Talk:Miserere (Allegri)

Title
The actual title of this article is Míserére Méi, Déus. As this is a low traffic article, I am going to change it myself when no one replies. Any thoughts on this? --Adriaan90 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that Miserere is the most commonly used title, as a google will confirm. I agree that the full title should be included at the beginning of the article, but believe it best serves readers to use the common title, increasing accessibility.

David Vaughn

Thanks for the help Adriaan90! I came onto this site looking for the exact name (I had a vague idea...) of this ethereal piece of music for an essay. When I couldn't find it I was coming onto this page to say "how ridiculous they don't have the full name of the Miserere listed!!!" and found my answer instead! Although it is still ridiculous it's not listed! Helen

Seems to me, at the very least, it should be cross-referenced to both titles. Bert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.196.226 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Helen, I looked for this under the ACTUAL title. Cross reference Please! Liz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.154.206 (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of the title for this subject, it is entirely convention that this piece, which I have performed in concert twice, is known by the shorthand of Miserere. Just as the "US" is called by that short name, or the Federal Republic of Germany is called simply Germany. Separately, I am quite curious as to why the English interpretation of the text which is given in the page is from the King James Version. I find this unconventional and inappropriate. Aside from the problem of different meanings (misericordiam is better expressed as mercy, rather than kindness) the piece is decidedly Roman Catholic, and the ideal English language text would be that first published by the English College, at Douay, in 1609; right around the time Allegri composed the work. I would be happy to contribute the transcription of this text from my Vulgate Bible if it were deemed an acceptable alternative. The fact that there is a link to the Douay-Rheims text at the bottom of the page is of some value, but I cannot see good logic for the official bible of the Church of England being used to provide the text of a Roman Catholic biblical text.Wisconsinator (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful
This is a very beautiful piece of music, is there some way that can be expressed? I also have a link that should be put on, its a youtube video of this being performed by King's College Choir and its absolutely beautiful. --216.229.227.144 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison
I am curious if anyone ever compared Mozart's "bootleg" transcription with the score released by Vatican. Not that I suspect that Mozart made mistakes, but just to see how faithful his transcription was to the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.69.196 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mozart's transcription doesn't survive, and when you say "the score released by [the] Vatican", you need to be more specific; there are multiple manuscript sources from different centuries, Vat MS 185, 205, 206 and 375. -- AJRC, alastair@alastaircarey.com

Why was it not sung at Tenebrae on Maundy Thursday?
The article states that the Miserere was sung "as part of the exclusive Tenebrae service on Wednesday and Friday of Holy Week". The Tenebrae service is traditionally sung on three evenings: those of the Wednesday of Holy Week, Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. Why was Allegri's Miserere not sung on Maundy Thursday evening as well? Rithom (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Some Miserere was certainly sung on all three days. According to Charles Burney, cited here, on Maundy Thursday a different setting of the Miserere text by Tommaso Bai was sung. According to a Mozart biography by Robert Gutman, Mozart had to return on Good Friday of 1770 to the Sistine Chapel to check what did write down on Wednesday, because on Maundy Thursday a different setting was sung. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Time of the offices
The first paragraph of the article states something which, although liturgically correct, could yet be historically wrong. "[...] as part of the exclusive Tenebrae service on Wednesday and Friday of Holy Week. The service would start usually around 3AM, [...]"

In Roman Catholic contexts, "Tenebrae" is the name given to the succession of Matins and Lauds (within the Tridentine rite) for the last three liturgical days of Holy Week, namely Holy (Maundy) Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday.

Canonically speaking, Matins is supposed to be celebrated towards the end of the night (3am sounds about right) and Lauds should start before sunrise. However, over the centuries, for practical reasons, all the offices of the Divine Office tended to shift ahead of their canonical time, by as much as half a day! This means that, by the 18th-century, it is very likely that Matins and Lauds were sung after Compline, before going to bed! This situation may already have happened by Allegri's time: this info needs to be checked!

That, by the way, is why the first service of Tenebrae (the one for Maundy Thursday) would have occurred on the evening of Holy Wednesday. Likewise, the third service (the one for Holy Saturday) would have occurred on the evening of Good Friday. Hence the historical account of young Mozart going to the Sistine Chapel on Holy Wednesday and Good Friday (for the Tenebrae services of Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday).

I am very skeptical about the statement of the 3am start of the service (the Vatican isn't a monastery!!!), and, in any case, it would need the reference to credible historical source that addresses that specific detail! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierdeux (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Pierdeux is quite right. We know from letters from the period that the service started at 4pm with the Lamentations, with the Miserere (Allegri, Bai, or otherwise) being started around 6.30pm. -- AJRC, alastair@alastaircarey.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.58.118.131 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mozart to Burney
Citation for Burney getting his copy from Mozart? I don't believe there's any evidence for this. Burney himself says he obtained it in Bologna. He may have talked to Mozart about it when he met him later that year (1770), but why would Mozart just happen to be carrying around his transcription of the Allegri months after the event? -- AJRC, alastair@alastaircarey.com

Excommunication Urban Myth
I contacted Prof. Ben Bryam-Wigfeld of Open University inquiring about the so-called excommunication attacked to performing the Miserere outside the Sistine Chapel, and here's how he replied:

"Thank you for your interest: as a lawyer, you will of course know that a hypothesis of non-existence does not bear a burden of proof! The four edicts of Pope Urban are clearly documented, none of which mention the 'Miserere.'

"There is some material about the myth in this article: Richard Boursy: 'The Mystique of the Sistine Chapel Choir in the Romantic Era' The Journal of Musicology, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 277-329.

"Charles Burney in his 1771 account writes 'This composition used to be held so sacred, that it was imagined excommunication would be the consequence of an attempt to transcribe it.' So it was hyperbole even then. The first mention of excommunication as fact comes from the letters of the Mozart family, whose account is questionable and likely an attempt just to raise their own currency.

"Hope this helps

"Ben Byram-Wigfield Ancient Groove Music http://www.ancientgroove.co.uk" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.15.235 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The top C an early 20th-century addition?
I read this assertion in a newspaper article recently. Is that the case, or would/might it have been sung that way anyway despite the note not appearing in the written score? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Our German colleagues at de:Miserere (Allegri) opine that the top C was the result of a transcription mistake by Ivor Atkins in 1951, and that it doesn't exist in any score before that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * John Rutter has published an edition in European Sacred Music (OUP 1996, also a separate octave) that follows Atkins in the main, with the footnote explanation that the last words of verse 3, Munda me, "If preferred…may be sung a forth lower" with a cadence on D. This single passage had been notated a fourth higher by Mendelssohn and was later (mis)inserted into Burney's version by yet another editor, W.S. Rockstro. Sparafucil (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)