but, contrary to many other works of this period, the text plays no role in determin- “Misericordias Domini.” The remainder ing the musical structure. Still, formal of the text, “cantabo in aeternum,” is considerations are never far from consistently set in a web of complex Mozart’s mind. To craft a compelling polyphony (B), within which several performance of this work, the conduc- contrasting motives are juxtaposed tor must examine its various musical against each other. A third type of music building blocks, develop an understand- (C) occurs when the text “Misericordias ing of how they combine to create a Domini” returns with the same rhythm large-scale formal structure, and deter- as A and is chanted on one pitch like a mine tangible means to communicate cantus fi rmus, while a tuneful melody in this structure to the listener. Mozart the violins hovers above it.19 The bulk of uses three types of music in the work. the musical substance and aural interest Reverent, homophonic statements (A), occurs in the B sections. Unlike A and C, often with chromatically infl ected har- which each present one thematic idea monies, provide an expressive setting of (Figure 1), the many B sections present CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 2 21 MMozart'sozart's MMisericordiasisericordias DDominiomini: A Conductor's Guide several contrasting motives in constantly One plausible analysis is that Mozart (and some thematic) principles that varied combinations (Figure 2). superimposes the principles of sonata undergird sonata form are present: (1) At first glance, the piece might form onto this seeming “hodgepodge” an “exposition” that begins in tonic (d seem to be a loosely structured jumble of homophonic and contrapuntal sec- minor), followed fairly quickly by a move of the A, B, and C material (Table 1). tions (Table 2). Certainly the harmonic to a related key (F major) and proceed- ing to a strong cadence on the latter, (2) a “development” marked by the explo- ration of new keys that concludes with an extended preparation for the return of tonic, and (3) a “recapitulation” that begins with a return of both the opening theme and the tonic and proceeds to restate most of the signifi cant material from the “exposition” in the tonic.21 The work begins with A and B in d minor and reaches its fi rst important cadence in m. 14 on the dominant. The F chord that follows immediately in m. 15 is quite startling, in accord with James Webster’s observation that “… the es- tablishment of the new key [the second key area] is an event of aesthetic as well as tonal signifi cance.”22 For performance, consider ways to highlight this dramatic tonal shift. For example, one might opt for an equally startling change of timbre in the choir or a marginally slower tempo at the beginning of m. 15. In keeping with many sonata-form move- ments, Mozart immediately introduces a lyrical contrapuntal duet to contrast with the more dramatic music of mm. 3 –14 (see B4 in Fig. 2). The second key area remains comfortably in F until m. 27 when it begins a modulation that leads, in m. 36, to a half cadence in a minor. Various motives are heard in that key until m. 53 when the harmonic trajec- tory reverses course and returns to F. At m. 63, the exposition concludes with a Table 1 Structural Overview #1 Themes: A B A B C B A B C B A mm.: 1–2 3–14 15–16 17–22 23–26 27–36 37–38 39–48 49–52 53–63 64–65 22 CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 2 Mozart's Misericordias Domini: A CConductor'sonductor's GGuideuide Table 2 with extended ped- Structural Overview #1, Organization by Sonata Allegro Principle als on the tonic and dominant. This dual- Sections: Exposition Development Recapitulation Closing ity can be accentu- ated at m. 143 by a Themes: AB ABC BABC B ABABCAB ABCB AB pianissimo dynamic Key areas: d–V/d F F–a a–F f–V/d d d coupled with very mm.: 1–14 15–26 27–52 53–63 64–109 110 –139 139–158 pure, senza vibrato singing, followed by a crescendo in all cadence in F, the fi rst perfect authentic timbre, a slightly extended quarter rest parts in m.

Load more