Choral Music Workshop 2012

AbateFaria's processing doesn't displease me, I reserve the right to analyze it better....

I wanted to point out a couple of things regarding AbateFaria's piece: there are a couple of syllabification errors in addition to those found by r.strauss:

1) the word "natura" is placed such that the accent falls on na- instead of tu-

2) on the word Gabrielis, the ligature between the eighth notes across the bar lines is not appropriate because two different syllables are sung, or alternatively, to preserve the succession of half notes (which I believe was the author's intention), the syllabification needs to be changed.

Then a couple of things regarding the chosen themes: the end of the first theme is too homorhythmic; all those half notes are not of great interest, it should be syncopated almost until the end.

The second theme, based on the whole-tone scale, is a bit cliché and impersonal; in this one too, in my opinion, resides that feeling of "scholasticism" that someone sensed. The themes are not very well characterized; they are simply fragments of scales. In my opinion, they needed more dignity and autonomy, by inserting something that would serve to evade the literal reference to the scale. Already in the theme based on the ascending chromatic scale with eighth notes, something similar occurs: the author feels the need, precisely so as not to reproduce the chromatic scale exactly, to invert some intervals: perhaps this micro-variation procedure could have been applied to the other themes as well.

All in all, the idea is not bad and a choir would enjoy singing it, but I believe one could have gone much further, one could have dared more, especially in the choice of thematic material. Harmonically it is well managed and, thanks to good use of pauses, two-voice moments are often created that are more relaxing to the ear, sometimes I think even unintentionally... which is not a bad thing; when things begin to come together, even if we don't pay much attention to it, it is a sign of improvement, like a chess player who knows that by placing the bishop or the knight in a certain square they can benefit from it, even if not immediately.....

Let's move forward

Comment on Piece 5 by OscarP

Here we go again with the score writing:

- dynamics are completely missing

- slurs for the choir are missing

- a time signature is missing unless you want to do it like Bach.

let's move on to the choral part

You need a tough choir to perform this piece. There aren't unperformable things, but the choristers will have to sweat bullets to get through it.

The registers are exploited throughout their entire range and while this is positive on one hand, on the other it poses problems regarding vocal energy economy, in the sense

that halfway through the piece, the choir will already be a bit tired. I therefore recommend at least 30/35 choristers for anyone wishing to attempt it.

In particular, at bar 30, for the S., the phrase starting from the A on the vowel 'i' will prove very uncomfortable and dangerous.

Lyrics

there aren't exactly any major errors, but often the syllables are placed a little poorly:

bar 11 C. the syllable 're' is extended even over two repeated sixteenth notes, impossible to sing. It would have been better to slur.

bar 13 S. the syllable 'cu' would have been better moved to the previous note and slurred.

bar 15 B. if you wanted a vocalization, the note should have been tied in 2/4. As written, it is ugly and difficult, especially in the high register of the basses.

bar 22 B. the accent of the word 'ge-ni-tò-rem' is wrong. It should have fallen on the first note of bar 23.

bar 26 C. T. and B. the accent would be 'po-sté-ri-us', which falls on a weak beat.

music

only one comment regarding choral character

bar 21, since the T. are so high, it would have been better to leave the B. an octave higher, so as to allow them to sing in descending stepwise motion and still maintain the theme already presented by the C.

In practice, the piece is composed of two fugue expositions:

bar 1 - 16 and 17-32 with a mini stretto at the end based on the first theme.

Whether one likes it or not, it's not quite there. The two themes are merely exposed without even a minimum of development; they seem just placed there and then abandoned.

The fact that there is countersubject and secondary parts that start immediately in the second [exposition] does not save you from the feeling that this piece is an unfinished work or simply written in a hurry.

To a trained ear, the 4 instances of theme 1 and the other 4 of theme 2, and then theme 1 again, do not go unnoticed—always the same without any variation or development.

Even the diversity of the two themes does not save the piece: they could have easily worked together, but without a response or development, they seem glued together with glue.

Theme 1, if used properly, could have been truly beautiful, and perhaps with theme 2 in double canon, it would have been really interesting.

A pity, a missed opportunity.

and the icing on the cake

Comment on Geppino's piece 5

finally a well-written score where everything can be understood with clarity, and whoever has to conduct knows where to start.

What can I say?

as always Geppino does not disappoint and presents us with an excellent piece written in the 'old manner' with soloists intoning the main parts of the text

and the choir entered to fill it out. A form very dear to composers of the '50s, followers of Perosi, Refice, Pigani, etc.

The choir sings well, there are no abstruse things and perhaps it is even easier than OscarP's for a final performance.

Even here, a choir of 30/35 people is needed, especially for the split parts and to guarantee the sonorities desired by the author.

The movement of fifths in the basses is very effective, later reiterated by B. and T., as well as the octave doublings (as is done in an orchestra) in bars 31-36.

There is only one small thing I would like to say, but it is a personal opinion:

the final C# major chord with the 2nd degree, I would have placed it with the 6th degree, which I consider more definitive. The 2nd leaves me a bit too much in suspense.

Compliments Geppino.

I thank r.strauss for his careful analysis and for the compliments; I know it has nothing to do with it, but it is not an easy period for me both on a family and personal level, every now and then someone giving you a pat on the shoulder, even if virtual, is needed, thank you....

geppino12575 wrote:

I thank r.strauss for his careful analysis and for the compliments; I know it has nothing to do with it, but it is not an easy period for me both on a family and personal level, every now and then someone giving you a pat on the shoulder, even if virtual, is needed, thank you....

Don't mention it ... when there is good work to be recognized, I never hold back.

As they say ... when it's meant to be ... it's meant to be.

geppino12575 wrote:

I thank r.strauss for his careful analysis

Indeed R.Strauss is relentless! When he sees/hears a piece for choir, it's as if he saw all 18 female singers

Jokes aside

geppino12575 wrote:

it is an easy period for me both on a family and personal level, every now and then someone giving you a pat on the shoulder, even if virtual, is needed, thank you....

I see I am not the only one ... it's a bad period. When I read your message last night I said to myself: "if he wrote it, I want to try too" ... I dusted off the sketch. I don't know if I will ever finish it, but at least I have picked it up again ...

In reality, I only quickly looked at the LAB works; for the technical notes, I endorse the reports already made. I find RStrauss much more in shape compared to last year's choir piece, excellent and abundant. I also appreciated the pleasantness of his piece.

In Geppino's, I see greater control in the second part, you are aware of this, but that doesn't change the fact that even the first part has its points of interest.

By chance Ale did not participate, otherwise she would have deserved a medal for her constant presence ... Raffaele, what happened to him?

I am happy that Oscar has joined, and that Faria and Chitarrista have seen each other again.

I'm a bit messed up. Tomorrow I go on vacation and who knows if I'll have the time and the will to do something. Here we've been traveling at an average of 38 degrees for about a month and in a while with the air conditioning broken. I don't know if I'm making myself clear...

geppino12575 wrote:

I wanted to point out a couple of things regarding AbateFaria's piece: there are a couple of syllabification errors in addition to those found by r.strauss:

1) the word "natura" is placed such that the accent falls on na- instead of tu-

2) on the word Gabrielis, the slur between the eighth notes across the bar lines should not be there because two different syllables are sung, or alternatively, to preserve the succession of half notes (which I believe was the author's intention), the syllabification needs to be changed.

Then a couple of things on the chosen themes: the end of the first theme is too homorhythmic; all those half notes are not of great interest, it should be syncopated almost until the very end.

The second theme, based on the whole-tone scale, is a bit cliché and impersonal; in this one too, in my opinion, resides that feeling of "scholasticism" that someone sensed. The themes are not very well characterized; they are simply fragments of scales. In my opinion, they needed more dignity and autonomy, by inserting something that would serve to evade the literal reference to the scale. Already in the theme based on the ascending chromatic scale with eighth notes, something similar happens: the author feels the need, precisely so as not to reproduce the chromatic scale exactly, to invert some intervals: perhaps this micro-variation procedure could have been applied to the other themes as well.

All in all, the idea is not bad and a choir would enjoy singing it, but I believe one could have gone much further; one could have dared more, especially in the choice of thematic material.

Thanks also to you Geppino, I see that nothing escapes you

geppino12575 wrote:

Harmonically it is well managed and, thanks to a good use of pauses, two-voice moments are often created that are more relaxing for the ear, sometimes I think even unintentionally... which is not a bad thing; when things begin to come together, even if we don't pay much attention to it, it is a sign of improvement, like a chess player who knows that by placing the bishop or the knight in a certain square they can benefit from it, even if not immediately.....

Let's just say it was part of the suggestions I received last year. So the workshops are "bearing fruit"... let's hope for the best next time.

I would like to share this thing, I have listened to all of them and I must say that in some I really struggle a lot. I am speaking specifically at the listening level; surely they are all written properly and anyway I have read the beautiful critical messages.

Now I say, but is it my problem? That of Abate, which many have appreciated, I simply cannot manage to listen to, especially the "exatonal" part... in many points RStrauss and the first part of OscarP come through.

Basically, the one that seems technically most deficient (Chitarrista) in the end I manage to follow better... is it a problem of listening training? That is, would you listen 2 or 3 times in a row, for example, to Faria's piece (setting aside technicalities, I am talking specifically about the stimuli and the desire to follow and re-listen)? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against him (managing to write an entire piece with 2 elements), it is just to understand if I am effectively that distant from the genre.

Honestly, I also struggle with Geppino's; it happened to me even in his second version of Tristis... and yet I appreciate very much what he writes, I tend to enjoy it as a listener, apart from the fact that it is obvious he is a professional and doesn't have to answer to me.

Forgive me, I hope not to be rude.

Hi Zaccaria, the questions you are asking yourself are not wrong, but you must consider that all modern art has tendentially abandoned the principle of "beautiful art" to explore deeper grounds (or perhaps only apparently deeper, who knows....)

It is obvious that to be appreciated it requires an initial effort that is also quite substantial, and it is easier if one studies and therefore becomes passionate about the technical and formal aspect of a piece as well, and not just the pleasant listening that even a pop song could give you, just to take it to an extreme

Not to mention that there are also professionals who continue not to appreciate atonality, so it is not an obligation

I don't know, eventually I can suggest some pieces that might bring you closer to this world without being excessively taxing, but you should give us an idea of what you listen to, how much you know of the classics, romantics, etc.

ps

keep in mind that in the workshops there are MIDI performances, and especially in atonal music this is a disadvantage.

Zaccaria wrote:

Now I say, but is it just my problem? That piece by Abate which many have appreciated, I simply cannot bring myself to listen to, especially the "exatonal" part..

What can I tell you, I like it... otherwise I would have written something else.

I understand what you mean; in my opinion, you need a listening path oriented towards going beyond tonality... atonality doesn't just mean dissonance, it just means not following tonal relationships which, to oversimplify, are II V

AleGozzo wrote:

ps

take into account that in the workshops there are MIDI performances, and especially in the atonal one, this is a disadvantage.

I quote

in my opinion, we musicians must separate the evaluation given by personal taste from technical evaluation, because we lack the means.

I do not enjoy atonality very much (AbateFaria already knew this), but despite this, I try to be as objective as possible in my technical judgment.

I am sorry to have to say it, but a musician who simply says "I like it" or "I don't like it," in my opinion, does not have the means to judge the piece on a technical musical level and therefore

only personal taste remains, which in itself is not up for debate.

It's true R. Strauss, but I also find comments on taste useful... you know, a piece can be technically perfect and communicate nothing. Obviously that's not my case, but I appreciate it if someone tells me they like the piece (and that's it).

IlChitarrista55 wrote:

I post a few comments; it is evident that I do not have the ability to make criticisms or give suggestions, but I can give opinions of taste.

AbateFaria: I listen to tostarello, it might be well written... but I struggle

OscarP: I like it, even though I didn't understand a damn thing, it has its charm

RStrauss: very suave and light

I find a beautiful atmosphere in Geppino's

First of all, I thank Rstrauss for his attention; honestly, I both agree and disagree with his opinion, not so much because he is not free to make the notes he deems necessary, but because in some points it is conflicting, and I am referring to the final summary part.

Regarding the specific reports, I will try to respond; in fact, I apologize if I kept you waiting, but I was away.

rstrauss wrote:

Here we go again with the score writing:

- dynamics are completely missing

- slurs for the choir are missing

- a time signature is missing unless you want to do as Bach did.

That could be an idea. I like leaving freedom to the performer. Could an alternative have been a melody and a notation?

rstrauss wrote:

You need a tough choir to perform this piece. There are no unperformable things, but the choristers will have to sweat bullets to get to the end.

The registers are exploited in their full range, and while this is positive on one hand, on the other it poses problems regarding vocal energy economy, in the sense

that halfway through the piece, the choir will already be a bit tired. I therefore recommend at least 30/35 choristers to anyone wishing to attempt it.

In particular, at m. 30 for the S., the phrase starting from 'la' on the vowel 'i' will prove very uncomfortable and dangerous.

To me, it seems that modern choirs perform amazing things, and I think they would hardly get tired with my little piece of a few seconds and with intervals and rhythmic figurations within human limits.

rstrauss wrote:

There aren't exactly any major errors, but often the syllables are placed a bit poorly:

m. 11 C. the syllable 're' is extended even over two repeated eighth notes, impossible to sing. It would have been better to slur.

m. 15 B. if you wanted a vocalization, the note should have been 2/4 tied. As written, it is ugly and difficult, especially in the high register of the basses.

m. 22 B. the accent of the word 'ge-ni-tò-rem' is wrong. It should have fallen on the first note of m. 23.

m. 26 C. T. and B. The accent should be 'po-sté-ri-us', which falls on a weak beat.

A 11 is an oversight; obviously those two 're's are a quarter note 're'.

A 15, likewise... cursed editing program. That pause doesn't exist!

A 22, if you are referring to the bass, isn't syncopation the displacement of the strong accent onto the weak one?

A 26 likewise: the tenor syncopates, the bass vocalizes on "e", the soprano is silent on the downbeat, the contralto is in a closing phrase and will surely have a diminuendo... they won't shout 'rius' before a pause and on a repeated note. Everything will highlight the tenor's syncopation, which I find manageable and allows me to not alter formal constraints.

rstrauss wrote:

In practice, the piece is composed of two fugal expositions:

m. 1 - 16 and 17-32 with a mini stretto at the end based on the first theme.

Whether one likes it or not, it's not working. The two themes are merely exposed without even a minimum of development; they seem placed there and then abandoned.

To me it seems that:

- the second section is in quadruple counterpoint, which is a development

- the first section, which can be attributed to an expository fugue, has never seen developments at its origins... and I based myself on that; even more so since it is also inverted in the finale.

rstrauss wrote:

The fact that countersubject and accessory parts start immediately in the second section doesn't save you from the feeling that this piece is an
unfinished work or simply written in a hurry.

To a trained ear, the 4 instances of theme 1 and the other 4 of theme 2, and then theme 1 again, do not go unnoticed—always the same without any variation or development.

No, excuse me, are we throwing away the octave canon because the theme appears 4 times without development? No, excuse me, but what is a canon if not that?

rstrauss wrote:

Even the diversity of the two themes doesn't save the piece: they could have easily stayed together, but without a response or development, they seem glued together with glue.

A response? Is it a fugue or a romance?

rstrauss wrote:

If theme 1 had been used properly, it could have been quite beautiful, and perhaps with theme 2 in double canon, it would have been very interesting.

Two double canons is another formal scheme; my theme could have become anything else (scalability of material)... but it is an expository fugue.

I don't know if you know Pachelbell; try to glance at his expository fugues... you will see that what you are pointing out isn't there.

In conclusion, I reiterate that this is my first experience with a choir, but I researched extensively before attempting it... surely I haven't proposed things that are out of this world.

Then again, there is always something to refine... but the piece doesn't seem completely throwaway to me.

OscarP wrote:

It could be an idea. I like leaving freedom to the performer. An alternative could be a melody and a signature?

you risk that the performer goes beyond what you intended, but if you accept the risk, it's fine.

OscarP wrote:

It seems to me that modern choirs perform amazing things and I think they would hardly get tired with my little snippet of a few seconds and with intervals and rhythmic figurations within human limits.

I am talking about an amateur choir. It is clear that with professionals, the matter is different.

OscarP wrote:

- the second section be in quadruple counterpoint, which is a development

I don't really see counterpoint as a development... it is simply counterpoint; development is something else.

OscarP wrote:

- the first section, which is attributable to an exposition fugue, never saw developments in its origins... and I referred back to that; all the more so because it is also inverted in the finale

very well, but then if it was meant to be only exposition, then it should have stopped at bar 17 and closed.

OscarP wrote:

No excuse me, do we throw away the canon at the octave because the theme presents itself 4 times without development? No, excuse me, but what is a canon?

A response? But is it a fugue or a romance?

in any case, it is a monothematic piece; certainly with counterpoint and by adding a voice in canon you enrich the piece, but it remains a piece with a

single musical idea, something that I consider too little.

It doesn't matter what kind of piece it is, but the form you chose, in my opinion, needed a bit more breathing room, a small connecting episode, etc.

OscarP wrote:

Two double canons is another formal scheme; my theme could have become anything else (scalability of material)... but it is an exposition fugue.

I don't know if you know Pachelbel, try to glance at his exposition fugues... you will see that what you are pointing out isn't there.

Neither have I studied any when I was young, and I confirm that this type of piece does not satisfy me.

OscarP wrote:

In conclusion, I reiterate that this is my first experience with a choir, but I researched a lot before venturing myself... surely I haven't proposed things out of this world.

Then there is always something to polish... but the piece doesn't seem like it's really throwaway to me

It's not throwaway, you simply used a somewhat particular form, which in reality isn't perceived because the second section reshuffles the cards, something that at a choral level doesn't work very well, especially due to the lack of references that a choir normally needs: the return of a theme,

a moment of tranquility, a distinct contrasting theme, a connecting episode that makes them understand that something is changing, etc.

anyway, if this is your starting point, it's not bad.

I would like to say a few words to OscarP.

It seems to me that they have given you some excellent suggestions, although I don't blame good RStrauss. In the sense that...

Okay Pachelbel, but exposition fugues are not made of exposition alone... in the sense that they have an expository type of development. The entries started from the middle register and progressively moved away until reaching the extreme registers, interleaving the expositions of the subject (not just at the octave) with small episodes, small circles of fifths, but even if in an embryonic way, they were a reality.

Quadruple counterpoint is a technique for creating material that must be used in the composition... something that in your case does not happen.

I consider your piece an A B CODA (on A); the initial theme is nice and the harmonic material is rich... indeed, with some good developments, it can become an excellent piece.

As for RStrauss:

"I studied a few when I was young and I confirm that this type of piece does not satisfy me."

This seems to me a matter of taste.

I really like Geppino's comment on Faria's piece, I would just like to point out that ...

> The second theme, based on the whole-tone scale,

> is a bit cliché and impersonal; in this too, in my opinion, lies that

> sensation of "scholasticism" that someone sensed.

... on the same material Bach wrote a cantata and Berg [wrote] 25% of a concerto

The problem, in my opinion, is precisely in the conduction; surely that element alone is too little... in fact, for the two composers I mentioned, the mere fragment of a scale was not enough

I have finished drafting the choral music. I still have to refine it and then I will deliver it... Better late than never