Choral Music Workshop 2014

Bianca wrote:

 huh? to me this seems a bit strange, for me a syncopation was something else (namely a note on the strong beat - a note of double duration on the weak beat), but at this point I'm losing my mind and I can't make sense of anything anymore )

I hope Frank won't be mad at me if I quote his attached score: to me, here it really seems like it is A-vè

I mean, it's a 4/4 so F-d-f-d writes: rest (F) - A(d) - ve(f) - rest(d)

I mean, there is a diminuendo and for me it is A-ve (not A-vè), but metrically the A is on the weak beat and the ve is on the strong beat.

Besides, I would never read it as Avè anyway because I know Latin and the text tells me what the voice must do (which is a bit like what rstrauss was saying before) and therefore there wouldn't even be a need for the diminuendo (I repeat - for me)...

I also understand from another perspective that without dynamic indications you could interpret a crescendo (on my word, see what I wrote before regarding this, with the attachments), obviously only with "supporting" instruments....

If instead it is just a matter of dynamic indications then .... and say so immediately, no! :D

In this topic, it is truly difficult to talk to you... I don't know, it seems like you really don't grasp what we are saying...

1) no, syncopation is a precise thing. It is a shift of the rhythmic sense obtained by prolonging a note that begins on a weak beat until or beyond a strong beat;

2) hence, the example from Frank's piece is not a syncopation, because the note on the weak beat and the note on the strong beat are not connected with a tie (legatura di valore), meaning they are two different notes; and I admit my jaw dropped when you used that as an example...

3) to perform a syncopation does not mean pronouncing "a-vé" and singing a syncopation does not mean pronouncing "a-vé"; the vocal literature of every era is full of syncopations on unstressed notes, and we could talk for years about the various meanings and ways of singing syncopations. For me, the discussion we are having about syncopation has a few specific points: you said there wasn't any, and since I am a pain* in the neck I had to contradict you; in those initial points it makes no musical sense at all, precisely because, from what I understand, you wrote it unintentionally, that is, without knowing it was a syncopation and without wanting to signify a syncopation; but you wrote it and therefore you must remedy it, meaning you must ensure there is no syncopation effect, which in literature means many things, certainly not "a-vé", but a rhythmic shift, a messa di voce with crescendo, or even just a different, more marked "sense" given to the syncopated note; there are many ways to remedy it, including changing the arrangement of the accents in the measure to eliminate the syncopation, or putting precise expressive indications that eliminate any possible reading of the syncopation.

4) To summarize, you made a road sign, you made it in the shape of a triangle because you liked it that way, but everyone who looks at it says "ah, it's a danger sign". Because it is a triangle, and all drivers know that a triangle is a warning sign. And here we are talking about syncopation.

5) you have changed the meter very often, using many other forms for all the other signs. And many of these forms mean, in the eyes of musicians, things that are not actually in your score, or contradict each other.

6) if I were a composition teacher, and fortunately I am not, because my students would probably kill me after half an hour in horrible ways, I would advise you to practice simplicity :-) at least metrical simplicity. Personally, I believe it is very difficult to write an Ave Maria in 4/4; I imagine it is even more difficult to write it with phrases that all last 4/4. But I think such a castrating exercise could be useful :-)"

Bianca wrote:

I hope Frank won't mind if I quote his attached score: to me, it really seems like it is A-vè

Don't worry about that... it's just that the matter is a bit more complex and elaborate.

For starters, there is an "a" of Maria in mezzo forte that arrives on the downbeat of the measure; the other sections enter piano on the "a", and "ve" arrives on the pp, but it's not just about dynamics and the technique of vowel fusion (towards resonance); the notes could be seen as a syncopation and the repeated note would arise only from syllabic requirements, but the vocality is fully respected... no one would hear an accent on "ve" in that passage (just for completeness, 4/4 has the following accents F d f d; even without too many flourishes, the first "a" is stronger than ve, then there's all the phrasing and dynamics... it's hard to hear avè).

Anyway, to be pedantic, one could also have written a quarter note measure, plus one in 3/4 as happens later with the second Ave... but the context explicitly declares what needs to be done. Substantially, measures 1-2 are a written expansion of the procedure in 3-4.

Whoever conducts the score does not read measure by measure (nor even single parts for each measure), but tries to trace the global musical design and honor it... obviously, if there is one and it is understandable.

rstrauss wrote:

Anecdote: in one of my quartets, contrary to the technique I studied, I indicated F double sharp because I was in the key of D# major.

I was told by one of the musicians: but why F double sharp... wouldn't G have been better?

Priceless, for everything else there is Mastercard !!!!

...let's say that referring to a tonal piece you at least had some mitigating circumstances... in short, the recognition of harmonic functions can be part of the game and help even those performing... but where the chords do not represent specific harmonic functions... but are only for color, one only needs to think about intonation requirements. Not by chance I was writing:

Frank wrote:

i suggest you pay attention to passages like measures 43-44; the C natural - E natural is certainly not something very logical and simple to intonate, definitely B - E, just as the altos would be facilitated by singing G - F# - E instead of G - Gb - E.

It happens that one feels the need to see the chords in the score as we conceived them at the end of a research process, but it is an urge only ours... in the end, if the intersection of voices produces an augmented triad... it will be heard the same way even if written differently (enharmonically, for example). The compositional project is just a framework that serves to put the composer and performer in contact; the simpler, clearer, and more immediate it is, the greater the chances of success in every sense. This does not mean abandoning the complexity that one wishes to seek in a piece, but expressing it in the best possible way.

I repeat, my piece looks like nonsense on paper, but no amateur choir, even serious ones, would be able to perform it and it would require great dedication from those at the highest level... and if, moreover, the performer does not believe in that project... one wouldn't even get close... let alone dedicate themselves to it. And I am not exaggerating... that is just how things are.

@RStrauss

But at measure 12, do the basses sing G# G♭ or is it a typo... practically the sopranos sing G#... on that G♭. Perhaps this is a point where it would have been better to indicate A♭s.

the basses sing g# g# gb gb and the sopranos sing gb f.

Unfortunately I haven't had time to listen and review.

I will fix and re-upload the two files.

thallo wrote:

In this topic it is truly difficult to talk to you... I don't know, it seems like you really don't grasp what we are saying...

in fact I have some difficulty understanding, and it is becoming increasingly clear to me that I am starting from different definitions of words (:)

>2) from which, Frank's piece example is not a syncopation, because the note on the weak beat and the note on the strong beat are not connected with a tie, meaning they are two different notes; and I admit my jaw dropped when you used that as an example...

certainty! I didn't say it was a syncopation (not even based on how I defined syncopation), the first note is on the weak beat and the second is on the strong beat and lasts as long as the first (so for me it cannot be a syncopation) : put your jaw back up )

>3) to perform a syncopation does not mean pronouncing "a-vé" and singing a syncopation does not mean pronouncing "a-vé", vocal literature from every era is full of syncopations on unstressed notes and we could talk for years about the various meanings and ways of singing syncopations. For me, the discussion we are having about syncopation has a few specific points: you said there wasn't one, and since I am a nitpicker* I had to contradict you; in those initial points it makes no musical sense, precisely because, from what I am understanding, you wrote it without wanting to, that is, without knowing it was a syncopation and without intending to signify a syncopation; but you wrote it and therefore you must remedy it, meaning you must ensure there is no syncopation effect, which in literature means many things, certainly not "a-vé", but a rhythmic shift, a messa di voce with crescendo,

and this I understood! I was only saying that I wasn't calling it a syncopation (I reiterate, according to what I believed to be the definition of syncopation), and therefore I didn't even understand the observations. As you have seen, already a few posts ago I emphasized with Frank what you are saying here, it's just that I didn't call it a syncopation

>and therefore you must remedy it

perhaps it wasn't understood, but that is what I am laboriously trying to do

i have inserted some alternatives, for example the last one which according to rstrauss is fine and it seems to me that was the one you were also indicating (if I didn't understand incorrectly here too). What do you think?

Frank wrote:

>First of all, there is an "a" of Maria in mezzo forte that arrives on the downbeat, the other parts enter piano on the "a" and "ve" arrives on the pp, but it's not just about dynamics and the technique of vowel fusion (towards resonance); the notes could be seen as a syncopation and the repeated note would arise only from syllabification needs, but the vocality is fully respected... no one would hear an accent on "ve" in that passage (just for completeness, 4/4 has the following accents F d f d; even without too many flourishes, the first "a" is stronger than ve, then there's all the phrasing and dynamics... it takes effort to hear Avè).

Anyway, to be pedantic, one could also have written a measure in 1/4, plus one in 3/4 as happens later with the second Ave... but the context explicitly declares what needs to be done. Substantially, measures 1-2 are a written expansion of the procedure in 3-4.

Of course Frank! As I said, I don't hear Avè in any way. For that matter, I don't even see an Avè in mine, though (as someone else has said, but apparently that isn't the case). The risk with mine is that it could be Ave-èe (but I would really have to see a conductor interpret the context this way).

On the other hand, I don't even see a single syncopation in yours, and what you say ("the notes could be seen as a syncopation") confuses my ideas about it even more...

rstrauss wrote:

exactly so.

If you wanted to, visually you could put the short stem where the syllable ends.

I am convinced that it would work this way.

do you mean on the text (like your sheet music and Frank's)?

Bianca wrote:

On the other hand, I don't see even a single syncopation (in yours), and what you say ("the notes could be seen as a syncopation") confuses my ideas about it even more...

Before you saw it, now you don't... and even if someone wanted to see it (a response... well)... it wouldn't be heard. In fact, syncopation is a musical effect that can be heard... seeing is always relative in music.

Just for completeness, syncopation is a scientific thing; it cannot be defined subjectively. There are regular, irregular, simple, and compound syncopations. It either is or it isn't. It is not a privilege of someone to reinvent it; knowing it, everyone can do so. Having said this, ...what is eventually interpreted is the way of performing it, singing it. If we are referring to an execution practice (or an execution "style"), everything is more easily resolved: if there isn't one, one adheres to theoretical principles. I repeat, one of the greatest difficulties today is moving through extremely different terrains and being in doubt about a piece, moreover without certain indications (I am referring to the first version) ...without notes, legends in the frontispiece (or any devilry one wants to invent), one relies on theory. One thing is certain: performers are not fortune tellers.

If in a violin piece a composer does not indicate the bowings, the violinist will use the gesture most convenient/suitable to them, and what comes out is not necessarily exactly what we expect it to be.

Frank wrote:

Before you could see it, now you can't... and even if someone wanted to see it (a counter-argument... well)... one wouldn't hear it. In fact, syncopation is a musical effect that can be heard... seeing is always relative in music.

no sorry, but can you tell me where I would have written that there is a syncopation or where I would have spoken of a counter-argument or that I read it as an accent?!?

Frank wrote:

Before you could see it, now you can't... and even if someone wants to see it (a retort... well)... it wouldn't be heard. In fact, syncopation is a musical effect that can be heard... seeing is always relative in music.

Just for completeness, syncopation is a scientific thing; it cannot be defined subjectively. There are regular, irregular, simple, and compound syncopations. It either is or it isn't. It is not a privilege of someone to reinvent it; knowing it, everyone can do so. Having said this, ...what might eventually be interpreted is the way of performing it, singing it. If we are referring to an execution practice (or an execution "style"), everything is more easily resolved; if there isn't one, one adheres to theoretical principles. I repeat, one of the greatest difficulties today is moving through extremely different terrains and being in doubt about a piece, moreover without certain indications (I am referring to the first version) ...without notes, legends in the frontispiece (or any devilry one wants to invent), one relies on theory. One thing is certain: performers are not fortune tellers.

If in a violin piece a composer does not indicate the bowings, the violinist will use the gesture most convenient/suitable to them, and what comes out is not necessarily exactly what we expect.

ok let's take Thallo's definition

>1) It is a displacement of the rhythmic sense obtained by prolonging a note that begins on a weak beat until or beyond a strong beat;

I wonder, but then every quarter note used in a compound meter will produce a syncopation? for example see attachment

If that is the case, then it is not possible to eliminate the syncopation from my piece except with a dynamic indication. If instead I haven't understood, could you give me a concrete example of how you would eliminate the syncopation (keeping the ratios between the note durations unchanged, obviously)

(PS: I apologize if I am being tedious, but if I don't fully understand the issue, I cannot start making changes that would be wrong again)

Bianca wrote:

will every quarter note used in a compound meter produce a syncopation? for example see attachment

No, because the "quarter note" already arrives on the downbeat, so it doesn't shift any strong accent... it arrives where it should be.

Sorry, don't you have a theory book like Rossi? Truly everything is written there. In its absence, try to draw from Wiki; it won't be the best, but as a basic introduction it never hurts:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sincope_%28musica%29

Attached is a basic example: at measure 2, the downbeat does not arrive, so it must be executed on the only dotted half note (why are you talking about a quarter note if the note is a dotted 2/4?) that you hear.

From wiki you can see that syncopation can also have different levels, even internally within the music (for example between subdivisions...)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sincope_%28musica%29

Anyway, aside from everything else, and then I'll close the subject, meters should be used to exploit their characteristics... using them only to fit in tonic accents, changing meter every measure, I don't see that as something interesting.

If you decide to use 5/4, knowing that you can interpret it as 3+2 or 2+3, for example, you can exploit it to make two overlapping rhythmic planes be heard... a bit like what happens with 6/8 over 3/4. The same applies to syncopation; it makes sense if one wants to make the negation of the natural place where the beat should arrive be heard.

An hyperbole: if you write a piece from the first note to the last all in syncopation (and a beat never arrives where it should be), practically the syncopation makes no sense... it would just be a notation error. Every technique is aimed at realizing a certain musical thought...

If the logic of the piece is aleatory, use neumes as was done in Gregorian chant or authors like Cage... rhythmic aleatoricism can also be sought (see Stockhausen, for example)... but then remove the text and express its meaning through sonic "Images". Use vowels (pure verses if you like) and highlight only a few key words for you.

In short, there are many ways, but if one seeks intelligibility of the text, harmony and melody are the engine; there is already a writing method most suitable for doing this.

Frank wrote:

No, because the quarter note already arrives on the downbeat, so it doesn't shift any strong accent... it arrives where it should be.

Sorry, don't you have a theory book like the Rossi? Truly, everything is written there. In its absence, try to draw from Wiki; it won't be the best, but as a basic introduction, it never hurts:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sincope_%28musica%29

Attached is a basic example; at measure 2, the downbeat does not arrive, so it must be performed on the only half note (why are you talking about a quarter note if the note is a dotted 2/4?) that you see.

From wiki you can see that syncopation can also have different levels, even internally within the music (for example between subdivisions...)

thanks Frank for your patience.

> (why are you talking about a quarter note if the note is a dotted 2/4?)

i dragged a note to the end and I even made a mistake because I didn't position it after the 1/8....

ok now I think I understand, so (one last thing), in the example below A is not a syncopation, while B is a syncopation, right?

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sincope_%28musica%29

Frank wrote:

Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

ok, so according to you too, the piece should be rewritten as rstrauss suggests?

Bianca wrote:

thanks Frank for the patience.

> (why are you talking about a quarter note if the note is a dotted 2/4?)

i dragged a note onto the end and I even made a mistake because I didn't place it after the 1/8....

ok now I think I understand, so (last thing), in the example below A is not a syncopation, while B is a syncopation, right?

Exactly, but among the levels of syncopation it is the least "strong" because it only shifts a weak accent. Those spanning across the bar line are the "strongest"... precisely because of the 9/8 feel of the F d d | F d d succession

Bianca wrote:

ok, so you also think the piece should be rewritten as rstrauss suggests ?

Try asking him to rewrite the first bars of the piece according to his thinking; if you find it acceptable for practice purposes, you could try to proceed on your own and perhaps propose a more definitive first section, indicating dynamics, paying attention to intonation problems by writing intervals that are easily singable, indicating what is necessary regarding meter—if there are meter changes, indicate the ratios between them or a change in tempo—mark articulations, agogics... in short, everything that can be useful to reach a point where you can study it.

I invite you to sing your melodies, to solfeggio your rhythms, to imagine a conductor conducting your music. Aside from analyzing mountains of scores and listening to lots of choral music (but a cappella), have you ever thought about joining choirs, even just to attend rehearsals, ask questions, or submit fragments of your pieces to see the reactions? Of course, the forum is one way, but nothing can replace direct contact with performers. I don't know if you've ever thought about it, but a composition teacher could also provide their contribution. You certainly have harmonic sensitivity, ideas... aside from solid theoretical preparation, what is missing is the part related to technique and orchestration, which require a structured path.

Frank wrote:

Try asking him to rewrite the first bars of the piece according to his own thoughts; if you find it acceptable for practice, you could try to move forward on your own and perhaps propose a more definitive first section, indicating dynamics, paying attention to intonation problems by sliding into easily intonable intervals, indicating what is necessary regarding meter—if there are changes in meter, indicate the ratios between them or a change in tempo—mark articulations, agogics... in short, everything that can be useful to reach the point where you can study it.

I invite you to sing your melodies, to solfège your rhythms, to imagine a conductor conducting your music. Aside from analyzing mountains of scores and listening to lots of choral music (but a cappella), have you ever thought about joining choirs, even just to attend rehearsals, ask questions, or submit fragments of your pieces to see the reactions? Of course, the forum is one way, but nothing can replace direct contact with performers. I don't know if you've ever thought about it, but a composition teacher could also provide their contribution. You certainly have harmonic sensitivity, ideas... aside from solid theoretical preparation, what is missing is the part related to technique and orchestration, which require a specific path.

Look, as I said, it's the first time I'm writing for voices, so it's the first time I'm tackling this type of problem. It has been very useful and instructive for me, having never attended choirs. In my family, I have two professional tenors (cousins whom I see rarely), but imagine, they don't have the slightest idea that I write music. Those who know me, know me for a completely different kind of professionalism, where music is considered (or dedicating oneself to music is considered)... let's say, in the best case scenario, a waste of time...

syncopation exists for instruments too, eh... that score would be easier to perform for instruments, but some problems of sense would remain. As I said a few messages ago, the problem is not only relative to the words, it is intrinsic to the meter. Quarter notes, half notes and eighth notes written in 7/8 time make no sense even if a brass quartet plays them.

I continue to repeat that, in my opinion, you should strive to seek an excessive simplicity. At least for didactic purposes

Bianca wrote:

as I said, it is the first time I am writing about voices

Yes, I remember... in effect you have started a journey and now you have certainly developed a greater sensitivity on the subject. I am certain that with the next piece for choir (but also by reflection in other areas) you will be different... and you will demand an even greater effort from yourself compared to this first time.