A Comparison of Duo Seraphim Treatments

The text has been composed into late renaissance and early baroque pieces many times. Each composer treats it differently. This is a brief analysis if their differences.

Original Text	English Translation
Duo seraphim clamabant, alter ad alterum: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Plena est omnis terra gloria ejus. Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo. Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus et hic tres unum sunt. Laus et perennis gloria Deo Patri cum Filio, sancto simul Paraclito in sempiterna secula.	The two Seraphim proclaimed, one to the other: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts. The whole earth is full of his glory. There are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. Praise and continuing glory be to God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit now and forevermore

The text clearly explains that there are two angels proclaiming that God has all glory and the earth is full of His glory forever. Is it enough to simply set the words to music? Or is it preferable to compose the music in such a way that it reflects the text.

Claudio Monteverdi (1567 - 1643) starts with a duet, representing the two seraph angels. When the text "Three bear witness in heaven," comes in, a third voice sings to represent the holy trinity. It remains a trio the rest of the piece.

Monteverdi Recording

Monteverdi Score

Hans Leo Hassler (1562 - 1612) starts out with a duet but goes to full double chorus by the words “Sanctus”

Hassler Score

Hassler Midi Recording

Jacobus (Jacob) Gallus/Handl (1550 - 1591) wrote a double chorus in the antiphonal style but did not start out with two voices.

Gallus Recording

Gallus Score

Francisco Guerrero (1528-1599) writes a duet to start but brings in the rest of the chorus by “Sanctus” (as Hasller did). Interestingly enough, he maintains a tri-choral piece instead of a double chorus. This is reminiscent of Monteverdi’s trio, probably referencing the holy trinity, but not painting the text (the fact that there are only two angles singing). He brings the three choirs in on "Sanctus" rather than on "three bear witness" as Monteverdi did.

Guerrero Score

Guerrero Recording

Richard Dehring (1580 – 1630) writes a Duet throughout.

Dehring Score

Dehring Recording

Tomas Luis De Victoria (1548 - 1611) also starts out with a duet but, like Hassler, brings the full chorus in by “Sanctus.” He does, however, use only three parts (like Monteverdi and Scheidt) when describing that there are “three” that bear witness in heaven. Victoria also writes the score for SSAA or TTBB (however you choose to interpret his score). This makes sense as the song is about angels proclaiming about the greatness of God. It takes gender out of the equation and makes it easier to envision that these are angels singing, and not “men and women.”

Victoria Score

Victoria Recording

Samuel Scheidt (1587 - 1654) creates a lot of text painting, choosing to start the piece with two “angels” singing. Not until “the world is full” does the full double chorus come in. This makes lyrical sense. Even when the full chorus is in, he keeps the polychoral piece in the antiphonal style, not letting us forget that there are in fact only two angels crying out the name of the lord at this time.

Scheidt Score

Scheidt Midi Recording

Scheidt Japanese Recording

Back to College Life

So much going on in life right now, I thought it'd be appropriate to blog about my adventures in Colorado. Whether or not anyone cares enough to actually read my upcoming blog posts matters not. If nothing else, this will serve as a good journal for me.

In the past two weeks:

• I attended Harmony University for my first time
• My Grandma died and I attended her funeral
• My wife and daughters were in a bad car accident
• I moved to Colorado from Nevada
• I am starting back into school after seven years

Needless to say, I am busy.

Today was my first day on campus (University of Colorado, Boulder). School doesn't actually start until next week but I will be taking exams this week. Today I got my "BuffOne Card", met a few of the graduate students, etc. I also attended my first meeting, an informational meeting about a Graduate Teaching Program, and promptly fell asleep. ...and I was in the front row. Ugh. I need more sleep. Will someone please get that memo to my children?

Boulder is gorgeous! The campus is beautiful and the surrounding mountains are breathtaking. The weather here is wonderful as well (though that's not hard compared to Vegas). Ask me again in the winter and I'll let you know if I still hold this opinion.

Today I started my preliminary exams in Aural Theory, Written Theory, and Tonal Analysis. This afternoon I take Post-Tonal Analysis, and Counterpoint. Sound fun? Yeah, I'm pretty worried about some of these. I felt okay about this morning's exams but they are hard! I've spoken to some other graduate students and they have put my mind at ease a bit. They assure me it's not all that big a deal to fail the exams. Some of the material is hard because I was never taught the information in my undergraduate work. Other stuff is hard because I simply don't remember.

I can already feel that I will be extremely busy. My class schedule is a bit up in the air but from the looks of things, I'll be on campus from morning until night, working hard. I'm ready, though. Let's do this.

In other news, I'm extremely excited to be joining the Sound of the Rockies Chorus. They are a 3rd place international level chorus with the Barbershop Harmony Society. One of the biggest reasons I'm pursuing my advanced degrees is so that I have more education to bring to the society, so being a part of this chorus is a great thing on my barbershop journey. I am excited to see how I can contribute to this ensemble. Last Thursday (their rehearsal night) I was moving so I missed out on my weekly dose of harmony. I'm craving some locked chords right now.

So that's my introduction to my new life out here in Colorado. New house, new school, new scenery, and even soon to be a new car (because of the aforementioned totaling of our van -- everyone was okay by the way).

The Absurdity of the Win-loss Stat in Baseball

Today’s headline on the sfgiants.com homepage said, “Bumgarner Seeks His First Win.” Sports announcers talk about his current 0-5 record as sad and disappointing. There is no doubt that it is disappointing that the Giants have not been able to win under his watch, but in no way does his 0-5 record prove that he is pitching poorly. I propose that the wins and losses stat in baseball is quite possibly the worst stat that is widely accepted by the baseball community.

There is far too much importance and noteworthiness given to this statistic. Pitchers are graded by this record more than any other redeeming (or non-redeeming) achievement they may have made. When a new pitcher comes onto the mound, this is the stat they flash at us. When a “struggling” Ubaldo Jimenez goes 0-2 in his first five starts, he is considered to be in a funk.

Personally, I believe that this statistic has almost nothing to do with how good a pitcher really is and baseball fans and sports announcers should stopy analyzing it as the end-all measurement of a pitchers effectiveness.

A nearly perfect pitcher can get slapped with a loss. Let’s analyze this scenario: Johnny “The Missle” Fastballer pitches 8 perfect innings. So far a no-hitter, a perfect game even. But the score remains 0-0 because his opponent (Jimmy “Knuckles” Speedster) has given up only 3 hits and no earned runs. Because of his perfect game, Johnny Fastballer’s manager leaves him in the game. It’s the bottom of the 9th and Fastballer throws a 96 mph fastball down the middle. Sammy Slammer knocks it out of the park. A walk-off homerun. The game ends. Fastballer takes the loss.

In this example, arguably an extreme case, Johnny Fastballer pitches one of the best games in baseball history but is credited with the loss. Ouch. This scenario, of course, could be played out in many different ways. It’s still early in the season as of this posting (mid-May) and already I’ve seen many amazing games pitched only to go sour in one or two at-bats.

I’ve seen pitchers go 5, 6, and 7 innings, pitching beautifully, only to give up a run or two before being pulled. And he gets the loss. The problem here is that nobody ever seems to recognize the fact that these pitchers pitched superbly! All they focus on is that pesky win-loss record.

In my example above, Johnny Fastballer pitched a nearly perfect game, and ended with an ERA of 1.0 and a WHIP of 0.11. And he probably also had about 12 K’s. ….and the loss!

A win credited to a pitcher is probably more of an accurate scoring mechanism than is a loss. If his team wins, it’s because the pitcher was able to hold off the opponent while his own team worked out their offense. Still, it’s not a perfect system.

Take for example a pitcher that gives up 6 runs in 6 innings. And ERA of 9.0. Terrible by any standard. It just so happens that his own team’s offense scores 7 runs during their at bats. This pitcher gets the win while boasting a 9.0 ERA. If he does this consistently, depending on his teamate’s bats, he goes 5-0 in the first 4 weeks of the season. Is he a good pitcher then? NO! His ERA is terrible, his WHIP is terrible, and his K:9 ratio is in the gutter.

Last night, the Giants and Rockies were tied at 3-3 in the 9th inning. Top of the 9th, Bochy puts Brian Wilson (the closer) on the mound. Three up three down. On to the bottom of the 9th. A walk-off base-hit wins the game for the G-men. Brian Wilson is credited with the win. Um, WhAt!?! Good for beard-man for his one inning pitched. But HE gets the win?? What did his three outs have to do with the Giant’s offense coming to life in the bottom of the 9th?

This is absurd. Multiply this by half a season and Wilson now has a closing record of 5 wins he doesn’t deserve and Fastballer goes 0-12 while pitching nearly perfect games in every outing.

If you want to see how good a pitcher really is, look at his innings pitched, his ERA, his WHIP, his strikeouts:innings pitched (K:9) ratio. These are the things we should be looking at. Everyone feels bad for Ubaldo Jimenez and Madison Bumgarner, but have you looked at their other stats (arguably they’re not great, but that’s beside the point)?

Tim Stauffer has pitched 41 innings to date and has zero wins, but he maintains an era of 2.61 and a WHIP of 1.16. In other words, the guy is dang good! But his win-loss record stands at 0-1. Josh Danks, same story: He’s 0-5 with 47 innings pitched and a 3.83 ERA. Sure the ERA could be lower. He doesn’t have 5 losses for nothing. But a 3.83 ERA for a regular starter isn’t terrible. Also, I can give you at least three pitchers that have 4 wins and a 4.20+ ERA. Case in point: the win-loss stat does not give us an accurate picture of the quality of a pitcher.

Play ball!