Choral Music Workshop 2014

@RStrauss

Given that I haven't heard anything particularly ineffective, the music and the text flow without too many hitches. However, I would like to discuss a few things:

First of all, I note that the tenors' attack on the F in the piano at measure 2 seems too tense to me.

At the level of notation, I noticed that in some places you indicate phrase slurs and in others you do not; initially, I thought you only omitted them in the presence of repeated notes (what are your thoughts on this) ...but then I noticed that in other parts of the piece (I mean in the presence of melodic movements) you don't include them... do you expect something different between where they are and where they aren't, if not... what is different?

Another aspect relates to the presentation of the text. An 'Ave' at measure 22, even if the musical intention is clear, I don't know if I can feel it; even though the title of the prayer is Ave Maria, I am not sure that 'Ave' is the central word of the prayer. It works for the beginning since the text starts from there, but after that, an 'Ave' at measure 22? This concept then, in my opinion, has reflections in the finale; after the Amens, 'Ave Maria' returns again.

Amen stands for 'so be it'; I bring up Messiaen's thought (who was also an expert in liturgy) in this regard to make what I say next more effective:

from Messiaen's Visions de l’Amen:

Ernest Hello: «Amen, word of Genesis, which is the apocalypse of the beginning. Amen, word of Apocalypse, which is the Genesis of consummation»

«Amen assumes four different meanings: Amen, let it be! The creative act. Amen, I submit, I accept. Thy will be done! Amen, the hope, the desire that it be, that You give to me and I to You! Amen, this is, decided forever, consummated in Paradise. Where we reach the life of creatures who say “amen” simply because they exist [...]»

In your piece, the first cycle of Amens says "So be it" to the content of the entire prayer; the second seems to me to refer only to Ave Maria.... where 'Ave' is just the greeting.
Perhaps in both cases (measure 22 and the finale), one could play only on the name of the Madonna or something more important than 'Ave', for example, Sancta.

It is more a theological problem than a musical one; after all, music is at the service of the sacredness of the text. How have you approached this issue? I was thinking of examples from the repertoire... but nothing serious comes to mind that has approached the text this way. Ideas?

Frank wrote:

@RStrauss

Given that I haven't heard anything particularly ineffective, the music and the text flow without too many hitches. However, I would like to discuss a few things:

First of all, I note that the tenors' attack on the F in the piano at measure 2 seems too tense to me.

At the level of notation, I noticed that in some places you indicate phrase slurs and in others you do not; initially, I thought you only omitted them in the presence of repeated notes (what are your thoughts on this) ...but then I noticed that in other parts of the piece (I mean in the presence of melodic movements) you don't include them... do you expect something different between where they are and where they aren't, if not... what is different?

Another aspect relates to the setting of the text. An 'Ave' at measure 22, even if the musical intention is clear, I don't know if I can feel it; even though the title of the prayer is Ave Maria, I am not sure that 'Ave' is the central word of the prayer. It works for the beginning since the text starts from there, but after measure 22, an 'Ave'? This concept then, in my opinion, has reflections in the finale: after the Amens, 'Ave Maria' returns.

Amen stands for 'so be it'; I quote Messiaen's thought (who was also an expert in liturgy) in this regard to make what I say next more effective:

from Messiaen's Visions de l’Amen:

Ernest Hello: «Amen, word of Genesis, which is the apocalypse of the beginning. Amen, word of the Apocalypse, which is the Genesis of consummation»

«Amen assumes four different meanings: Amen, let it be! The creative act. Amen, I submit, I accept. Thy will be done! Amen, the hope, the desire that it be, that You give to me and I to You! Amen, this is, decided forever, consummated in Paradise. Where we reach the life of creatures that say “amen” for the sole fact that they exist [...]»

In your piece, the first cycle of Amens says "so be it" to the content of the entire prayer; the second seems to me to refer only to Ave Maria.... where Ave is just the greeting.

Perhaps in both cases (measure 22 and the finale), one could play only on the name of the Madonna or something more important than Ave, for example Sancta.

It is more a theological problem than a musical one; after all, music is at the service of the sacredness of the text. How have you approached this issue? I was thinking of examples from the repertoire... but nothing serious comes to mind that has approached the text in this way. Ideas?

Yes, the tenors' F seems tense, but in reality it isn't, as B. and S. provide the necessary support for the attack.

I am a Tenor and I had no problems attacking it.

The slurs are only those of the choir's vocalizations based on the text.

This time I left freedom to the performer.

The choice of text is intended to be exactly what you said.

At 22, it might be a bit strained, but it was only to recall the beginning.

While at the end, I wanted to recall the Ave Maria and confirm with Amen to close the circle.

The concept is purely theological, you are right; in fact, the logic I had in my head was specifically of a religious nature.

Thank you for the analysis.

I will always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, I will provide the response in Italian.

[RunAI:lang=it]
Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

So, after a week's break, I went back to the score, trying to correct it according to the precious indications you gave me. The points I worked on are mainly the reduction of the distance between the voices, the meter, and the intelligibility of the sheet music. I should preface that there will still be many things to revise, but at least it's a start.
There are points I wanted to keep because I consider them characteristic and I didn't find valid alternatives; on many others, however, I have made compromises. The meter has been simplified, although it still maintains some difficulties: fundamentally, it alternates compound periods with simple periods. As for the writing, I must say that this final version has outdone itself (in a negative way) and many things made me suffer...
I'll get to the details.

Meter:
Ave Maria gratia plena: 6/8
Dominus Tecum: 4/4
Benedicta Tu in mulieribus: 3/4
Et benedictus fructus ventris Tui : 4/4
Jesus : 3/4
Ave Maria gratia plena (reprise): 7/8 + 6/8 (here I could have also put back just the 6/8, but I wanted to expand the sound a little)
Dominus Tecum (reprise): 4/4
Sancta Maria Mater Dei: 5/4
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus : 7/8 (which is a 6/8 + 1/8 rest)
Nunc et in hora: (5/4 + 1/8 rest)
Mortis nostrae amen: 4/4

I haven't indicated the metric modulations because the values are constant, but if it's wrong, I can correct it quickly.

As far as intervals are concerned, I wanted to maintain the distance between T and A on the first Dominus (of the reprise), because in my opinion, the second Dominus stands out better (this is one of the passages I prefer and I didn't want to distort it). For the initial Dominus, instead, on which I had used a lot of distance between the parts, I tried to find an alternative solution that maintained the same meaning I wanted to give it initially: essentially, I had T and B sing divisi and then have A and S enter in their high register. However, I don't know if this can be done. I pushed the A's in some points and the S's quite a bit in one point. If they really can't make it, I had thought of using a "solo," but here too I don't know if it can be done. For the rest, I tried to reduce the leaps (especially for the T) even if perhaps the lines have been somewhat distorted, but oh well...

The layout is truly a mess; every time I modify one point, everything else changes too, and slurs and dynamic markings overlap, I don't know...

Sooner or later maybe I'll do a new playback so I can hear how it goes...

Thanks again for the support.

PS: obviously there are still some syncopations

then I'll continue reading it, but since a little smile came to my face at the first line, let me tell you one thing right away: ... do you know the difference between 3/4 and 6/8? :-) I mean... am I the only one who, reading the first two lines of the piece, sees a large, intermittent fuchsia LED sign that says THIS IS A THREE-QUARTER TIME SIGNATURE?? :-)

thallo wrote:

then I keep reading it, but since a little smile came to my face at the first line, let me tell you one thing right away: ... do you know the difference between 3/4 and 6/8? :-) I mean... am I the only one who, reading the first two lines of the piece, sees a large, intermittent bright fuchsia LED sign that says THIS IS A THREE-QUARTER TIME SIGNATURE?? :-)

if I may say so, you are not the only one; I read the post yesterday and thought about the difference between the two meters and especially the accents, in fact it seems strange to me.

Bianca wrote:

So, after a week's break, I have taken up the score again, trying to correct it according to the precious indications you gave me. The points I worked on are mainly the reduction of the distance between the voices, the meter, and the legibility of the sheet music. I should preface that there will still be many things to revise, but at least it is a start.

There are points that I wanted to keep because I consider them characterizing and I did not find valid alternatives; on many others, however, I have made compromises. The meter has been simplified, although it still maintains some difficulties: fundamentally, it alternates compound periods with simple periods. As for the notation, I must say that this final version has outdone itself (in a negative way) and many things made me suffer...

I will get to the details.

Meter:

Ave Maria gratia plena: 6/8

For the moment, as Thallo has already anticipated, it is more correct to use a 3/4 here; the 6/8 presupposes a division into 2 beats of 3 eighth notes, so that whoever reads it would be forced to subtract the value of an eighth note from the dotted quarter note and restart from the theoretical quarter note and proceed.

In 3/4

You will find the Ave Maria phrase divided like this:

1st beat - quarter note = A

2nd beat - dotted quarter note = ve

3rd beat - eighth note = Ma

Just trying it mentally, it already seems much more adequate to you; try it.

In 6/8, this is the metric division (3+3):

1_2_3 / 4_5_6

A

1_2

ve

3_4_5

Ma

6

As you can see, you find yourself on the third eighth note when you have already started singing the syllable "ve"; you would then have to recalculate the beats starting from the fourth eighth note with 4_5 and then the beginning of the second word (name) "Ma".

An example comes to mind that might perhaps create a bit of confusion, but I'll try: it is as if on the "ve" you used a syllabic syncopation, because on the last eighth note of the 1st beat of 6/8 (the last eighth note, precisely), you start singing (or pronouncing) "ve", then it is as if you breathed for a fraction of a second and started again with the same syllable for 2/3 of the 2nd beat of 6/8, breaking it again to pronounce the "Ma" on the last eighth note.

@Bianca

The first two bars in 6/8 should be noted like this...but the feel is actually 3/4. There are still contexts where it can make sense...see polymeter...

PS

The first tie of duration in the second bar is a typo, but I don't feel like redoing it...it's understandable anyway (I hope)

It looks much better... but all the tempo indications are missing, Bianca, but wasn't that already suggested?

Aside from the initial 6/8, which is actually a 3/4, the impact is much better.

The doubt remains regarding the rest measures: the 2/8 measure in the first staff. What sense does it make? What does a metric change on an event—the rest—that has no meter mean? Have you ever seen anything similar elsewhere?

If you put a fermata on the "na" of "plena", you will get roughly the same result: the choir will breathe on its own due to the phrasing; there is no need to write rests.

At b. 10, the rest that breaks the word "Dominus" at T II is quite ugly to look at. You do not break the word.

And finally: G-flat is not F-sharp. The altered note at the end of p.3 is not a G-flat, it is an F-sharp. And this applies to the entire piece. I even see, on p. 5, a C-flat - C natural - C-flat - C natural, instead of B - C - B - C.

This is a matter of simple orthography, but as written, the piece is unusable. It could be a masterpiece, but to be sung, it must be "transcribed."

@Bianca

I noticed the effort you made to simplify as much as possible, but as others have pointed out, there are still areas for improvement:

- tempo indications

- some passages could become more singable if written with more thought for the melody than the harmony

- some meters are used improperly

Regarding musical notation, this might be useful to you

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/3311-lorenzo-ferrero-manuale-di-scrittura-musicale/

@Piccinesco

I am noting a few small things regarding the text:

- in many words, hyphens are missing when syllables are distributed over multiple notes

- in general, a minimum of “,” and “.” wouldn't hurt to better follow the text.

- measure 4 in the bass, there is a “dica” instead of a “tu”

The musical notation, however, seems clear to me, or at least orderly.

Musically, a certain harmonic richness is perceived at times; at other points, the homorhythm perhaps doesn't help. The final amen seems just thrown in there; aside from being very brief, it doesn't seem to have a conclusive feel to it.

I can't yet formulate an opinion on taste; it seems to me that it suffers a bit from connotation problems—sometimes Bach-like, sometimes not at all... and this inhibits me a little. How does it feel to you, are you satisfied?

Thank you for the reports, especially regarding the bass part at measure 4. The dashes—it might seem absurd, but I still have to learn how to position them correctly; I use MuseScore and it doesn't always align them with the notes when using this procedure, perhaps there is something that needs to be set before inputting them. I didn't specify much regarding the way I wrote it when I first published it, I'll say it now: I tried to do something over these past few days, but besides a few solutions that I like a little, overall I am not satisfied because I didn't really 'feel' it much while writing it; by 'feel' I mean true gut sensations. Furthermore, I truly just threw the amen in there because I was short on inspiration and concentration, the latter being very frequent (some already know "the story"). I wanted to review it yesterday, but at the time it seemed useless to kill myself over the ending, given that the whole piece was written without emphasis. Often when I start writing a piece, I try to contemplate what I have assimilated with a minimum of musicality, and my limit (which also depends on an immense lack of concentration and application, the latter not because I like it being this way) is always that of "complying" with harmonic and structural consequentiality, something that is often lacking in what I write. This is one of the reasons why I rarely participate in the workshops; if I were in a position to do so, I would always participate.

Regarding the amen, there would be (but not only on this) work to do, except in this case I think he/she must revise the last two bars; indeed, I imagined it was a bit too short, but

coming from a 6/8 arranged as in the penultimate bar, I didn't want to lengthen the ending too much anyway.

Piccinesco's version.

I agree with Abate regarding the Amen. It needed a bit more.

Text: there are many syllables with incorrect accentuation.
Meas. 3
if you want to lengthen the vowel, you must slur the two notes.

Meas. 4-5
The accent is on mu-li-é-ribus

Meas. 5
repeat the syllables "ri-bus".
It would have been better to anticipate the 'et', which having the "e" goes much better for the choir.

meas. 6
it is not benedictum but benedictus

meas. 9
The accent is on Ma-rì-a

meas. 11
same as 9

meas. 15
you cannot truncate the word "peccatoribus" as you have done.
it would have been better to repeat "ora pro nobis" instead.

meas. 17
the accent should be on in hò-ra

Musical/choral part
In terms of performance it works: I sang the parts and didn't find anything too difficult.
Vocal part
Regarding the king [part] in meas. 1-2, the sopranos never go above this limit, but rather always sing in their low register, which is not very good, as the voices below the S. do not have many dynamic possibilities.
On the other hand, you will have the C. in their best register covering the S., and to aggravate the situation, there will then be the T. in their best register and the B. in medium-high register.
The conductor will have to perform acrobatics to balance the voices, especially so as not to cover the S.

In general, I also find a character that is too "instrumental" here, which does not take into account the peculiarities and needs of the voice.
A prime example: from meas. 2 to 8 the T. practically always sings within a third in the medium-high register, which if it's fine for an instrument, for the voice it really doesn't work and "breaks"... a term to say that it gets fatigued, as the vocal cords vibrate at the same pitch or nearly so for a long time... 8 measures of 4/4 at metronome 50 is a lifetime.

A pity, because with the harmonic solutions you adopted, much more could have been done.

cromatismo wrote:

@Bianca

The first two bars in 6/8 should be notated like this... but the feel is actually 3/4. There are still contexts where it can make sense... see polymeter...

PS

The first tie of duration in the second bar is a typo, but I don't feel like redoing it... anyway, it can be understood regardless (I hope)

effectively I had written them like that, but then, reading a previous comment by Rstrauss (I think) where he said that singers "suffer" from ties of duration, I modified it.

Piccinesco wrote:

In 6/8 this is the metric subdivision (3+3)

1_2_3 / 4_5_6

A

1_2

ve

3_4_5

Ma

6

As you can see, you find yourself on the third eighth note when you have already started singing the syllable "ve"; you should then recalculate the beats starting from the fourth eighth note with 4_5 and then the beginning of the second word (name) "Ma".

An example comes to mind that might perhaps create a bit of confusion, but I'll try: it is as if on the "ve" you used a syllabic syncopation, because on the last eighth note of the 1st beat of 6/8 (the last eighth note, precisely), you start singing (or pronouncing) "ve", then it is as if you breathed for a fraction of a second and started again with the same syllable for 2/3 of the 2nd beat of 6/8, breaking it again to pronounce the "Ma" on the last eighth note.

in fact it is exactly how I imagine it. RedScharlach had already suggested 3/4. It's not that it can't be done, but for me 3/4 has a different sense. I don't want it to become a "Valzer-Maria", in short...

cromatismo wrote:

It looks much better... but all the tempo indications are missing, Bianca, but wasn't that already suggested?

I don't know what to say, at the end there is the indication (among other things I had already posted an image a few days ago), but when I make the pdf it doesn't print it for me

Frank wrote:

@Bianca

I noticed the effort you made to simplify as much as possible, but as others have pointed out, there are still areas for improvement:

- tempo indications

- some passages could become more singable if written thinking more about the melody than the harmony

- some meters are used improperly

Regarding musical notation, this might be useful to you

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/3311-lorenzo-ferrero-manuale-di-scrittura-musicale/

Can you point out the passages (are you referring to the benedictus?)

What do you mean by meters?

Thanks for the text, I'll look for it myself.

RedScharlach wrote:

Aside from the initial 6/8, which is actually a 3/4, the impact is much better.

The doubt remains regarding the rest measures: the 2/8 measure in the first staff. What sense does it make? What does a metric change mean on an event—the rest—that has no meter? Have you ever seen anything similar elsewhere?

If you put a fermata on the "na" of "plena", you will get roughly the same result: the choir will breathe on its own due to the phrasing; there is no need to write rests.

At b. 10, the rest that breaks the word "Dominus" for the T II is quite ugly to see. You do not break the word.

And finally: G-flat is not F-sharp. The altered note at the end of p.3 is not a G-flat, it is an F-sharp. And this applies to the entire piece. I even see, on p. 5, a C-flat - C natural - C-flat - C natural, instead of B - C - B - C.

This is a matter of simple notation, but as written, the piece is unusable. It could be a masterpiece, but to be sung it must be "transcribed".

Thank you.

Regarding the 2/8, to tell the truth, the idea of the fermata had occurred to me, but in the end I would have had to scatter fermatas throughout the entire score. As I said, for example, the 7/8 are 6/8 plus a rest, and I don't know how to represent this in any other way, also because the fermata is quite vague...

Regarding the interrupted word, I know it is a problem, not just visually, but also musically. I don't yet know quite how to remedy it.

Regarding # and b, I know, it's a big problem: here too I haven't yet understood how to say at the end not to do these things. I often use the function that re-transcribes, but it regularly changes all my # and b.

Anyway, thank you for the indications.