Choral Music Workshop 2014

rstrauss wrote:

Piccinesco's version.

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

Text: there are many syllables off-accent.

Meas. 3
if you want to lengthen the vowel, you must slur the two notes.

Do you mean on the "te", so I should write 2 sixteenth notes slurred instead of one quarter note?

Meas. 4-5

The accent is on mu-li-é-ribus

Uhm, the 'e' falls on the "weak accent" of the first beat, ok, this passage needs to be revised.

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.

Ok.

meas. 6

it is not benedictum but benedictus

It's proof of how much concentration is with me.

meas. 9

The accent is on Ma-rì-a

So, I should somehow lengthen the "Sanc" - "ta", and after the "Ma" arrive on the first beat of the next measure with the "ri",

this point also needs to be redone.

meas. 11

like the 9

Ok.

meas. 15

you cannot truncate the word "peccatoribus" as you have done.

rather, it would have been better to repeat "ora pro nobis".

Ok.

meas. 17

the accent should be on in hò-ra

Yes, perhaps you are talking about the 18th measure? In Strauss I deliberately postponed the syllables ho - ra

similarly to what I did in the 17th with "nunc"; anyway ok, I will review this passage as well.

Musical/choral part
In terms of execution it works: I sang the parts and didn't find anything too difficult.

Vocal part
Aside from the issue in meas. 1-2, the sopranos never go above this limit, but rather always sing in their low register, which is not very good, since below them the S. do not have many dynamic possibilities.

Consider that the first version was in A minor and the parts were written even lower; I therefore raised everything by a 4th.

I thought it was appropriate not to make the voices strain too much in their high register, but even imagining the low register, as you say, problems could arise, thinking about it

it gives me a sense of lack of release, remaining caged in a range like this.

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 mid-high register.

The conductor will have to perform acrobatics to balance the voices, especially so as not to cover the S.

In general terms, I also find a character that is too "instrumental" here, which does not take into account the peculiarities and needs of the voice.

I had a doubt regarding what you are saying; I imagined a choir with parts that do not stand out from one another, but are all a bit "calm", but if you say that the problem is the "distinction" between the voices, in such a way that

they do not cover each other and at the same time stand out, do you think it would be appropriate to insert some voice crossing?

I never venture from this point of view, especially so as not to repeat notes already present in other voices; however, I could exchange a passage between different voices to make them more varied and not too linear.

One example above all: from meas. 2 to 8 the T. practically always sings within a third in the mid-high register, which if it's good for an instrument, for the voice it really doesn't work and it "breaks"... a term to say that it fatigues, 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.

Ok, clear.

It's a pity, because with the harmonic solutions you adopted, much more could have been done.

Let's see if I can improve it; just yesterday it occurred to me to modify 2 measures of the "ora pro nobis" to vary this rhythm that is a bit too regular.

"}{

@Piccinesco.

You mean on the "you", so should I write 2 sixteenth notes tied together instead of one quarter note?

You can also write a quarter note, which is better visually.

In general, voices get tired singing high, but they also get tired singing low with an aggravating factor:

if you make a T. or an S. sing low for long periods, they will then have difficulty immediately hitting the high notes, so you should provide a transition episode to bring the voice "up."

For Tenors, going high is almost better than going low, because besides the normal register, the so-called "chest" (Thallo, give me the term), they also have the "falsettino," which is a kind of head voice that allows them to sing softly high up. Of course, roundness of timbre is lost, but the 'p' effect is guaranteed.

But in reality, the worst thing is that high voices (T. and S.) when they reach their maximum physical volume, if asked for more, tend to "push" from the throat to increase the volume, which actually isn't there. The effect of this pushing is that the voice loses harmonics and drops in pitch, something that happens with instruments as well. A Fl. in a low register will never make it against a Cl. in a middle register.

So if you really want to write the parts like in your Ave Maria, you absolutely must diversify the dynamics to avoid the above, indicating, in this case, 'pp' for B. and T. and at least 'p' for C.

Thanks for the tips on dynamics, but I would like a clarification regarding the issue of the held vowel: on the "te" for example you were telling me that I should have two tied sixteenth notes (te-e), but in this last message you specify that it is also possible to use a quarter note (which is aesthetically better); what is not clear to me is where it is necessary to use the slur or not (if the quarter note in this case is still fine, I'm not bringing up the tie between two notes across a barline, which also risks harmonic syncopation if one is not careful in any case, am I right?)?

At a choral level, visual impact usually helps, but it's not a rule and I wouldn't know how to tell you when to use 2 beamed eighth notes or a quarter note.

So a quarter note will create less confusion than 2 beamed eighth notes.

Thanks Rstrauss, but I specifically meant the reason for this clarification:

Text: there are many syllables without accent.
Bar. 3
if you want to lengthen the vowel, you must slur the two notes.

that is why I made the example of "te"

Compliments on the great job that, as usual, you have done

I like Bianca's version with the wordbuilder: from a technical point of view, I don't find it excessively difficult or even unplayable; I have heard much bolder things performed by even amateur choirs.

What I don't like is that sometimes there are measures with compound meters placed there just to let the choir breathe, in which case it would be better to "square off" the measure and take a different breath; for example, there are bars in 11/8 that would have been better done in 12/8 to allow for a slightly longer breath, also because sometimes one gets the impression that certain phrases need to "vent" a bit more. Furthermore, it would also be easier for the performers to count 12 rather than 11, so if you can make life easier for those performing, it's better.

As far as the WB is concerned, I imagine the piece was written with Finale or Sibelius and exported to Cubase where the WB is used as an insert: the observation I feel compelled to make is that one could slightly reduce the duration of syllables ending in a consonant (especially with 's'), so as to make these consonants more audible, which are perceived when the key is released, and therefore need a few milliseconds to be pronounced. The overall result with the WB is not bad; you can't get much more than that, even regarding dynamics, which are often uncontrollable and go wherever the software decides despite all precautions; in fact, I no longer harbor hopes of getting something 100% realistic out of this technology, but anyway, it's always better than simple vocalizing.

geppino12575 wrote:

I have heard much bolder things performed by even amateur choirs.

Do you happen to have any references? I would like to read some complex scores that have actually been performed (and well).

Maybe I am taking it for granted, I mean a cappella pieces only...

geppino12575 wrote:

I like Bianca's version with the wordbuilder: from a technical point of view, I don't find it excessively difficult or even unplayable; I have heard much bolder things performed by even amateur choirs.

What I don't like is that sometimes there are measures with compound time signatures placed there just to let the choir breathe, in which case it would be better to "square off" the measure and take a different breath; for example, there are bars in 11/8 that would have been better done in 12/8 to allow for a slightly longer breath, also because sometimes one gets the impression that certain phrases need to "vent" a bit more. Furthermore, it would also be easier for the performers to count 12 rather than 11, so if you can make life easier for those performing, it's better.

As far as the WB is concerned, I imagine the piece was written with Finale or Sibelius and exported to Cubase where the WB is used as an insert: the observation I feel compelled to make is that the duration of syllables ending in a consonant (especially with 's') could have been reduced slightly, so as to make these consonants more audible, which are perceived when the key is released, and therefore need a few milliseconds to be pronounced. The overall result with the WB is not bad; you can't get much more than that, even regarding dynamics, which are often uncontrollable and go wherever the software decides despite all precautions; in fact, I no longer harbor hopes of getting something 100% realistic out of this technology, though it's still better than simple vocalizing.

Thank you Geppino for the appreciation.

I agree with everything you say, especially regarding the fact of "lengthening" the pauses. Anyway, I worked on simplification also because it helped me better realize the vocal possibilities. As far as the WB is concerned, I did as you say, although I had problems not only with the dynamics of consonants, but also with some vowels that in certain points seemed to "squirt" at their own whim. In fact, I had to work quite a bit in "post-production" with Audacity. Anyway, they still have to do a lot of...