Choral Music Workshop 2014

Listened closely to Frank's Ave Maria ...

I greatly appreciated the strict part-writing, which gives the choir a richness of harmonics that helps the performance immensely.

For the rest, besides agreeing with thallo on the fact that the theme—Gregorian-style "contaminated" with rather modern harmonies—is very easily recognizable and is correctly supported by the other voices.

The harmonies stretch and relax like an elastic band without ever overdoing it.

This is an example of a well-written choral piece, which nonetheless denotes a treatment almost like a romance: 1 voice with the theme and the others accompany, but they are heard and could quite well have a life of their own in another piece.

If I had to object to something, I would say that I suffer a bit from the shortness and the lack of development of the initial theme: I would have liked to see it taken up and combined in a final coda by all the voices. A completely personal opinion dictated more by the fact that I prefer long codas.

As usual ... compliments to Frank.

rstrauss wrote:

If I really had to object to something, I would say that I suffer a bit from the shortness and the lack of development of the initial theme :

First of all, thanks also to RStrauss; since you raise the issue, I will relate the compositional material, some of your observations, and those of Thallo... perhaps these are considerations that might also be useful to others.

My coda attempts 20'' on 1' 45'' of a piece; anything more would have truly resulted in being disproportionate compared to the 2 main sections of the piece. It is not a matter of taste but strictly one of proportions. You know that if I want to, I can be long-winded about codas, but I must be coming from a 10' piece.

Aside from the problem of coda duration (and not piece duration), in reality, the coda itself is precisely the development of the themes you heard, a development not in a melodic sense. Thallo made the following observation:

> your counterpoint style, the idea that the chord arrives if not as an overlap of lines at least as a final point,

> cadencing a series of melodic movements

What is missing from counterpoint in the traditional sense? For example, all the imitative part that would necessarily give rise to fugatos or dialogue between voices. A type of connotation that I did not seek in this piece. And indeed you write

> 1 voice with the theme and the others accompany but are heard and could very well have their own life in another piece.

This is a composition based on events, on sets of sounds and their interval relationships... related to each other and by something that materializes in the development precisely in the final Amens (just as you like) but one can also intuit—only after a very deep analysis—that there is a basic construct, which is traceable from the notes of "Benedicta tu in mulieribus" and which, assuming it is needed, gives further cohesion to the material.

If all this is not heard, better so.

PS

... oh my god, I feel like I am rereading Webern's notes ... ...

classic wrote:

@thalio

i would expect more polite comments from a moderator; criticism is always welcome and I have taken @rstrauss's criticisms into great consideration, and in fact, I am modifying the piece accordingly...

i can use your comments for other purposes

I don't believe I was rude, but my comments are notoriously prone to criticism.

Perhaps because, not being a composer but a performer and a critic, I have no intention of making you modify a piece in any way. To me, that piece is wrong, in elements too important to be overlooked. But I imagine it is pedagogically important to strive to patch up even wrong pieces.

I remain curious to know where I was offensive. I addressed you as a person only when I assumed that you had not made an effort to imagine real voices. Something of which I am convinced, because there are no tenors with the range you indicated (from Ab below the staff to A above), and in general, your piece is poorly written for the ensemble you are referring to. Along the lines of "what you write speaks to your commitment", there are even a few typos, such as the repeated eighth note for the tenors at bar 12 on the same syllable, or the syncopations between bars 17 and 18 for the sopranos (it is unknown on which syllable). How do I interpret these errors? Given the fact that no one gets decapitated for an unconvincing piece, I think you have not seriously imagined 4 singers of different registers singing this piece note for note. You have written an organ piece.

Perhaps I shouldn't speak of intentions, but only of results. But then I ask you out of curiosity: why did you make that syncopated ascent for the sopranos? Why did you have the tenors start from the Ab below the staff?

Argue for your musical choices instead of dismissing me as rude.

Look thalo, let me just say that your tone comes across as particularly unpleasant to me.

I am 53 years old (I'm not a kid!) and if I have to participate in a forum just to get angry, I can very well do without it.

I don't know who makes you the judge of others' actions; I don't do it professionally, but I do my musical things with passion and love.

It's true, I wrote this piece in about an hour at midnight on a Friday night (because I only saw the thread then) and just to participate, I wrote this Ave Maria, just to share it.

Today during my lunch break, in half an hour, I made the corrections that I will anticipate below and which I will include in the score shortly.

I don't always work this "rushed"; for my website, which I am preparing with about 50 pieces (out of about 100 registered with SIAE), it took me 7 years of work, and just for checking the vocals in a musical, I must have made 1000 changes.

But who are you to judge the work of others, throwing out words (butcher, doing things haphazardly) and evaluations (better to avoid writing, because [you] stumble through interesting chords)...

It doesn't matter anyway, just do me the favor of never speaking to me again, thank you.

Ambrogio

Frank,

we are finally here.

You know that I suffer through short pieces like this one ... with yours I suffer less ... thanks to the richness of the counterpoint and especially the melos that I love to hear above all else.

I don't think anything more is needed. If you delved into the counterpoint, you would then lose the initial intent of the piece, and this should never happen.

That the elements of the piece are related is understandable, and anyway I must say that the last part—very vocally pregnant but lightened by the exit of the basses alone—is the one I appreciate most.

Of course, 20 seconds out of almost 2 minutes is already quite enough, and I tried listening to the piece several times imagining a longer coda and sincerely no: it doesn't fit.

Watch out forum members: upon first listen, Frank's pieces lead down the wrong paths ... they must be listened to several times.

Frank wrote:

This is an event-based composition, based on sets of sounds and their interval relationships... related to each other and to something that materializes in the development specifically in the final Amens (just as you like) but one can also intuit—only after a very deep analysis—that there is a basic construct, which can be traced from the notes of "Benedicta tu in mulieribus" and which, if it helps, gives further cohesion to the material.

The final Amen is very beautiful, among other things :-) there you can see and hear that you know the repertoire. One could almost start a topic with the best Amens from choral pieces... I'll post one, Brahms' Geistliches Lied for choir and organ, with a mastodonic final Amen

http://youtu.be/PHe48dEar2A?t=3m54s

looking at the part, indeed the sopranos' Benedicta tu in mulieribus seems to me the most successful version of the theme. Am I wrong, or is it the only truly consonant triad in the piece? :-) there is a fleeting C major without that cursed major seventh...

Open content (youtube)

@RStrauss

I liked it, just a couple of things.... those 2 initial notes so far apart don't convince me (leave only the soprano and bring in the basses later) and at 1' and 5'', having heard your lied several times, I would prefer to hear again the cadence that you had written in the Lied and which does not reappear here... in my opinion, it makes the passage more effective. It is probably a matter of taste ... but I don't know if you remember ....

Frank wrote:

The extreme synthesis is that every choice has a cost, not only in life, and the composer must know how to (also) renounce. Composition at a certain level becomes a "game" of choices and renunciations, but when you are at this point, you are also quite far along... you probably need to consolidate the work you have already done up to now. Watch out because character often plays tricks on you (I don't know you here, so this is a general remark), many problems related to compositional aspects are linked to character traits. Imagine horror vacui: you meet composers who for a lifetime must use the eraser more than the pencil... but if one does not find the strength to do so, they will only propose blotches... think of Liszt, how much eraser he consumed in his life, but he did it.

In my opinion, you have good ideas, part of the technique necessary to make your works credible... I remember that Geppino wrote to you in an initial workshop: "decide what to do" (or something like that). If you think about it, there is a sort of indecision at the core of the writing; I don't know if it's the fear of appearing too traditional, or the ambition to be too innovative... or I wouldn't know. The fact is that music is detached from these types of factors, even if it is obviously conditioned/determined by them; everyone must find their own balance.

It happened to me once that a student brought me a microtonal piece; he had violin sections that had to move around certain sounds with great precision. I told him it was unplayable, and he "showed" me a score. I told him that score was playable. And he asked me: "How? It's the same passage."

There you go—it's a pity that on the composer's score it said "solo" and he had assigned the same task to a section, which obviously cannot (even if they wanted to) divide the tone in the same way into, I won't say 16, but not even 8 parts.

Sometimes little is enough; one reads scores and tries to get the most out of them... but then, if one is lucky enough to engage with someone else (I don't know, someone with experience), they can expand their point of view or their way of seeing the subject matter. Even with identical compositional methodologies, composers have always delivered different works to history... even when facing the same text. Now there are 4 extra Ave Marias.

An extreme example that, when translated into a choral context, can make you understand how, in the case where one seeks a certain softness given by a moment in the text, one cannot use, for example, the extreme high register of a voice... even if on the synthesizer, at the end, I don't know, on the piano... or in Open Music, it appears to us as the most beautiful thing in the world.

Alternatively, there is always audio processing, an area very neglected by composers linked to the world of acoustic instruments... there you can do whatever you want. The "clip" is already the finished product; the score is still just a compositional project, very detailed, but translating the discussion into architecture: once built, the skyscraper must not collapse... otherwise, a CAD simulation is better.

Frank, I never manage to respond in time to your last comment, so you have already made the subsequent one for me.

Thank you for the compliments and for the stimuli.

I share much of what you say, although there are things whose intent I do not quite understand.

Regarding the discussion on audio processing, you are hitting on a very valid point, I just don't agree with the comparison to architecture: the audio result is already the completed building itself; it is not the CAD project, which instead corresponds to the project of the piece (including editing). So much so that it is repeatable at will.

In this specific case, however, as I have already repeated, it is my intention to make the piece playable even for a choir that is not at the level of those mentioned by rstrauss. And I also understand the points I need to work on (I am still waiting for some words regarding the intonation difficulties mentioned by thallo).

I am equally determined to make the text as intelligible as possible, but here I get a bit lost, in the sense that the difficulties are not clear to me. Rsrtauss, in his precious analysis, did not mention them (aside from saying that the syllabification is correct). You gave me some examples, but I didn't understand what I should do. I mean, if I indicate a bar of 11/8, you can read this as 4/4 + 3/8, i.e., as a simple time + a compound one, but also as the sum of 3/8 + 3/8 + 3/8 + 2/8 (To an absurd degree, for me a bar of 2/8 has a different rhythm from a bar of 1/4, because I interpret it as an irregular time given by the difference between a compound time of 3/8 minus one of 1/8). My question then is: how do I make this clear on the score? It seemed to me that, for a simple principle of economy, the indication of /8 would lead to"}

prefer the second interpretation, not the first, but it probably isn't so, and I would like to understand how to do it. Once these points are clarified, it remains obviously to be seen if everything works in the score, but I must first share a method. For this reason too, I don't understand what you mean when you say that you see a sort of indecision in the writing…

rstrauss wrote:

Listened carefully to Frank's Ave Maria ...

I greatly appreciated the close-position writing, which gives the choir a richness of harmonics that helps the performance immensely.

For the rest, besides agreeing with thallo on the fact that the theme—Gregorian-style "contaminated" with rather modern harmonies—is very easily recognizable and is correctly supported by the other voices.

The harmonies stretch and relax like an elastic band without ever overdoing it.

This is an example of a well-written choral piece, which nonetheless denotes a treatment almost like a romance: 1 voice with the theme and the others accompany, but they are heard and could quite well have a life of their own in another piece.

An aspect I would like to explore further concerns the type of part-writing: in particular, the aesthetic differences (within the limits of performability) between close-position writing and wide-position writing, and the differences between a style where the voices sing together and one where the melody is given by one or two voices at a time while the rest accompany.

In my opinion, accompaniment-style writing has great advantages, in the sense that it is much easier to avoid an entire series of part-writing problems, whereas the former does not seem to have any practical advantages and its choice remains purely an aesthetic matter. In this second case, the alternative between close or wide writing becomes more significant. I find close writing to be harmonically "clearer" and also less problematic in this case. However, wide writing, to my taste, manages to express particular sonorities that close writing cannot have, especially if one abandons the constraint of an octave distance. In any case, I would like to hear your opinions on the matter.

Bianca wrote:

I mean, if I indicate a bar of 11/8, this can be read as 4/4 + 3/8, i.e., as a simple time + a compound one, but also as the sum of 3/8 + 3/8 + 3/8 + 2/8 (Absurdly enough, for me a bar of 2/8 has a different rhythm from a bar of 1/4, because I interpret it as an irregular time given by the difference between a compound time of 3/8 minus one of 1/8). My question then is: how do I make this clear on the score? A

I am only intervening to say that every metric structure has its strong and weak accents; you just need to find any theory book. In this field, in my opinion, it doesn't exist. 2/8 is composed of 2 pulses of an eighth, each composed of two sixteenth divisions, accents F d

1/4 is an indication that isn't necessary; eventually, it is a technicality related to direction where you can use it to suspend a 4/4 time... for example... 4/4 = 4 beats of a quarter F d mf d + one quarter to suspend, for example, the last one... classic written fermata

For example, 3/8 instead depends on the speed; in your score, for instance, I haven't noticed indications regarding the speed...

And so on

Bianca wrote:

I mean, if I indicate a bar of 11/8, this can be read as 4/4 + 3/8, i.e., as a simple time + a compound one, but also as the sum of 3/8 + 3/8 + 3/8 + 2/8 (Absurdly enough, for me a bar of 2/8 has a different rhythm from a bar of 1/4, because I interpret it as an irregular time given by the difference between a compound time of 3/8 minus one of 1/8). My question then is: how do I make this clear on the score? It seemed to me that, for a simple principle of economy, the /8 indication would lead to preferring the second interpretation, not the first, but perhaps that's not the case, and I would like to understand how to do it.

In my opinion, this "you can read it" is not plausible; you are practically authorizing the conductor to do whatever they want and changing all your tonic accents according to their desiderata. In pieces where time indications of this type are adopted, the indication itself is superfluous and serves only to facilitate reading (even if in history someone has also dusted off the idea of removing the bar lines), but the desired accents are indicated with a specific symbol and everything is described by a legend at the beginning of the score.

For me, 11/8 conceptually does not exist because it has no rhythmic properties... except for prescriptions"}{

Bianca wrote:

I find close writing harmonically more "clear" and also, in this case, less problematic. However, wide writing, to my taste, manages to express particular sonorities that close writing cannot have, especially if one abandons the constraint of an octave distance. In any case, I would like to have your opinion on the matter.

For me, it deserves an ad hoc topic, great question

AbateFaria wrote:

@RStrauss

I liked it, just a couple of things.... those 2 initial notes so far apart don't convince me (leave only the soprano and let the basses enter later) and at 1' and 5'', having heard your lied several times, I would prefer to hear again the cadence that you had written in the Lied and which does not reappear here... in my opinion, it makes the passage more effective. It is probably a matter of taste ... but I don't know if you remember ....

Thanks for the comment.

I had thought of it with S. and B. at a distance of 2 octaves, but then I preferred the fifth.

The matter lies in the interpretation that this time I wanted to give to the text.

The beginning with the empty fifth is intended to create uncertainty about where the music will go: from that beginning, I could have gone in very different directions, then choosing the one that gave me

more certainty: the awareness that if she has received the divine gift, there must be a reason.

Moving forward, you will notice that there is quite frequent use of diminished chords: it represents the uncertainty of being or not being up to the task.

In some points, the harmonic successions are tighter: the restlessness of having received the divine gift.

The long 5-voice chords: the doubts that arise, immediately tempered by the return of the theme and the concluding coda, relaxed, calm, and reassuring.

Just a couple of tips/pointers.

Bianca wrote:

An aspect I would like to delve into concerns the type of voice leading: in particular, the aesthetic differences (within the limits of feasibility) between close-position writing and wide-position writing, and the differences between writing where the voices sing together and that where the melody is given by one or two voices at a time while the others accompany.

In my opinion, accompaniment-based writing has great advantages, in the sense that it is much easier to avoid an entire series of voice-leading problems, whereas the former does not seem to have any practical advantages and its choice remains purely an aesthetic matter. In this second case, the alternative between close or wide writing becomes more significant. I find close writing to be harmonically more "clear" and also, in this case, less problematic. Wide writing, however, to my taste, manages to express particular sonorities that close writing cannot have, especially if one abandons the constraint of an octave distance. In any case, I would like to have your opinion on the matter.

Close-position writing is more controllable at a sonic level, due to a better blend of harmonics, and ensures that the voices always sing in their best register.

The piece has a certain homogeneity of timbre, which close positions guarantee.

The wide-position writing offers more timbral possibilities, but one risks encountering errors in voice leading or, worse, intervals that are too wide to be compensated for by harmonics.

Using one or the other depends on what you want to achieve from the piece.

As far as writing with accompaniment or not is concerned: well, here the discussion expands.

Personally, I often use one singing voice and others that accompany, but when I have more parts available, I love to insert a counterpoint that proceeds with the main theme... a bit like Chopin.

Even here, it always depends on what you want to achieve from the piece and the desired effect.

"}

cromatismo wrote:

In my opinion, this "you can read it" is not plausible; you are practically authorizing the conductor to do whatever they want and changing all your tonic accents according to their desires.

Yes, but I wasn't the one who said it.

Anyway, regarding the 2/8, even 1/4 would have F d accents on the /8, but for me, the substantial difference lies in the indication of the context, in the sense that 2/8 indicates you are in a context of compound time, while 1/4 is in simple time; at least, that's how I see it.

Bianca wrote:

Yes, but I didn't say it.

...but the indications should be inferred from the score, shouldn't they?

Bianca wrote:

2/8 indicates that you are in a compound meter context, 1/4 in simple meters, at least that's how I would see it.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(musica)

I don't think it is a matter of subjectivity.

PS

It doesn't include the last parenthesis

Bianca wrote:

 Wide writing, however, in my opinion, succeeds in expressing particular sonorities that narrow writing cannot have, especially if one abandons the constraint of an octave distance.

Of course, but are the particular sonorities you are referring to audible by a choir of flesh and blood ... or are you thinking of those you deduce from Finale?

I ask because it seems obvious, but once during an orchestration course I used your exact phrase... and the maestro made me realize that, in effect, my ear was being trained away from real instruments, so my particular sonorities only existed in Finale... live, after checking, I realized that the result actually obtained sucked quite a bit ... At least that is my personal experience.

Regarding the discussion on wide and narrow parts, in many places Frank's Ave Maria seems to me to be written beyond the octave range, and does the question take the divisions into account? I mean, the final amens extend over 2 octaves... 2 octaves in the middle.

What am I missing?

What a mess, Bianca v/Cromatismo

Bianca wrote:

I am equally determined to make the text as intelligible as possible, but I'm getting a bit lost here, in the sense that the difficulties are not quite clear to me. Rstauss, in his precious examination, made no mention of it (aside from saying that the syllabification is correct). You gave me a few examples, but I didn't understand what I should do. I mean, if I indicate a bar of 11/8, you can read this as 4/4 + 3/8, i.e., as a simple time + a compound time, but also as the sum of 3/8 + 3/8 + 3/8 + 2/8 (To be absurd, for me a bar of 2/8 has a different rhythm than a bar of 1/4, because I interpret it as an irregular time given by the difference between a compound time of 3/8 minus one of 1/8).

I read the same thing as Cromatismo... mmmhm

Bianca wrote:

And I also understand the points I need to work on (I'm still waiting for a few words regarding the intonation difficulties mentioned by thallo).

That being said, as I was telling Classic, I am not suited to suggesting corrections... there are some difficult points from an intonation standpoint, which however also form part of the piece's aesthetics. At least as far as I can tell.

I'll give you a sort of "walk-through" which, I repeat, is not a list of things you must correct, but rather a commentary on the most complicated points:

Bar. 17: Augmented triad, preceded by a diminished triad on A, to which a major seventh is then added (I interpreted the diminished triad of A as the second degree of a hypothetical minor mode on G#, and therefore an augmented chord on Bb, where rather than Gb there should be an F#... but nothing is certain in these situations, also because on the second quarter we have a D major)... the augmented triad is in itself a difficult chord to intone; if we also add a prominent minor second between the altos and sopranos, it becomes even more complex. But that is the nature of this chord. The real problem in this bar, in my opinion, lies in the movement of the parts. There are choices I don't understand, but they may be aesthetic choices. Since you are moving in a situation that is inherently complex, I wouldn't have made that change between tenors and basses. You want to have a D major on the second quarter? You could have anticipated the natural A in the altos, rather than doubling the third. But the entire conduct, in my opinion, is clumsy or enigmatic. Wide leaps make these chords more complicated.

Bar. 20: at the eighth note we have "harmonically" the overlap of two fifths, C-G and D-A. In reality, the voicing says G-D-A and then C. At the following eighth note, there is a major seventh chord on Bb in third inversion, and after that, the same chord on Eb, but in second inversion. The harmony changes again at the eighth note until the third eighth of the following bar. I'm not saying it's impossible, because it isn't at all, but all these very rapid harmonic changes are already complex to intone. Dissonances of this type, in my opinion, make the piece very tiring. Imagine that these people must maintain a cappella intonation the whole time, and then at bar 22 you introduce another voice change with wide leaps again.

Bar. 23 et seq.: the complicated harmonic changes continue, but here the problem of textures and false relations is added. There is one between alto and tenor, where the tenors even arrive from an unresolved dissonance (the F is the seventh of a G7 chord). The sopranos, then, go an octave with the basses—actually at a distance of 3 octaves—to intone on the downbeat of bar 24 a very strange chord, which is the suspension of the following Ab, with a very distant major seventh that gives me a headache just thinking about it :-) and everything culminates in the famous parallel octaves of bar 25... if the choir doesn't drop half a tone at this point, it's not a choir of real people :-)

Bar. 26-36: here I really don't know what to say. The harmonies change at the eighth or the quarter note, and they are not "transits," as in a chorale (i.e., passing dissonances often on held notes of other voices). No, I mean, seriously, I started reading it and I couldn't believe it: you made different harmonies at EVERY change. Not all of them are complicated, but they are all different, and with part movements that are not always ideal. Direct and hidden fifths and octaves increase intonation problems, precisely because if they are not perfectly in tune, they transform into the worst existing dissonances (diminished fifth and major seventh). For instance, between bars 28 and 29, the basses and sopranos perform an ascending minor third at a distance of two octaves. Besides the fact that I keep wondering why you changed the voicing if you are leaving two Cs and an Eb in the previous bar; if that Eb at the beginning of bar 29 is not perfectly in tune for both basses and sopranos, it will be heard and it will sound terrible. Okay, you might not know that parallel octaves and fifths are difficult to intone, but I'm telling you now :-)

Enough now, or I'll seem mean...

Your piece doesn't suck at all, eh, but as it is, it is sooo much difficult to perform well