Talk:Funeral Sentences and Music for the Funeral of Queen Mary

New Page

This new page I created requires a bit more referencing. If anyone could help find some more reliable sources, it would be great. Harpsichord246 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the information on this page is misleading I'm afraid. Purcell's "Music for the Funeral of Queen Mary" consists of three pieces: a March and Canzona, plus a setting of the sixth sentence of the Burial Service ("Thou knowest Lord"). Purcell didn't write an anthem for the funeral: "In the midst", which is called "anthem" on IMSLP, is actually Purcell's setting of the fifth sentence of the Burial Service. It is thought by experts that Purcell's setting of the sixth sentence, in a revised version, was used at the funeral (his earlier versions of "Thou knowest Lord", and his settings of "In the midst", and of the fourth sentence, "Man that is born of a woman", were written much earlier than 1694). Settings of the other six sentences of the Burial Service by a sixteenth-century composer, Thomas Morley, are thought to have been used at Queen Mary's Funeral. Each point I make here is backed up by this book chapter, which I would suggest you seek out: Bruce Wood: "The First Performance of Purcell’s Funeral Music for Queen Mary" in Performing the Music of Henry Purcell, edited by Michael Burden, pages 61–81 (Oxford University Press, 1996). Information about the Anglican burial service can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem

The statement "no autographed scores exist" is contradicted by the illustration further down the page (although it might be true that no autographs exist for the music that was actually written for the funeral). However, regardless of whether an autograph exists, Purcell is believed by experts to have prepared the revised version of "Thou knowest Lord", and composed the March and Canzona for the funeral. Other music for the occasion was written by another composer (Thomas Morley).

It seems useful to discuss Purcell's funeral music together, but not all of it was written for Queen Mary, so this title would be more accurate: "Music for the Funeral of Queen Mary and settings of the Funeral Sentences".

If all this information is integrated into the article it would be useful. As I say, it can be incorporated just by adding references to the book chapter by Bruce Wood, which you should look up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuscW (talk • contribs) 15:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

Today a friend showed me a 1915 Boosey booklet on the life of Henry Purcell, which mentioned this Funeral Music. (The friend was a chorister at the Funeral of Princess Beatrice.) I looked up Funeral Sentences on wikipedia and found nothing. Then I discovered this decimated article. I had forgotten that I had added the image of the autograph score of the second Funeral Sentence on 13 October 2013. (It was added after I had attended a funeral in the South of France.) In the List of compositions by Henry Purcell, this music is classified with the current title. Most modern performance include the March, Canzona and all three funeral sentences. It is true that the Music for the Funeral of Queen Mary can be reconstructed (no autograph scores exist). However designating the first two Funeral Sentences as lesser music is unjustified and arbitrary. The sourcing is also far from ideal. I hope to remedy this in the next few days. Mathsci (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would have been appropriate to have a bit of discussion before moving the page, and although you have obviously been putting good work into this, I have to say that the first sentence really does not make sense. Earlier versions said something like: "Music for the funeral of Queen Mary... welll, we do not know exactly what music was performed at the funeral, but at least some of it had been composed earlier, and here is a collection which can be performed together." The new title may be used in catalogs (it isn't used on my copy of the score, published by Carus verlag), but it is very clumsy and unclear. What is a "funeral sentence"? (I have no idea really, and a bit of googling suggests it only occurs in the context of this work.) If a "funeral sentence" is some kind of music, then it should be "Funeral sentences and other music." (Incidentally, in your comment above, is "can be reconstructed" a typo for its inverse?) Imaginatorium (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have only just started finding sources. The rewriting of the article has not really started. I have a lot of prior experience with articles on baroque music, so it's easy to tell when an article is not well written. (For example where were all the full stops?) Once the history is properly written, it will be easier to formulate the lede. The present lede is stop-gap.

The Purcell Society produced a modern edition in 1988 with two versions of the early Funeral Sentences. As the sources I have added discuss, that edition was based on the two surviving autograph manuscripts, now in the British Library and and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. The Purcell Society put out an edition of the Music for the Funeral of Queen Mary in the 1990s, prepared by Bruce Wood. The literature discusses in detail sources written by copyists (e.g. in Ely Cathedral) used for the 1690's compositions. None of these are mentioned in the article. There is also a CUP book by Bruce and Thompson on the Musical Scores of Purcell, etc, etc.

The problem with the article arises from the fact that in many modern day performances and recordings the Funeral Sentences written in the 1670's or 1680's are combined with the March and Canzona. That has certainly been my experience. The academic literature also discusses problems, which even Wood's most recent edition has not resolved. Reconstruction means that no original manuscripts exist, only copies. These are in Cathedrals, in Royal Chapels, etc. Modern scholarship suggests that as much value should be placed in the copyists' versions as in the earlier manuscripts in Purcell's own hand. That is why there is a large literature on this particular topic; and why the musicologists are reluctant to speak of definitive compositions for this particular period of English baroque music. We have to live with that and report it accurately on wikipedia.

The article also lacks a discography; here far more recordings of the Funeral Sentences exist than the later reconstruction. The article also needs a more careful analysis of Purcell's musical style in the various versions of Funeral Sentences: these are all discussed in the literature. At first glance the small amount of content was written by a wikipedian without consulting any sources. As for editions (you mention Carus), my own experience is that the best editions are published by the Purcell Society: they are to Purcell as the Bach Gesellschaft is to Bach. Their editions are expensive but well-produced. (I once performed the Pavan in G minor from their edition. The quite famous music shop that used to stock the entire collection has alas now shut down.) Mathsci (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, well thanks for putting work into this. But while I don't want to complain, you did not answer my (very basic!) questions. First, what is a "funeral sentence"? Second: what is the topic of this article? The title is a noun phrase, for sure, but it consists of two disparate items and a conjunction. Purcell wrote his "funeral sentences", and Purcell wrote music for the funeral of the rather young and lovely Queen Mary. So when you refer to "The work", what can this mean? I know there is considerable uncertainty about what music was performed at the actual funeral; I guess there is a (more or less?) consistent selection of music published between covers bearing a title such as "Music of[sic] the funeral of Queen Mary" (Carus-Verlag). If so it seems very perverse to call this collection (if that is indeed the subject of this article) other than "Music for the funeral of Queen Mary", with of course notes on the degree of probability with which each part was actually used in the funeral. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This description is what can be found in the List of compositions by Henry Purcell. Unfortunately I was interrupted while writing this by editing of the article 2016 Nice attack. There were seven sentences from the Church of England prayerbook recited at the graveside. Setting the text of four of them, with two combined, Purcell composed his three Funeral Sentences. There are two versions of two of them and three of a third, which he newly recomposed for the Funeral of Queen Mary. The March and Canzona were also re-used. Performance practise at the time—and contemporary sources—indicate that these compositions did not acquire any final form in seventeenth century England and were frequently re-used. So the two items in the title are both 20th century re-constructions. Early music performers like Peter Holman or Philippe Herreweghe or William Christie or John Elliott Gardiner or Peter Pickett will combine different elements to produce an item termed "Funeral Sentences". So far that has involved using the 1695 March and Canzona and pre-1695 versions of the three Funeral Sentences. The same problems arise with the two organ masses of Couperin, discovered in the archives at Carpentras. I have heard these performed in Aix interspersed with plainsong (the Parisian organist accidentally pocketed the key to the organ loft after the performance), but again performance practise is somewhat up to the performers, some of whom are also responsible for new editions. I wish there were are a simpler answer. All the editions of this music have some degree of intelligent guesswotk attached to them. Wood did not have the last word when he produced his reconstruction of the Music for the Funeral of Queen Mary for the Purcell Society. Some of the recent literature included in the article explains that. The title, which I took from the lists, covers all the compositions. Certainly Purcell never invented a title, nor did his offspring. I see all these problems arising from a frustration with seventeenth century practise in musicians to the Royal Court. I know a chorister who sang at royal funerals at Windsor, including in the private chapel, during the WWII. The third sentence in its 1695 version was always sung. That follows the traditions of a choir founded in 1348 and is separate from performance practise amongst contemporary early music groups. The St George's Choir at Winsosr presumably had their own songbooks and did not use Carus Verlag. Mathsci (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)