8

I have a question about a particular chord in “Regard du Pere,” the first piece in the Vingt Regards Sur L'Enfant Jesus by Messiaen. I am using the 1947 Editions Durand and don’t know of any other source.

First some context. This piece is written using Messiaen’s second mode of limited transposition. If we label pitches C, C ♯, D, D ♯, … B as {0,1,2,3,…11} then the three transpositions consist of the pitch sets {0,1,3,4,6,7,9,10}, {1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11} and {2,3,5,6,8,9,11,0}. An analysis of the chords in the piece shows that with one exception they consist of pitches taken purely from one of these three pitch sets. For example, the opening chord is an F♯ major chord , {1,6,10}, and is taken from the first pitch set.

However, the next-to-last chord in the Durand edition consists of the pitches {0,1,3,5,9} and does not fit into any of the three pitch sets that are the three transpositions of this mode. Given that all of the other chords do, it is natural to wonder whether the Durand edition has an error or not. And, if it is not an error, why did Messiaen break his rule for constructing chords for this one chord? If it is an error my guess is that the chord should be constructed from the pitches {0,1,3,4,9} which fits into the first pitch set and has quite a nice sound to it, but hey, who am I to propose changes to Messiaen’s profound music?

p.s. Doe anyone know if there is some way to view the original score?

Improve this question
4
  • It doesn't seem to be an error; it's clearly played as D#-E#-A-B#-C#-D# in several recordings.
    – Your Uncle Bob
    Sep 14, 2019 at 23:14
  • Thanks for checking. I agree with you. Of course it is possible that they are all performing from the same score and the score has an error compared to the original, but this also seems unlikely since I think there are performers of this piece that consulted with either Messiaen himself or with Yvonne Loriod.
    – jah
    Sep 15, 2019 at 13:30
  • 2
    I'm surprised I haven't been able to find any mention of this out-of-place chord anywhere. I checked a few books and papers, but even the 500-page doctoral thesis about Vingt Regards by Francisco Javier Costa Ciscar from 2004 doesn't seem to mention it. The answer might be that, as Messiaen wasn't dogmatic about his modal and serial techniques, something related to synesthetic colours or resonant chords or a reference to Debussy made him decide to break the rule; maybe the later chapters of Technique de mon Langage Musical contain a clue, but I'm not sure you'll find a definitive answer.
    – Your Uncle Bob
    Sep 15, 2019 at 14:25
  • I also checked several sources and Ph.D theses on Messiaen without finding any mention of this oddball chord either. I'll bug my piano teacher and see if she can suggest someone to ask about it. It may indeed remain a mystery.
    – jah
    Sep 15, 2019 at 15:10

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
2

Some evidence that Messiaen intended exactly this chord comes with the return of the theme -- in full -- in mvt. 5 and near the end of the finale. The same chord (set of pitch-classes) is there on p.24, second system, bottom stave; and p.175, top system, last chord. [Page number references are to Durand's edition.]

Improve this answer
1

This is probably not the answer you want, but Messiaen used to do everything by hand, which include all operations of rhythm and pitch he used in his pieces.

It's not a surprise that if you do everything by hand, you might commit errors. One well known error can be found on the Quartet's "Liturgie de Cristal", where the piano is supposed to do a rhythmic pedal consisting of a 17 note-rhythmic pattern over a 29 chords sequence, but he skips a chord by mistake on bar 24 (the third chord should be {F, Ab, Bb, Db, Eb, A, D}).

I'm not familiar with this piece in particular, but this case might be the same. Maybe he wanted F#.

Improve this answer
0

I don't think there's any reason to believe Messiaen didn't make exceptions to his own "rules". The penultimate chord has an E# that leads to the tonic F#, so that makes a lot of musical sense. It also makes sense with Messiaen that something weird might happen at the very end, a "transfiguration" eliciting the "charm of the impossible". :)

Improve this answer
-1

I've no idea what edition the attached video is from (though it looks like French music engraving) but the next to last chord is a plain dominant 7th, like many earlier chords in the piece, so it doesn't seem to match your theoretical description that it doesn't fit how the piece was constructed according to your theory.

If you forget about pitch sets and just listen, the piece makes sense as common practice harmony. A final cadence of D7 F#6 doesn't need much "explaining" - D7 E7 F# is almost a 20th century cliché.

The chord is at about 4:57 in this video:

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    I don't think this really addresses the question. There is plenty of evidence, including his own writings, that Messiaen used modes of limited transposition. The fact that a particular chord sequence may have a more conventional interpretation doesn't change the fact that there is exactly one chord in this piece whose notes do not fit into one of the transpositions of his second mode of limited transposition.
    – jah
    Sep 14, 2019 at 15:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.