Choral Music Workshop 2014

thallo wrote:

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 rstrauss's, at least regarding the Bianca test. The individual textures have problems; the overall textures complicate these problems: tenors are often too low and basses are very often way 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 it 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 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 :-)

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 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 embedded in 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

I agree, as I already told Rstrauss

What doesn't convince me, however, is the syncopation. One of the reasons for the meters I used is precisely to avoid syncopation (they are compound meters, as I was saying, and even though the second note is double the first, it starts on the third eighth note. Anyway, even here, I have no problem modifying the notation if I understand how to maintain the same rhythms. As I said, my experience in chorales is only theoretical and practical experience is zero (one now).

Anyway, I am happy to read you also on the workshops...

classic wrote:

@Bianca

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

is it "fast" to use?

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

for 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

Thanks,

i used Wordbuilder, as I was saying before, although I then arranged it a bit with Audacity.

I used the wordbuilder in 2006, for a Kyrie and a Dies Irae; the latter in particular requires a significantly faster performance than the former, and I was using a PC with a processor of just over 2GHz, 2 GB of RAM, ATA 133 hard disk; as software, Cubase SX and Reason via ReWire. The problem was avoiding slowdowns, so I recorded the choir parts separately and synchronized them with audio software. However, aside from this, I know that wordbuilder is not easy to use, but good results can be obtained, even fast-sung parts (the most difficult and least believable ones) even without a workstation.

Look Bianca, I noticed that you used time signatures like 8/8; aside from the fact that I am aware you aren't the first to use them and there are even renowned people who do.

But the point is this: do you intend it as 8 beats (so why not 4/8 for two measures?) or in 4 beats (so why not 4/4?).

In my opinion, choices of this type cannot be structural; they only generate confusion and seem self-serving to me. Why this choice?

Compound meters like 5/4 or 7/4 have specific functions and "commanded" accents; if you distort them for the sake of cadence or other reasons, aside from adding difficulty in conducting, perhaps you aren't doing damage regarding the text.

But if you use rhythmic structures that you don't exploit... why?

I would just like to understand the purpose; in effect, it made sense to ask for clarifications beforehand.

Referring to measure 2: 7/8

Whether in the case of 3+4/8 or 4+3/8... the accent where it should fall does not arrive, so the performer executes a syncopation.... it is defined as irregular, but it is the same as placing a strong or medium-strong accent in a position different from the "natural" one for that time signature. Now I say, you have started this process and before one has time to enjoy it, there is already a change. The point is that you cannot compensate for an incorrect placement of tonic accents with time signatures.

In measure 5 you use 8/8; you could have returned to the 7/8 to give sense to measure 2, and on the last pause, which would become an eighth... you could have given a fermata.... then stitching it back to the 7/8 (without changes) of Ave at 6.

This could have been only one way (for measure 5); another was to propose a 7/8 and then a measure of 1/8... so logically you would also be proposing a diminution of the first one... moreover, you could also propose a measure of 1/8 with a fermata there... and play with logic regarding the different time signatures.

Anyway, solutions can vary. I noticed that Frank also indulged in time signature changes... I don't know if you noticed that there he appears much more "measured" and one can glimpse micro-rhythmic sections (linked to the text) and not just technicalities to overcome the tonic accent problem.

Diciamo che così a me appare, però se vuoi dare il tuo punto di vista sulla questione mi interesserebbe molto... io sono molto inibito in questo ambito, mi sembra sempre di abusare, e forse da qui la natura del mio commento.

However, there are those who asked you for clarifications; I am not the only one who feels the syncopation, I fear it is not just a subjective matter.

Let me know about this; as for the rest, harmonically it works, so I am glad you decided to apply some corrections to make it playable... make sure it is also intelligible to the conductor... see, for instance, the management of rhythm.

I like the character of Classic, but it seems to me that you insist too much on extreme textures ...see the sopranos and probably the soprano's high C will be a bold move ...you know, thinking about it, if you perhaps transpose the first note of every entry down an octave, wouldn't it gain a lot? And in the bass, the leap on "Be" of benedictus is not bad at all.

What do you think?

@AbateFaria 

you hit on my problem or "weak point," which is also what my harmony teacher used to contest (Francesco Sacchi from Lecco, who was himself a pupil of Bettinelli) 

the fact is that I start writing and I just "go" a bit by instinct, without worrying about who will perform it later (I tell myself that's their problem)

if it weren't for the fact that then I find myself in deep sh... when I perhaps record the same parts at home with singers and discover how difficult or shrill the effect is...

if I have time (I am completing my website and am very busy) I will try to verify your proposal

@Bianca

I agree with what @Abate said regarding the timing; let's just say I didn't want to get into the details, also because you have done a great job and it would take a week just to analyze it

in essence, my doubt relates to whether you set the timings for a "reason" or just for "convenience," to follow your melodies

and I am curious to know if you wrote "at the desk" (theoretically) or "at the piano," IMHO if you wrote at the desk, your choices are "justifiable" because it is your "inspiration" and as such must be respected (as if, for example, you were making contemporary music with many dissonances, etc.)

if you wrote "at the piano," then in my opinion you should have tried to "make them fit" the melodies into a defined meter that provides more "coherence" and results in being more understandable; otherwise, one notices, for example, harmonic syncopations where it is unclear where they come from or where they are going

naturally, with all due respect for the great work you have done!

bye. Ambrogio

classic wrote:

@Bianca

MHO if you have written your choices down on paper they are "justifiable" because it is your "inspiration" and as such must be respected (as if, for example, you were making contemporary music with many dissonances, etc.)

if you have written "by ear" then in my opinion you should have tried to "make them fit" the melodies into a defined meter that gives more "coherence" and results in being more understandable; otherwise, one perceives, for example, harmonic syncopations that are not understood as where they come from or where they are going

naturally

I do not agree with this part of the post; the compositional methodology (at the instrument or on paper) should not serve to justify a sonic result, and in fact, you could achieve the same result using both methods ...

I feel compelled to respect things that make sense; as I was writing, if someone aims for intelligibility from the text, then they cannot ignore it or ignore it occasionally... much less if there is some kind of compositional methodology to justify it. It is up to the composer to bend technique to the music and not bend to the technique. This argument can be extended to all elements of composition and not just the text; see harmony.

This is assuming that Bianca has yet to intervene to give her two cents on the subject...

I will specify my opinion further, then logically everyone can think differently...

i believe in the compositional "gesture"; when you perform an action, you have substantially created something. If you draw a circle, it might come out imperfect, but that's it; if you "place" your fingers on the keyboard and a "sound" comes out, that is it, and you must learn to respect it and accept it for what it is: a creative "improvisation"

in the moment you move a muscle, it is not "chance"; behind it lies all your experience and study, and "unconsciously" you already know what you are doing

many make the mistake of not trusting this "instinct" and then try to change the rules of the game, trying to modify the result, most of the time making it worse

it is in this sense that I was writing above: if you compose at a desk, it is still a composition; perhaps you cannot imagine the result 100% and can only understand it in broad strokes, but it must still be respected (always according to my own thought), even just as an "experiment" and with perhaps the limitations that one might have...

if conversely you perform a "control" with the piano while composing, in some ways you accept to provide an already "finished" work, more controlled precisely, and therefore you pay more attention to what you write

logically, great composers can succeed in making the two methods coincide, and probably for them the result would not change (although I have some doubts because, for me, they remain two different methods of composing)

... but the choir singer doesn't have the Classic keys... the gesture cannot be the instrumental one.

I will hand in mine tomorrow evening.

Comment on the CLASSIC version

First thing: aesthetic aspect of the score.

1. Slurs for the choir are missing
2. It would be better to slur the eighth notes with the text. E.g., Bar. 1, the 2nd and 3rd notes have a beam above them, but since they are on two different syllables, it would be better to use an eighth note with a stem.
3. The bass clef for the Tenor doesn't fit at all.
4. With the text underneath, it would be better to place the dynamic markings above.
5. Bar. 17-18. Advice based on experience: it would be better to indicate the slurred eighth notes as quarter notes. Choir members struggle with slurs, especially regarding their value, and visually a quarter note is more easily recognized than an eighth note.

Let's get to the music
Bar. 2
The majority of tenors cannot execute this low A, or those who do it perform it with a completely negligible volume.
Remember that for a choral voice, pushing to create more volume is equivalent to impoverishing the sound and dropping in pitch.

Bar. 7-8-9
The voices spread out too much and the descent of the basses is practically impossible for 70% of the basses in circulation, who dream of that low E.
In my own choir, there isn't even a single one who can reach it.

Bar. 10
For the T., it is almost impossible to attack on the high A, and moreover with marcato P. You should have them attack in falsetto; then perhaps they can manage it, but you must write "falsetto" in the score.

Bar. 12 onwards
It works better here, although the repeated sixteenth notes perhaps deserved a bit more rhythmic variety.

Text

Bar. 11-12
The accent in Ventris is on the 'e' of Vèntris, while you put the weak syllable 'tris' on the strong beat of 12. The effect is Ventrìs.

Bar. 17-18-19
The drawn-out vowel 'i' simply doesn't work. Besides the difficulty of the 'i' for the choir (especially women), there are also the syncopations, but C., T., and B. don't have it any easier. The effect is that the 'i' ends on the strong beat of bar. 18.
The S. do not have the word 'in', which probably didn't fit due to the previous vocalization on the 'i'.
The T. and B. have the 'in' (weak) on the strong beat, whereas the 'ho' from ho-ra should have gone there instead.
The C. are fine.

bat. 21
The syllable 'strae' on the strong beat is debatable, but in this case, it is somewhat mitigated by the long notes.

In general:
In my opinion, it deserved something more, in the sense that if you propose the initial theme, at least develop it a little without introducing new ideas that you then won't be able to revisit... the initial cell from bar. 1 to 9 could very well have remained, repeated and varied. he idea of repeating the entrance of the voices in sequence is excellent, but this episode also deserved something more. If you didn't want to make it too long, an idea could also have been to merge the two themes (bar. 1 and 10) and put them in the coda, giving a sense of closure as well. Granted, I am used to long pieces, but here sincerely I feel there are good ideas, but left there alone, ending in themselves.

As far as choral writing is concerned, at certain moments the parts are too far apart, but apart from the episodes mentioned above, the rest is performable, even if I find the piece too 'instrumental'.

P.S. Two words on writing.
I always write at a desk, from piano to orchestra, and at least for me, it couldn't be any other way. I need to have the parts vertically under my eyes, and anyway, I remain convinced that the piece must already be in your head. Improvisation is not good for this type of writing. If someone does it for themselves, that's perfectly fine.

But to write at a desk, one needs a certain "confidence" in recognizing harmonies; I'm not saying it's impossible, but certain passages, perhaps of a certain complexity, are not necessarily something manageable when writing that way. I obviously agree with the fact that one should already have the music (at least in part) in one's head, but sometimes (for some people) it is necessary to check step by step, whether it be a melodic or harmonic sequence. Years ago (but we are always there, without constant practice, where do you get to?), I tried to write a piece for four-part choir and instruments (I don't remember how many) using only a tuning fork: aside from the continuous interruptions that occurred in moments when I was trying to concentrate (someone calling me, etc... which, ironically speaking, was the best situation for a master of memory and concentration like myself), when I checked it some time later (a few years later), I found that it was a mess, not rhythmically, but harmonically. I picked it up again months ago, and even though I stopped at 80%, I wrote everything in a short time, having the idea in my head but testing it on the piano. It's not even that difficult as a piece, in terms of composition, but I am sure there will be problems with the syllabification (even if in Italian), because I had to find compromises between the rhythm (which is the main character of the piece) and the syllabic division of the text, which was written after thinking about the line to follow.

thanks @Rstrauss for the precise comments and also for a few compliments

in effect I don't normally write in chorus and therefore my writing is instrumental

as soon as I have a moment anyway I will check your observations, thanks again

i understand your observations on a more "organic" structure with well-defined themes that "return" however I prefer to do things more "improvised", let's say "free fantasy"

keep in mind though that for me this is a (great) hobby (unfortunately)

rstrauss wrote:

basses in circulation that the E-flat can only dream of.

I even used E-flat (E is still used by "many")... aware of the fact that I will run into restrictions in terms of choirs that can perform my piece... but for example on Mortis, I want the lowest sound possible... so it is a choice.

If a choir wants to indulge itself anyway by singing my piece, it can transpose it a semitone higher which works just the same (it's something I verified during the writing phase)... except, however, for the number of accidentals which increases noticeably.

Piccinesco wrote:

I used the wordbuilder in 2006, for a Kyrie and a Dies Irae; the latter in particular requires a significantly faster performance than the former, and I was using a PC with a processor of just over 2GHz, 2 GB of RAM, ATA 133 hard disk; as software, Cubase SX and Reason via ReWire. The problem was avoiding slowdowns, so I recorded the choir parts separately and synchronized them with audio software. However, aside from this, I know that wordbuilder is not easy to use, but good results can be obtained, even fast-sung parts (the most difficult and least believable ones) even without a workstation.

in theory it should also be quite linear, but the fact is that I encountered a lot of exceptions. For example, some melismas did not come out correctly, which caused all the stanzas to slip out of sync. Or some notes came out with crazy dynamics or different timbres. Not to mention the consonants and the English accent. So, it was quite a bit of tuning work...

classic wrote:

@AbateFaria

you hit the nail on the head regarding my problem or "weak point," which is also what my harmony teacher used to contest (Francesco Sacchi from Lecco, who was himself a student of Bettinelli)

the fact is that I start writing and "go" a bit by instinct, without worrying afterwards about who will perform it (I tell myself that's their problem)

if it weren't for the fact that then I find myself in sh... when maybe I record the same parts at home with singers and discover how difficult or shrill the effect is...

if I have time (I am completing my website and am very busy) I will see about verifying your proposal

@Bianca

I agree with what @Abate said regarding the tempos; let's just say I didn't want to get into the details, also because you have done a great job and it would take a week just to analyze it

in essence, my doubt relates to whether you set the tempos for a "reason" or just for "convenience," to follow your melodies

and I am curious to know if you wrote "at the desk" or "at the piano"; IMHO, if you wrote at the desk, your choices are "justifiable" because it is your "inspiration" and as such must be respected (as if, for example, you were making contemporary music with many dissonances, etc.)

if you wrote "at the piano," then in my opinion you should have tried to "make them fit" the melodies into a defined meter that gives more "coherence" and results in being more understandable; otherwise, for example, one perceives syncopations of harmony where it is not understood where they come from or where they are going

naturally, with all due respect for the great work you have done!

bye. Ambrogio

AbateFaria wrote:

See Bianca, I noticed that you used tempos like 8/8; aside from the fact that I am aware you are not the first to use them and there are even renowned people who do.

But the point is this: do you intend it as 8 beats (so why not 4/8 for two measures?) or in 4 beats (so why not 4/4?).

In my opinion, choices of this type cannot be structural; they only generate confusion and seem self-serving to me. Why this choice?

Compound tempos like 5/4 or 7/4 have specific functions and "commanded" accents; if you distort them for the need of a cadence or other reasons, aside from adding difficulty in conducting, perhaps you don't cause damage regarding the text.

But if you use rhythmic structures that you do not exploit... why?

I would just like to understand the purpose; in fact, it made sense to ask for clarifications beforehand.

Referring to measure 2: 7/8

Whether in the case of 3+4/8 or in the case of 4+3/8... the accent where it should fall does not arrive, so the performer executes a syncopation.... it is defined as irregular, but it is the same to place a strong or medium-strong accent in a position different from the "natural" one for that time signature. Now I say, you have started this procedure and before one has time to enjoy it, there is already a change. The point is that you cannot compensate for an incorrect placement of tonic accents with time signatures.

In measure 5 you use 8/8; you could have gone back to the 7/8 and given sense to measure 2, and on the last pause, which would become an eighth... you could have given a fermata.... then stitching yourself back to the 7/8 (without changes) of Ave at 6.

This could have been only one way (for measure 5); another was to propose a 7/8 and then a measure of 1/8 ... that way you would also go on a logical level by proposing a diminution of the first... moreover, you could also propose a measure of 1/8 with a fermata there... and play with logic regarding the different time signatures.

Anyway, solutions can be different. I noticed that Frank also indulged in tempo changes... I don't know if you noticed that there he appears much more "measured" and micro-rhythmic sections (linked to the text) can be glimpsed, and not just technicalities to overcome the tonic accent problem.

Diciamo che così a me appare, però se vuoi dare il tuo punto di vista sulla questione mi interesserebbe molto... io sono molto inibito in questo ambito, mi sembra sempre di abusare, e forse da qui la natura del mio commento.

However, there are those who have asked you for clarifications; I am not the only one who feels the syncopation; I fear it is not just a subjective matter.

Let me know about this; for the rest, harmonically it works, so I am glad you decided to apply some corrections to make it performable... make sure it is also intelligible to the conductor... see, for instance, the management of rhythm.

I never write at the piano (also because I haven't had one for years)

The tempos used are dictated mainly by the perception I had at the moment of writing.

I found that this perception was heightened by the lyrics. In the sense that the various periods

are significantly marked (and conditioned) by the stanzas (and not just by the accents, obviously).

The pauses are another important element. Certainly everything can be rewritten in a more traditional way,

it is necessary to

just finding the right way.

Generally when I write (and someone might have noticed from the two things I've posted) I don't think much

aloud about the comprehensibility of the writing or the ease or difficulty of execution, but I write how and what

I feel like writing. In this case, also thanks to your stimulus, I would like to make some additional effort

to accommodate at least the performability by the voices, which obviously are not just any

instruments. Following this, I will also dedicate myself to the intelligibility of the writing. These are aspects that, for me,

require ten times the effort it takes to throw down a piece as I imagine it.

If it takes me, for example, two weeks to write a piece like this, to make the aforementioned changes

maybe it takes me two months, and I still risk not doing a good job.

I need to re-read the second part of Abate's comment calmly, because right now I am in a hurry.

Frank wrote:

Not for nothing was I asking Bianca for precise indications

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 instrumental in nature... with the due repercussions on a choir in terms of performability.

well, I don't know, it could also be that, since so far I have always written only for instruments

But what do you mean, that I thought of the individual voices as instruments, without taking into account the difficulties they encounter, or that the framework is that of, say, a quartet? In the second case I would say no; in fact, as Rstrauss has already pointed out, the voices almost always sing together, which was something I had set (within certain limits) as one of the objectives to achieve.

Bianca wrote:

in theory it would also be quite linear, but the fact is that I have come across a lot of exceptions. For example, some melismas did not come out correctly, so all the stanzas would slip. Or some notes came out with crazy dynamics or different timbres. Not to mention the consonants and the English accent. So, quite a bit of tuning work...

I know, it was built on the phonetics of the English language, but there are some Latin phrases already available on the East West website; at the time I had to struggle a bit to make the pronunciation of certain texts believable, and something is always lost in terms of realism.

Bianca wrote:

...but I write how and what I feel like writing. In this case, also thanks to your stimulus, I would like to make some additional effort

to accommodate as much as possible the performability by the voices, which obviously are not just any instruments.

Next, I will also dedicate myself to the intelligibility of the writing. These are aspects that, for me, require ten times the effort it takes to jot down a piece as I imagine it.

If it takes me, for example, two weeks to write a piece like this, to make the aforementioned changes might take me two months, and I still risk not doing a good job.

therefore I would say that it is not worth it; on my part, as already written above, if you "felt it that way," leave it that way.

unfortunately free time is limited and if I were in your place, I would rather do something new than work even more on this track...

i know that perhaps this isn't a serious thing to say but... not every donut comes out with a hole [not everything turns out perfectly] and I believe that even for music, you have to take it as it comes; many times you start a piece and you already know that it "works," that a good piece of work is coming together, whereas with others, even if you spend weeks on them, you know they won't improve much anyway... (I am not referring to your case, of course, it is a general comment based on my experiences)

I don't quite agree with Classic; rather than doing something new and staying at the level where you are, concentrate your energies (as you have already decided) to overcome your limits. After all, what do you do with an unplayable piece? Nothing. Therefore, music shouldn't be kept just as it comes; you must either discard it or improve it. The energy you will put into this piece to bring it up to a higher level will come back to you during the writing of the next piece.

And then, thinking about it carefully Classic, no offense intended, if I write this it is only because I hope to provide stimulation... you yourself say that your teacher used to point out problems that you are still dragging along and recognize... it seems to me that all these fruits were not brought to you by the "write and abandon" game. My teacher always used to say: one learns better from 4 bars written well than from 10 pieces written "badly"... with all the usual approximations.

Tutto per dire che se uno crede in un progetto, come mi sembra di capire da Bianca, sono più propenso ad incoraggiare a perseverare che a dissuadere.