Choral Music Workshop 2014

AbateFaria wrote:

Regarding the discussion on wide and narrow parts, in many places Frank's Ave Maria seems to me written beyond the range of an octave, 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?

with the split and overlapping voices the interval will be a bit more than an octave, but the effect is the same; simply widen the total interval, but those within the voices are still narrow parts.

AbateFaria wrote:

Of course, but the particular sounds you are referring to are listenable by a choir of flesh and blood ... or are you thinking of those that you infer from Finale?

i don't know, I mean, one always has to see what you have listened to

It's not that I am inferring something from Finale, it is more of a general discussion, based on how I imagine certain things. I really like high notes and very much the bass, and I also like the sense they give when heard together. Obviously, it depends on what and how. In my opinion, the lack of harmonics is a musical quality just as important as others, which is also quite underused. For example, it can give a sense of "emptiness" or "detachment"; sure, perhaps the "habitual" part of the ear might experience it poorly, but it can still have its own function....

AbateFaria wrote:

I always read the same thing as Chromaticism... mmmhm

in what sense?

Bianca wrote:

i don't know, I mean, you always have to see what you listened to

It's not that I am inferring something from Finale, it's more of a general discussion, based on how I imagine certain things. I really like the highs and very much the lows, and I also like the sense they give when heard together. Obviously, it depends on what and how. In my opinion, the lack of harmonics is a musical quality just as important as others, which is also quite underused. For example, it can give a sense of "emptiness" or "detachment"; sure, perhaps the "habitual" part of the ear might experience it poorly, but it can still have its own function....

There is one thing to clarify:

the richness or lack thereof of harmonics depends on various factors and here thallo will surely be able to give his opinion.

Vocal technique and vocal timbre are the most important.

Good harmonics come primarily from male voices, basses and baritones first and foremost, while from female voices only contraltos can guarantee a good quality of harmonics, simply by virtue of being so.

Then the other two characteristics come into play:

vocal technique improves timbre and harmonics if the throat and tongue are placed the right way and the breathing is correct; in this way, the chest and oral cavities, which act as a resonance chamber, function properly.

You should listen to a choir while singing a fixed chord, trying to pay attention to the whistles that should be heard above the sopranos' voices. These harmonics, which are the high part of the group, are the litmus test, in the sense that if you hear them, the choir is singing the right way and you will also notice a very homogeneous and round timbre.

There are things that I dislike doing, even more so in an interesting and useful thread like this one; I anticipate that it would be advisable not to reply publicly to this message. Thank you in advance.

Given that, in order to avoid overlooking details, I have re-read the entire topic, first of all, I will not delve into the merits of the content but rather the form.

According to the regulations, it is in no case permitted to judge the activities of the moderators, who are an integral part of the forum's "decor". Therefore, I would not like to read phrases like Classic's publicly:

“from a moderator I would expect”

If someone (in this case Classic) expects something different from what they receive from a moderator, they can report any abuse to the admin or other members of the moderation team. That would have been the proper way to express a complaint.

That being said, there is another rule that prohibits personal clashes via public posts; for this reason too, private messages exist.

The worst thing is to appeal to the alleged responsibilities of a moderator when the dialogue, in this specific case, occurs at a user level—that is, without a moderator asserting their authority given by their role and above all... especially when referring to almost objective matters. A user who finds themselves in disagreement with another on objectively obvious issues can ignore it (if they interpret it as a provocation), can counter-argue by providing arguments (the proper way), or can report the abuse (strongly recommended if deemed useful).

A moderator (in this case Thallo) has been labeled as rude; re-reading several times, I find that Thallo may have been blunt, but regarding the content (which fortunately I understand because I am also a technician), he only highlighted objective issues and thus refutable with potential counter-arguments.

That being said, I imagine Classic read too hastily because they find Thallo rude in some sentences, to which instead I would like to add some captions since they are not addressed to Classic but to composers (I remind everyone, including myself, okay?!):

A composer (not just Classic) is not someone who simply rattles off interesting chords. Those can even come by pure luck (clearly meaning luck), it's enough to abound in dissonances and resolutions...

... if YOU (not just Classic, but composers in general) do not know the voices, who should know them: the butcher (a random profession among those not strictly related to the world of composition; I use the term fruit seller... my fruit-selling friends will forgive me) under your house?

This is just to dot the "i's", since this is the second time it has happened in the last month (also with another user); I did not want to let it slide at all, and if you have something to say to me, I await you via private messages, thank you. Since I have been long-winded, I remind you that it would not be healthy to reply publicly to this post of mine... because any reply, besides not being read, will be discarded and will result in a ban.

Thank you for your cooperation and let's get back to the subject... as we are already rightly doing despite what happened.

Bianca wrote:

I really like the highs and I love the lows very much, and I also like the sense they give when listened to together. Obviously, it depends on what and how. In my opinion, a lack of harmonics is a musical quality just as important as others, which is also quite underused. For example, it can give a sense of "emptiness" or "detachment"; sure, perhaps the "habitual" part of the ear might experience it poorly, but it can still have its own function....

In theory, this argument could hold up.

But...

1) I continue to have the impression that you are saying this to justify yourself. That is, someone tells you that you write in parts late and you respond that there is a profound reason why you write in parts late. If you had said it before, perhaps it would have been better, so it wouldn't seem like a way to justify a hypothetical error...

2) "the lack of harmonics is a musical quality"... let us remember that harmonics always exist regardless. As we know, every note unleashes a series of natural harmonics, and the most easily audible ones arrive right after about two octaves. The simplest consequence is that a bass singing a G (first line of the bass clef) will project a beautiful complete ninth chord built on the G second line of the treble clef :-) if I write a dyad with that G sung by the basses and an F fifth line sung by the sopranos, that F, to be in tune, must be consistent with the seventh partial (flat) of the G of the basses. Distant notes MUST MERGE on the harmonics, at least according to the type of choral singing I was educated in. The PHYSICAL problems of these empty intervals are due to everything else: to the other notes in between, to the speed with which you take that note, and therefore to the rhythm and meter, to the "harmonic" value that you give or want to give to that note.

3) for "empty" chords in our system, tonal ones mainly refer to dyads or chords with fifths and octaves "without" thirds. As I said in my previous post, the problem with tuning these polyphonies is due to the fact that if they are out of tune, they transform into the worst possible dissonances. When well-tuned, they are wonderful things, in my opinion, because being such close consonances, they lead to a wonderful resonance. Natural intonation systems make the tuning of parallel intervals of fifths and octaves very difficult, and it seems this is why they have historically been forbidden in teaching, but acoustically an empty fifth is as far from something empty or distant as it can be. Playing only on the piano, I think one cannot understand what I mean...

4) take back that sentence about the habitual part of the ear :-) you can twist it for others, but not for us...

Bianca wrote:

i don't know, I mean, you always have to see what you have listened to

I would say a lot...

Bianca wrote:

what do you mean?

You're telling Cromatismo that you didn't tell him... but I also read the same words from your post ...?... oh well, never mind ...irrelevant.

Bianca wrote:

Regarding the discussion on audio processing, you've opened a door with me, I just don't agree with the comparison to architecture:

I probably expressed the concept too quickly; CAD allows for a 3D visualization of a skyscraper project, just as MIDI does the same for a musical piece starting from a compositional project (the score).

Without being pedantic about the example, which doesn't serve much purpose, in the case of realization following a flawed project... the skyscraper risks collapsing and the piece risks being unplayable or the result being light-years away from what was "imagined"...

Therefore, in both cases, a simulation is better.

But one can easily go further: if something is not playable, it means it is written for a Sequencer... so, from my point of view, this is plausible but would only change some evaluation criteria. That's all.

Bianca wrote:

I am equally determined to make the text as intelligible as possible, but I am getting a bit lost here, in the sense that the difficulties are not quite clear to me. RStrauss, in his precious examination, made no mention of it (aside from saying that the syllabification is correct).

In effect, I would not be able to suggest anything without precise indications; in fact, the first suggestion is precisely to invite you to clarify the relationships between the meters...

I repeat, I am unable to solfeggio it, consequently I cannot catate the parts, I cannot conduct it... you (re)ask yourself how RStrauss managed to...

...without being provocative, which is not exactly the case, can you at least sing one of the parts you have written, especially while imagining/relating to the gestures, referring to the meter, of the conductor?

A question for Bianca (but not just for her): you stated that you write at a desk because you haven't played the piano for a long time. The question is related both to this particular detail and to the observations that, in particular, Thallo made regarding the numerous changes of harmony in narrow spaces, resolutions that did not occur, significant distances between extreme voices, etc.. (which I read with interest, as well as the interventions of everyone else). When you write, do you do it on a PC, step by step, proceeding by trial and error but also supported by an initial idea (but also work in progress since it might even change at the moment of testing), trying on the score or even with a master key? Certainly, in the first case, it is more difficult due to the impossibility of testing in real time; in practice, what does 'at a desk' mean? I am asking you this because, especially in this case, it involves a work where harmonic solutions abound that are nonetheless not easy to imagine clearly in one's head and write with full knowledge (it is one thing to imagine a minor, major, minor seventh or major seventh chord; and things get complicated if the chord is a diminished 5th, augmented, etc..), and it is difficult (I think) even for those who are used to composing without an instrument or like Thallo, who sings in a choir (which presupposes, besides knowing how to read music, recognizing an interval and having a clear distinction in one's head between intervals relating to imperfect consonances, perfect consonances, and dissonant intervals). I am posing the question to you but not only. Certainly, it is something that has to do with practice, with concentration, but last but not least with one's own perceptive ability; for example, I certainly cannot say that I practice recognizing intervals or chords, and in fact, even because of this, if I don't already have in mind at least one harmonic sequence that then turns out to be exactly what I will write later, or a melodic line, one encounters difficulties in finding the continuation for a composition. I wouldn't be a 'desk' composer, because even if mentally (and this is not difficult, but it's not the same thing as singing aloud) I can logically recognize tones and semitones, I often get the 'reference point' wrong, and if I think a melody starts from the G following the middle C of the piano, checking shows me that I was wrong and in reality I started a tone below or above, and when things go well, it is 'only' by a semitone. I won't go further because as far as I am concerned, factors such as concentration, practice, and consistency count, and not a little; however, in short, knowing how to recognize even complex chords, in some cases partially, distinguishing the key in which one 'presumes' to be, is no small feat; perhaps, 'blessed' is the one who can, it is of great help.

Writing at a desk, imagining what comes out, is not that easy.

For the choir, one knows that by putting the bass on A3, the tenor on C4, and the alto on G4, a beautiful sonorous chord emerges.

It is known that by putting the soprano on E5, the alto a third below, and the tenor a 4th below, the chord will be high-pitched and ringing in character.

But it is a matter of practice.

In reality, recognizing the pitch of the key is not that important, as one looks at the vocal tessitura.

One imagines a melody or a theme and writes it down while keeping it within the register of the chosen voice.

The others will then follow accordingly.

It is a different matter for the orchestra: here too, the key does not matter, but what matters is the instrumental blend, which is normally studied: it is known that the bassoon in a high register and the oboe an octave above have a certain effect, just as the horn in a medium register doubled by the viola sounds in a "certain" way.

But one studies and listens to many pieces with the score at hand to understand the blends.

Keys deserve a separate discussion: I am firmly convinced that every key has its own characteristic... that is, it sounds in a certain way.

Based on this, I decide in which key to write.

For the choir, keys with flats are better and, verified in the field, for the voice singing F# is not the same thing as singing Gb... I don't know why, but it is so...

but in any case, even here, listen, listen, and try to write, write, and write. If you have a choir available, even better.

another thing to keep in mind is that the diminished 4th, the tritone, and the diminished seventh are the only two intervals that are perceived differently by every person, and it is very difficult to intonate them in choral sections of 5/8 people... I haven't understood the reason for this either, but it is so.

At the base of everything, however, lies experience and listening, as Thallo used to say.

AbateFaria wrote:

I would say a lot...

but I was joking, I was referring to this

AbateFaria wrote:

...live, after checking, I realized that the result actually obtained sucked quite a bit...

thallo wrote:

In theory, this argument might hold up.

But...

1) I continue to have the impression that you are saying it to justify yourself. That is, someone tells you that you write in parts (split textures) and you respond that there is a profound reason why you write in parts. If you had said it beforehand, perhaps it would have been better, so it wouldn't seem like a way to justify a hypothetical error...

I haven't read the rest yet, but I feel the need to clarify immediately. Certainly, you cannot know my music, but if you did, you wouldn't say something like that. Both in piano and in other ensembles, I am used to this type of writing (I wouldn't call it 'in parts', but I use very low and very high bass lines. Actually, I perhaps like the lows even more... I believe I have already been noted on this in this forum, or perhaps it wasn't here, it doesn't matter much).

Furthermore, I did not say that there is a profound reason, but I raised an issue that interests me, and perhaps not just me.

But more importantly, I have absolutely nothing to justify myself for, and if you think about it, you can realize this. So much so that even before publishing the piece, I said there were many things that didn't convince me, and in fact, I participated for that very reason. Since then, I have been saying that I will make the necessary corrections, one way or another...

It is not my way of proceeding to get ahead of myself—that is, to explain beforehand (and often even afterwards, if it's not a workshop) what the music itself should be explaining. I believe that ultimately, music must always explain itself, and in most cases, only by listening to it.

Finally, what I regret most of all is hearing something like this, not regarding me personally, but because, even in a case where it were true, it would have no constructive weight in the context of the discussion, and in some way risks casting a bad light on the person saying it, compromising the value of the other interesting things they say. Even if I were saying it to justify something, what would change for you? Would the general problem change shape? Or would you simply feel satisfaction in pointing it out?

I don't know, I thought things were going so well...

Perhaps I shouldn't even respond, but the fact is that I am not offended at all, but a little disappointed...

I am truly sorry to read these remarks Thallo; I like to think that you are an intelligent person and I would like to continue believing so...

Anyway, I'll pretend nothing happened and read the rest

thallo wrote:

In theory, this argument might hold up.

4) eat your words regarding the habitual part of the ear :-) you can fool others with it, but not us...

in what sense? we aren't the only ones listening to music (hopefully)?

(aside from the fact that I can no longer find where I wrote it and I don't even remember how I wrote it)

Frank wrote:

In fact, I would not be able to suggest anything without precise indications; in fact, the first suggestion is precisely to invite you to clarify the relationships between the meters...

I repeat, I am not able to solfeggio it, consequently I cannot chant the parts, I cannot conduct it... you (re)will ask yourself how RStrauss managed to...

...without being provocative, which is not exactly the case, can you at least sing one of the parts that you have written and above all by imagining/relating to the gestures, referring to the meter, of the conductor?

but I don't think you are being provocative

but I don't understand what you mean and therefore I don't know how to proceed. What indications should I include? Should I indicate where the accents are? Can you give me a practical example of the indications you would expect?

In what sense sing? The piece is all sung, even if by a synthesizer, and with (almost all) correct accents. Conducting it, I don't even know where to start conducting Happy Birthday ....

thallo wrote:

While remaining mindful that, as I was saying to 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 understand.

I will 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 intonate; 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 voice leading, in my opinion, is clumsy or enigmatic. Wide leaps make these chords more complicated.

Bar. 20: at the eighth note we have "harmonically" the superposition 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 note of the following bar. I am not saying it is impossible, because it isn't at all, but all these harmonic changes so rapid are already complex to intonate. 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 intonate on the downbeat of bar 24 a very strange chord, which is the delay of the subsequent 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 on the eighth or the quarter note, and they are not "transits," as in a chorale—meaning 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, basses and sopranos make 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 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 intonate, but I'm telling you now :-)

Now enough, or I'll seem mean...

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

This is the Thallo I like

But why mean? Just because you say it isn't bad at all?

On the contrary, if you have other points, I would be very happy if you brought them to me; your comments along with rstrauss's have been very precious to me so far.

Coming back to us...

Bar. 17: Anticipating the A in the altos forces me to change the soprano melody, which is the starting point. The crossing, in fact, isn't worth it and should be removed.

Bar. 20-22: I don't follow you here; the widest leap is in the tenor and it is a fifth.

Bar. 23 et seq.: do you mean the tritone between altos and tenors? But why don't you like it or why is it difficult to intonate? Anyway, I am already working on these bars. Yes, it's the anticipation of the Ab, I don't know, I liked it quite a lot...

Bar. 25: here it's tough, but I think the complication"}

for the soprano, it is more or less the Eb preceding (anyway, for me, lowering the whole piece by a semitone is not an option, as Frank used to say). Rather, seeing as there are other difficult points as well, I would add some soloists, who perhaps have an easier life in certain passages, or maybe not?

Bars 26-36: eh eh, yes it is like that, but here it is truly a case of take it or leave it. What I have already done is simplify the movement of the parts and reduce the distances. That octaves and fifths are "difficult" is well known (otherwise, what would they have forbidden them from doing, besides many other practical reasons, but that's another story...), however here they are part of the harmonic game; they are not thrown in randomly, and I believe that within certain limits today's choirs can even intonate them well. But if even so it is impossible, then there is nothing left to do but cut the entire part. In these points, the writing is certainly more instrumental.

>Besides the fact that I keep wondering why you changed the arrangement of the voices if you are leaving two Cs and an Eb in the previous bar

I got lost here; I don't understand what you mean. Consider that between bars 28-29 and 30-31, there is a sort of augmented third modulation upwards that I needed to give a sense of "relaunch"; everything else depends a bit on this...

Piccinesco wrote:

A question for Bianca (but not just for her): you stated that you write at a desk because you haven't had a piano for a long time. The question is related both to this particular detail and to the observations that, in particular, Thallo made regarding the numerous changes of harmony in narrow spaces, resolutions that did not occur, significant distances between extreme voices, etc.. (which I read with interest, as well as the interventions of everyone else). When you write, do you do it on a PC, step by step, proceeding by trial and error but also supported by an initial idea (but also work in progress since it might even change at the moment it is tested), trying it out on the score or even with a masterkey; certainly, in the first case, it is more difficult due to the impossibility of testing in real time; in practice, what does "at a desk" mean? I ask you this because, especially in this case, it is a work where harmonic solutions abound that are nonetheless not easy to imagine clearly in one's head and write with full knowledge (it is one thing to imagine a minor, major, minor seventh or major seventh chord; and things get complicated if the chord is a diminished 5th, augmented, etc..), and it is difficult (I think) even for those who are used to composing without an instrument or like Thallo, who sings in a choir (which presupposes, in addition to knowing how to read music, recognizing an interval and having a clear distinction in one's head between intervals relating to imperfect consonances, perfect consonances, and dissonant intervals). I pose the question to you but not only. Certainly, it is something that has to do with practice, with concentration, but last but not least with one's own perceptive ability; for example, I certainly cannot say that I practice recognizing intervals or chords, and in fact, even because of this, if I don't already have in mind at least one harmonic sequence that turns out to be exactly what I will later write, or a melodic line, one then encounters difficulties in finding the continuation for a composition. I wouldn't be a "desk" composer, because even if mentally (and this is not difficult, but it's not the same thing as singing it aloud) I can logically recognize tones and semitones, I often miss the "reference point" and if I think a melody starts from the G following the middle C of the piano, checking shows me that I was wrong and in reality I started a tone below or above, and when things go well, "only" by a semitone. I won't go further because as far as I am concerned, factors such as concentration, practice, and consistency count, and not a little; however, in short, knowing how to recognize even complex chords, in some cases partially, distinguishing the key in which one "presumes" to be, is no small feat; perhaps, "blessed" is the one who can, it is of great help.

It is hard to answer everyone and this is the most complicated question.

First of all: I write (almost) always on a PC, Finale or other. If you want to know if I can imagine an entire sequence of intervals and chords

in my head in an exact way, the answer is certainly no

But I would prefer to continue in private, because I don't want to raise issues that don't quite belong here....

Bianca wrote:

What do you mean by singing?

The piece is all sung, even if by a synthesizer, and with (almost all) the correct accents. Conducting it, I don't even know where to start conducting Happy Birthday....

What indications should I put? Should I indicate where the accents are? Can you give me a practical example of the indications you would expect?

Sing with your sweet little voice... since the intention is to dedicate the piece to a real choir. It would help you greatly to understand the difficulties to which you are subjecting the choristers. Just for completeness, the 24-member choir has at most a couple of "Pavarottis"... but then the others are section choristers.

Let's say at most one "real" soloist per section.

That being said, for me as of today, it is not yet truly possible to establish the real correctness of the accents. Strauss will have had his way with it, but are you sure that his reading is the one you desire? Also, the tempo indication is missing, in short, the metronome (the very first thing). But this only covers the first measure, since at measure 2 there is a meter change below... what is the relationship between the meters of measures 1 and 2? For practicality, I suggest you take a look at my score; at the top, before every meter change, it could say for example eighth=quarter... quarter=eighth, etc. Without those indications, the value of the pulse is unmanageable.

This already gives us certain information about what you expect from the pulse, the tactus, the beat, call it what you want.

Thallo in his dedicated topic on choral music says that it is an instrument, so it must know what to perform... it's true, but between the chorister, the composer, and the choir director: just as instrumental gesture exists, by analogy, conducting gestures also exist; to make sensible choices (or at least logical ones), one should also put oneself in the shoes of a conductor who must have their own music performed and conducted. Not by chance (finally), in new composition courses, it is possible to delve deeper into the conducting and concertation of choirs and orchestral formations.

In short, the instructions must be clear... for everyone, but primarily for you; for this reason, you should sing the parts while simulating the conductor's gesture. If it isn't clear to you... think of others; then one can let their imagination run wild and do whatever they want in your meters, but that is precisely compensating according to one's own poetics for a factual lack.

Regardless of the management of vocals and harmonic complexity, you will need to work in this direction as well, and consider that I am telling you this as someone who is aware that your piece, which appears to be something very simple, very clean, very clear to perform... is at the limit of performability, and few choirs in Italy could afford to perform it. Do you know what their biggest problem will be? Managing the complexity of the harmonic situations... and compared to yours, there are only very few, and they are carefully diluted.

Aside from this digression, without touching anything else, indicate an initial speed and explicitly state how you want the tempo changes. Once the pulse is clear to you, you will see that it will be easier, with the aim of respecting the accents of the words and designing the metric structure.

In reality, it is something that should be part of the creative process (like orchestration), but since I am convinced that yours might just be a problem of how to write what you have thought—which surely will make sense... probably, even if after the fact, something could be achieved.

Bianca wrote:

This is the Thallo that I like

Meas. 20 -22: I don't follow you here, the widest leap is in the tenor and it is a fifth

Meas. 25: this is tough, but I think the complication for the sopranos is mainly the previous Eb (anyway, for me, lowering the whole piece by a semitone doesn't work, as Frank used to say) Rather, since there are also other difficult points, I would add soloists, who perhaps have an easier time in certain passages, or not?

Meas. 26-36: eh eh, yes that's true, but here it is really take it or leave it. What I have already done is simplify the movement of the parts and reduce the distances. That octaves and fifths are "difficult" is well known (otherwise why would they have forbidden them, besides many other practical reasons, but that's another story...), however here they are part of the harmonic game, they aren't thrown in randomly, and I believe that within certain limits today's choirs can even intonate them well. But if even so it is impossible, then there is nothing left to do but cut the whole part. In these points, the writing is certainly more instrumental.

> Besides the fact that I keep wondering why you changed the voice arrangement if you are leaving two Cs and an Eb in the previous measure

Here I got lost, I don't understand what you mean. Consider that between measures 28-29 and 30-31, there is a sort of augmented third modulation upwards that I needed to give a sense of "relaunch," everything else depends a bit on this...

Quickly,

at meas. 22 I was referring more to the bass-alto movement, which goes from a major seventh in parallel motion to an octave. It's a leap that is complicated to intonate, and to think that those basses could hold the G steady and the Eb could be taken by the tenors...
a around meas. 25, soloists would just increase the problem, because here the problem, in my opinion, is one of intonation rather than vocal range. Rather, you could divide the section, so 3-4 sopranos do the Bb, but they are possibly supported by a nearby note from the rest of the section. Let's go back to the issue of slightly tighter parts, which create harmony and support.
at meas. 26-36 the problem is that: why did you write it for choir when a quartet could do it better? Anyway, the text can't be understood :-p
a meas. 28-29 I was referring to the voice positions. At the last movement of measure 28 we have C (Basses) Eb (Tenors) C (Sopranos), at the first movement of meas. 29 we have Eb, G, C and Eb.. That is, you practically have the same harmony, but rather than leaving some parts stationary, you make everyone perform an ascending third leap (which, as I was saying, is an octave between basses and sopranos). All these changes in chord position are pianistic, or at least instrumental. Voices in a choir "prefer" long and singable notes :-) it is truly an organological necessity