Choral Music Workshop 2014

antares86 wrote:

@Bianca I must say that I just heard your chorale now.... beautiful!!!!!!! you might not be satisfied but I like it

Thank you!

I would ask Bianca to make an effort: indicate dynamics (possibly phrasing) in the score, relationships between tempo markings, and at least the initial tempo of the piece.

Damn, you guys are always on top of things, eh?! .... but how the hell do you do it, do you sleep?

@Bianca

I hope my following note is taken constructively, in the sense that it is always difficult to give useful suggestions without risks... in short, it would be much more convenient for me to say "pleasant" ... and that's it.

That being said, I don't know how consciously, but I fear you have underestimated the tonic accents

If you look at the topic indicated by Frank at the top

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1978-accenti-tonici-e-sillabazione-ave-maria-in-latino/

you will realize that for example Maria has the accent on the first syllable... you propose Maria as if it were written Marià. In a style where the text is intelligible, in my opinion, you should take this into account.

See measures 2 and 3; I also have my doubts about Ave, by using the syncopation you shift the accent to (ve) of Ave, transforming the word into Avè.

AbateFaria wrote:

If you look at the topic indicated by Frank at the top

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1978-accenti-tonici-e-sillabazione-ave-maria-in-latino/

you will realize that, for example, Maria has the accent on the first syllable... you propose Maria as if it were written Marià. In a style where the text is intelligible, in my opinion, you should take this into account.

With the blessing of Destroyed, I have modified his first post by adding the final version regarding the syllabification/tonic accents of the Ave Maria, where it is evident that although the accent is not on the final "a"... in Maria it is on the second, so Ma-rì-a

AbateFaria wrote:

Damn, you guys are always on top of things, eh?! .... but how the hell do you do it, do you even sleep?

@Bianca

I hope my following note is taken constructively, in the sense that it is always difficult to give useful suggestions without risks... in short, it would be much more convenient for me to just say "pleasant" ... and that's it.

That being said, I don't know how consciously, but I fear you have underestimated the tonic accents.

If you look at the topic indicated by Frank at the top

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1978-accenti-tonici-e-sillabazione-ave-maria-in-latino/

you will realize that, for example, Maria has the accent on the first syllable... you propose Maria as if it were written Marià. In a style where the text is intelligible, in my opinion, you should take this into account.

Look at measures 2 and 3; I also have my doubts about Ave, by using syncopation you shift the accent to (ve) of Ave, transforming the word into Avè.

Of course Abate, I always appreciate your comments. If I didn't want to question myself, what would I be publishing on a forum for?

So, as far as I remember, it seems to me that I put the correct accents, or at least it is the first thing I took into account; I certainly didn't want to underestimate them. It seems to me (but maybe I got everything wrong or perhaps I also suffer from some form of amusia) that despite the piece having numerous rhythm changes, the accents are correct, and it seemed to me that the playback (even if it means little since it is virtual) confirmed it.

Note that the time signatures used are not simple, but compound, and therefore do not allow for syncopation (for example, the 've' of A-ve falls on the third eighth note, so it seems difficult to place an accent on it - but maybe I am wrong). Furthermore, the notes are quite slow, so it doesn't seem to me that a possible syncopation could shift the rhythmic accent of the measures during execution, even if one wanted to. Anyway, let me know something; I have no hesitation about correcting (not the playback, though).

Aparte what you indicated, what else do you think? The piece has its own underlying project, both structural and harmonic, the intention of which, however, I haven't been able to realize as I wanted.

Frank wrote:

With Destroyed's blessing, I have modified his first post by adding the final version regarding the syllabification/tonic accents of the Ave Maria, where it is evident that although the accent is not on the final "a"... in Maria it is on the second, therefore Ma-rì-a

and anything less would be unthinkable

Frank wrote:

I would ask Bianca to make an effort: indicate dynamics (possibly phrasing) in the score, relationships between tempo markings, and at least the initial tempo of the piece.

promise that as soon as I can, I will do it.

At a preliminary level, I agree on the need to indicate tempos, dynamics, and text slurs, which help the choir with the execution.
The text above the voice creates incredible chaos. It should be below.

I must say that I like it: the sequential entry of the voices works properly and, in my opinion, you could have exploited it at least one more time towards the end to lighten things up a bit, since the voices are always singing practically together.

What doesn't convince me is the vocal blend. To go into detail:

Bars 13-14-15
There is too much distance between C and T. The hollow effect can be heard because more than 1 octave is not good. To make it work at least a little, you should have the Cs sing piano in the high register and the Ts forte in the low register: difficult to achieve.

Bar 19
It would have been better to have the T start an octave higher and have it descend from F# to D, even though there would be a brief crossing with the C which then rises to D.

Bar 23 - first 2 notes
It would be better to have B and T an octave higher for two reasons: to avoid too much distance with the C and too much between T and B in bar 24.

Bars 23-24-25
The S sings high for sol-mi-sol and even here the voice is under strain... the ascent la-sib would be very difficult for a normal choir.

Bar 32
The B is too low. If it were solo or with the Ts it would work, but with the other voices—especially with T and C in their best register—the poor basses will have to struggle, as will the Ss in their low register.
At least for the first three notes, it would have been better to put the Bs an octave higher. You probably wanted to maintain the pattern of the Ss.

Bars 34/35
The ascending octave jump for the Ts is almost impossible even for excellent Ts.

From 37 to 51 things go much better. Here the blend works.

Bar 52
Still too much distance between C and T.

Bars 54-55
If the T had attacked at 55, you would have obtained the initial effect which, in my view, would have been much better.

Bars 57-58-59-60
The B should have been an octave higher. There is too much distance with the T.
Here we have the three upper voices singing in a high register and the B in a low register.

From bar 61
The blend from here on is excellent. I assume it is to be sung P or PP, and here it works very well.

Bar 71.
Typo: peccator or bus

Bar 75
Too much distance between T and C.

Bars 80-81
The text is missing.

The finale works very well, and I will add that the syllabification is correct throughout the piece.

I didn't understand the last two bars of rest.

To summarize:
I appreciated the harmonies and also the themes that follow each other, the patterns of fifths and octaves chosen with taste, but the treatment of the voices still needs work.
Vocal registers must be considered, especially because the voice is not an instrument and has much fewer possibilities for recovery.

For an average Italian choir, this piece would be almost unperformable, but if you can get the Philippines Madrigal Singers, you won't have any problems!!

Anyway, a good piece.

rstrauss wrote:

At a preliminary level, I agree on the need to indicate tempos, dynamics, and text slurs, which help the choir with the execution.

The text above the voice creates incredible chaos. It should be below.

I must say that I like it: the sequential entry of the voices works properly and, in my opinion, you could have exploited it at least one more time towards the end to lighten things up a bit, since the voices are always singing practically together.

What doesn't convince me is the vocal blend. Let me go into detail:

Meas. 13-14-15

There is too much distance between C and T. The hollow effect can be heard because more than 1 octave is not good. To make it work at least a little, you should have the Cs sing piano in the high register and the Ts forte in the low register: difficult to achieve.

Meas. 19

It would be better to have the T start an octave higher and have it descend from F# to D, even though there would be a brief crossing with the C which then rises to D.

Meas. 23 - first 2 notes

It is better to have B and T an octave higher for two reasons: to avoid too much distance with the C and too much between T and B in measure 24.

Meas. 23-24-25

The S sings high for sol-mi-sol and even here the voice is under strain... the ascent la-sib would be very difficult for a normal choir.

Meas. 32

The B is too low. If it were solo or with the Ts it would work, but with the other voices—especially since T and C are in their best register—the poor basses will have to struggle, as will the Ss in their low register.

At least for the first three notes, it would have been better to put the Bs an octave higher. You probably wanted to maintain the pattern of the Ss.

Meas. 34/35

The ascending octave jump for the Ts is almost impossible even for excellent Ts.

From 37 to 51 things go much better. Here the blend works.

Meas. 52

Still too much distance between C and T.

Meas. 54-55

If the T had attacked at 55, you would have obtained the initial effect which, in my view, would have been much better.

Meas. 57-58-59-60

The B should have been an octave higher. There is too much distance with the T.

Here we have the three upper voices singing in a high register and the B in a low register.

From meas. 61

The blend is excellent from here on. I assume it is to be sung P or PP, and here it works very well.

Meas. 71.

Typo: peccator or bus

Meas. 75

Too much distance between T and C.

Meas. 80-81

The text is missing.

The finale works very well, and I will add that the syllabification is correct throughout the piece.

I didn't understand the last two measures of rest.

To summarize:

I appreciated the harmonies and also the themes that follow each other, the patterns of fifths and octaves chosen with taste, but the treatment of the voices still needs work.

Vocal registers must be considered, especially because the voice is not an instrument and has far fewer possibilities for recovery.

For an average Italian choir, this piece would be almost unperformable, but if you manage to get the Philippines Madrigal Singers, you won't have any problems!!

Anyway, a good piece.

Thank you very much rstrauss for the detailed comments, which I must look over calmly.

As you noted, the reprise of the first stanza in the middle of the piece goes "much better". In my original idea, I wanted to express Mary's condition as a "contrast": on one hand an immense joy and on the other an immense drama, on one hand the distance of a girl from the plans of Providence and on the other her humanity as a mother. In this sense, I wanted to seek a piece that had two parts, both horizontally and vertically. The second part (at least the beginning) was intended to represent emotional meanings "closer" to Mary, while the first part would have wanted to represent emotional meanings "further" from Her. I understand that I didn't fully succeed, but at least, as you noted, the second part appears "less problematic". To achieve this lesser problematic nature, in fact, I tried to adhere more closely to traditional choral rules (and the game here was obviously simpler), whereas in the first part (the first one, because, empathizing with that situation, it is the first impact I would have had in terms of time) I wanted to find a way to convey "that distance". A method that, however, did not fully satisfy me, as I was saying: first, because it makes execution very complicated, and second, because it doesn't represent the problematic nature as well at an aesthetic level. Anyway, I hope I have explained myself at least in part. If you have any other suggestions, besides the precious ones you marked for me, that go in this direction, I would still be grateful to you. I had also thought about a greater use of dissonances, but it didn't convince me too much...

Bianca wrote:

Thank you so much rstrauss for the detailed comments, which I must look over carefully.

The reprise of the first stanza in the middle of the piece goes "much better," as you noted. In my original idea, I wanted to express Mary's condition as a "contrast": on one hand an immense joy and on the other an immense drama, on one hand the distance of a girl from the projects of Providence and on the other her humanity as a mother. In this sense, I wanted to seek a piece that had two parts, both horizontally and vertically. The second part (at least the beginning) was intended to represent emotional meanings "closer" to Mary, while the first part would have wanted to represent emotional meanings "further away" from Her. I understand that I didn't fully succeed, but at least, as you noted, the second part appears "less problematic." To achieve this lesser problematic nature, in fact, I tried to adhere more closely to traditional choral rules (and the game was obviously simpler here), whereas in the first part (the first one, because, empathizing with that situation, it is the first impact I would have had chronologically) I wanted to find a way to convey "that distance." A method that, however, did not fully satisfy me, as I was saying: first, because it makes the execution very complicated, and second, because it does not convey the problematic nature as well at an aesthetic level. Anyway, I hope I have explained myself at least in part. If you have any other suggestions, besides the precious ones you marked for me, that go in this direction, I would still be grateful to you. I had also thought about a greater use of dissonances, but it didn't convince me too much...

On this text, I would say we have sufficient dissonance... if it had been the "De Profundis" that we had envisioned, perhaps...

First of all, I am pleased to note that you recognized that the use of voices must adhere to certain rules, which apply to any language you use. It is a bit like instrumental technique: it must be there, but it must not be preponderant; the same goes for the treatment of the voices.

What you wanted to communicate can be felt... the distance, the vertical sense of things are there... but to an ear accustomed like mine (I have conducted choirs for 20 years), certain things stand out.

For example: if you want to communicate a sense of distance as in the first part... instead of moving the voices away, you can reduce them... 2 voices with a non-consonant interval greater than a 6th communicate a sense of distance much more than 4 poorly arranged voices... perhaps you could diversify the dynamic markings.

Another method: use three voices and have the passage performed by soloists or... even better, by 2 choir members per voice... this solution—if it doesn't work for classical pieces (since 2 single voices are harder to blend than 10)—works very well if you want to achieve a particular effect... 2 female voices with 2 choir members per voice work perfectly, because 2 sopranos singing the same part together will have that difference in timbre sufficient to give you a particular effect. Those were just a couple of examples.

Anyway, your hand works, and when you manage to rein in the enthusiasm, you have seen that things come out well.

@Bianca

What did you use for the playback? Is it possible to have one without the text, even a simple export with the basic Finale libraries?

It had been a very long time since I last commented on a workshop, but since I've also started talking about chorality, I want to give my two cents :-)

which is very similar to Strauss's, at least regarding Bianca's test. The individual textures have problems; the overall textures complicate these problems: tenors are often too low and basses are very often far too low (low E and Eb as if it were raining), at excessive distances from the sopranos, who sometimes disappear and sometimes overshoot. As a choir member, what stands out most to my eyes, and ears, is the extreme difficulty of intonation that there would be in most of the "lively" moments. There are many false relations, which I assure you are THE BLACK DEATH for a choir :-) and many notes that seem like passing tones but are actually very difficult to intone. From bar 32 to 36 is madness. And not only because, as Strauss noted, there are crazy leaps, but because there are unisons and octaves to intone, and practically a harmonic rhythm that changes on every eighth note. I don't know, you found some very beautiful harmonic solutions in certain places, in my opinion. But moving the voices a little less would be better, I think :-)

Ah... and I don't understand the "reasons" for the meters you used.

And I'll push further by saying that, in my opinion, the syncopation is definitely heard. In the presence of more specific indications we could talk about it, but as it stands, the first bar of the sopranos would surely be sung "aa-veeee". It would be a less perceptible syncopation, perhaps, with the right indications. Still the sopranos, specifically the high ones, at bar 20 clearly say mulie-rì-bus. Moving forward, I would imagine the benedicta at bar 30 with the "ta" in diminuendo, but it frankly seems too long to me for an unstressed syllable, and closing a diminuendo on the high Bb will be quite a feat for those poor sopranos. The benedictus after is intriguing, but I am curious to know if there is a reason why you emphasized the "et" so much. I don't know if it's intentional, but the metric effect is that of a sequence of 3/4 fitted into a 4/4 time signature. ét-bene-di/ ctùs-ee-ee/ ét-bene-di/ ctùs-ee-ee/ èt-bene-di/ ctùs-fructus-ventris/ tù-i-i

thallo wrote:

Ah... and I don't understand the "reasons" for the meters you used.

In the presence of more specific indications, we could talk about it

No wonder I was asking Bianca for precise indications

thallo wrote:

As a chorister, what stands out most to my eyes, and ears, is the extreme difficulty of intonation that there would be in most of the "lively" moments. There are many false relations, which I assure you are BLACK DEATH for a choir :-) and many notes that seem like passing tones but are actually very difficult to intonate. From m.32 to 36 it is madness. And not only because, as Strauss noted, there are crazy leaps, but because there are unisons and octaves to intonate, and practically a harmonic rhythm that changes at the eighth note. I don't know, you found some very beautiful harmonic solutions in some parts, in my opinion. But moving the voices a little less would be better, I think :-)

Without precise indications on dynamics, breaths, tempo markings... I don't feel comfortable formulating an opinion; however, the idea I have formed is that, despite the efforts to respect the text (and give meaning to the text), the setting of the piece is of an instrumental nature... with the due repercussions on a choir in terms of performability."},

classic wrote:

and this is mine

PS: there are some parallel 5ths and other forbidden passages, no need to point it out to me

I haven't heard it yet, just to reassure you: the prohibitions depend on aesthetics

@Bianca

what did you use for the vocal playback? it's not bad...

is it "fast" to use?

i had looked into Vocaloid back in the day but it was a huge mess...

regarding your track, I won't go into detail but it seems a bit "long" to me, let's just say it's fine for a "grand mass", I saw that Frank and I were both well under 2'

bye and compliments anyway

Ambrogio

classic wrote:

@Bianca

what did you use for the vocal playback? it's not bad...

In fact, it seems to me the softest in terms of pronunciation ...compared to the previous ones I have heard in the various choral music workshops.

classic wrote:

i saw that both Frank and I were well under 2'

If the music were liturgical, I believe that length in these terms could have a significant impact. Outside of this scope, I think that duration cannot affect the value of a piece because it depends on the material and its conduct ... one only needs to think of Webern and Feldman .

Personally speaking, I wanted to write something more aphoristic than liturgical.

Frank wrote:

Personally speaking, I wanted to write something more aphoristic than liturgical.

... let's just say that the faithful, being used to Frisina, risk running away from the Church

rstrauss wrote:

Regarding this text, I would say we have enough dissonance ... it would have been the "De Profundis" that we had proposed perhaps ...

First of all, I am pleased to note that you have recognized that the use of voices must adhere to certain rules, which apply to any language you use. It is a bit like instrumental technique: it must be present, but it must not be preponderant; the same applies to the treatment of voices.

What you wanted to communicate can be felt ... the sense of distance and the verticality of things are there ... but to an ear accustomed like mine (I have directed choirs for 20 years), certain things stand out.

For example: if you want to communicate a sense of distance as in the first part ... instead of moving the voices further away, you can reduce them ... 2 voices with a non-consonant interval greater than a 6th communicate a sense of distance much more than 4 poorly arranged voices ... perhaps you could diversify the dynamic markings.

Another method: use three voices and have the passage performed by soloists or ... even better, by 2 choir members per voice ... this solution, if it doesn't work for classical pieces (since 2 single voices are harder to blend than 10), works very well if you want to achieve a particular effect ... 2 female voices with 2 singers per voice work perfectly, because 2 sopranos singing the same part together will have that difference in timbre sufficient to give you a particular effect. Those were just a couple of examples.

Anyway, your hand is working, and when you manage to rein in the enthusiasm, you have seen that things come out well.

Thank you, and sorry for only responding now, but I have been away.

I like both proposed solutions. However, I think I will start trying with the first one (in addition to making the indicated corrections) as soon as I have a little time, simply because it seems to require less overall effort to modify (I know that is a bit of a prosaic reason). What scares me is redoing the playback.

I would also like, perhaps, to make it performable, for once

Destroyed wrote:

@Bianca

What did you use for the playback? Is it possible to have one without the text, even a simple export with the basic Finale libraries?

In the end I fell for it and used EWQLSC with Wordbuilder (a name that long should have already suggested something to me....) and as another post by Geppino said, the effort is not as rewarding as one hopes (in my case mainly due to the limited basic resources of the PC).

Do you mean a playback without Wordbuilder?