Correlation between vocal register and dynamic possibilities

as was also mentioned when talking about Fidelio, Beethoven writes for voices as if he were writing for instruments. This is possible and can even lead to masterpieces, but it is much easier to sing Verdi's Requiem than to sing Beethoven's Ninth... Verdi's Requiem is not "easy," it is easier to sing, meaning it is a piece well-written for voices.

But this discussion can also be made by disconnecting it from the discussion on registers...

These days I am singing a lot of ancient polyphony. And, I don't know if you know, but in ancient polyphony our concepts of registers (basses, baritones, tenors, altos etc...) are largely lost. Ancient clefs do not indicate vocal "types" but rather ranges. Even more so, it was very common for choirs to be made up only of men, which is why we should not consider the alto part as a part for women but as a part for high tenors-contraltinos or for countertenors or for boy soprano altos, and the same goes for sopranos. All our discussions about the passaggi, about the physiology of the voice linked to dynamics would be senseless in a historically informed performance practice. And therefore, compositional stylings do not justify us (that is, composers of the time did not write knowing the things we know today; they reasoned differently).

Let us also add that dynamic markings were not written...

Despite this, ancient polyphony "sounds" impressively. And it is always comfortable, even when it is written or transcribed in a strange way. And all this because it uses harmony and the motion of the parts perfectly. Dissonances are always sustained by long notes, which naturally function as dynamic reinforcements; complex melodic phrases are also sustained by well-defined harmonies; consonances last a long time, giving a sense of release, of relief; phrasing follows the phrase of the text, not just the musical one, and so we have important harmonic moments not only on the tonic accents of the word but also on a main tonic accent of the entire phrase.

Well, this is something I would feel like carving in marble: from the ancient polyphonists, one learns that THE COMPOSER writes the phrasing. It is not an invention or a discovery of the performer. And a well-written piece does not allow the performer to make mistakes.

thallo wrote:

(...) unisons in fortissimo often become ugly, raucous, unless a very particular sonority is being sought.

Sorry Thallo but (just to understand better)... «Über Sternen muß er wohnen» (b. 643-646, ff) from the finale of the Ninth, is that one of these cases?

If that were the case, I understand a little more why once I struggled to... enjoy it (let's put it that way)

that is a complicated piece, without a doubt, but it is not a unison. Tenors and sopranos are in octaves and if I am not mistaken basses and contraltos are in octaves with each other and a minor third below the others. It remains a somewhat senseless moment, in my opinion, I prefer the chord after...

the vocally very heavy moment, in terms of unisons, is before: "seid umschlungen Milionen diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt", and the unison of the subsequent intervention. They are low for the tenors and are extremely difficult to intonate well.

thallo wrote:

Dissonances are always sustained by long notes, which naturally function as dynamic reinforcements; complex melodic phrases are also sustained by well-defined harmonies; consonances last a long time, giving a sense of discharge, of relief; phrasing follows the phrase of the text, not just the musical one, and therefore we do not only have important harmonic moments on the tonic accents of the word but also on a main tonic accent of the entire sentence.

Here, this is something I would feel comfortable carving in marble: from the ancient polyphonists, one learns that the phrasing is written by THE COMPOSER. It is not an invention or a discovery of the performer. And a well-written piece does not allow the performer to make mistakes.

All the great composers of the past and today's Composers with a capital C pay attention exactly to all these aspects; it is not a prerogative of the Flemish. I would feel inclined to say that there are composers who manage to grasp the teachings of tradition, make them their own and translate them into their own aesthetics (without appearing anachronistic), and those who want to act "cool"... well, time, as always, sets all things right.

I believe a distinction can be made between composers who write well for voices (particularly for the choir, because the soloist is a different matter) and composers who do not have this "sensitivity." Obviously, it is a somewhat brutal generalization, but perhaps useful!

We have said, among the truly "idiomatic" composers for choir, the ancient polyphonists, Verdi, and I would certainly add Monteverdi (who is also very difficult to render well) and also Mendelssohn, who is always infallible with the choir.

We found problems in Mahler, in Beethoven...

And J.S. Bach? Obviously he knew how to write for choir... But how often do we find passages where the voice must truly transform into an instrument? I am thinking of the long sequences of sixteenth-note quadruplets in the "Fecit potentiam" of the Magnificat. Are they not more suited to a violin, or an oboe, than to a voice?

I'm trying to reconnect a bit with Frank's discussion; if I understood correctly regarding these names, RedShcarlach, the history has already proven its point... although in effect the music of all these Masters does not present the same execution difficulties. I don't know why, but instead I imagined the recent present....

I agree with RedScharlach, even regarding the names.

Bach offers us another "problem," a problem that would deserve to be addressed separately if it weren't so damn complicated: instrumental figurations for voice. It is true that Bach writes for voices as if he were writing for instruments. And it is interesting to note how in the choral history of music there has been a sort of evolution in this as well. In short, Bach's choruses and Bach's vocal soloists sound like the orchestra of Bach's period and like the instrumental soloists of Bach's period.

This leads me to throw out a somewhat convoluted and somewhat simplistic catchphrase: Beethoven wrote poorly for voices because his orchestra was not a "vocal" orchestra; conversely, Bach wrote "well" (though not easily) for voices because his orchestra was still a "vocal" orchestra.

It could also be put this way: there are periods in the history of music in which instruments and voices copy each other and this "crossover" is fruitful. But there are periods in which the difference is too great, and then if you don't understand the peculiarities of one or the other musical world, you are screwed.

Listing the peculiarities of vocal writing that "copies" instrumental writing would be extremely long and complicated

thallo wrote:

that is a complicated piece, without a doubt, but it is not a unison. Tenors and sopranos are in octaves and if I'm not mistaken basses and contraltos are in octaves with each other and a minor third below the others. It remains a somewhat senseless moment, in my opinion, I prefer the chord after...

ok. But why... 'senseless'?

that whole section there is normally understood as a sequence of "enunciations" and developments of those enunciations.

"Seid umschlungen..." in unison between basses and tenors;

"Seid umschlungen", development with all voices.

"Brueder ueber'm Sternenzelt" again in unison;

"Brueder..." again with all voices

"Ihr stuerzt nieder..." if I'm not mistaken it is not unison but is homorhythmic conduct for everyone.

"ueber Sternen muss er wohnen" quoted by you, which is another homorhythmic enunciation;

"ueber Sternen" another development that creates a suspended cadence before flowing into the fugato.

Of this entire structure, to me the "enunciations" are the parts I like least. They have a certain mystical quality, probably in their own way they recall Gregorian chants, but they have nothing of Gregorian chants. To me, they seem precisely senseless. I admit that for me this adjective does not have a positive connotation, but I believe that committed Beethovenians might even find it interesting. There, the melodic and harmonic conduct breaks. It could make sense if they were true thematic enunciations. But they are not written well enough to sound good in that context, at least in my opinion. The first "seid umschlungen", then, I consider one of the ugliest pieces of the symphony. And it is always marked forte, it is written with a square rhythm, on a melodic cell that tastes of nothing

thallo wrote:

Of this entire structure, the "enunciations" are the parts I like least. They have a certain mystical quality, probably recalling Gregorian chants in their own way, but they have nothing of Gregorian chants about them. To me, they seem precisely senseless. I admit that for me this adjective does not have a positive connotation, but I believe that die-hard Beethovenians might even find it interesting. There, the melodic and harmonic conduct breaks. It could make sense if they were true thematic enunciations. But they are not written well enough to sound good in that context, at least in my opinion. The first "seid umschlungen," moreover, I consider one of the ugliest pieces of the symphony. It is always marked forte, it is written with a square rhythm, on a melodic cell that tastes of nothing.

That's why when I was little I didn't like it and couldn't wait for the double fugue to arrive (perhaps I was more demanding regarding vocal technique).

effectively, the unisons of the male "enunciations" have nothing of Gregorian chants; if anything, they recall them, as you say "in their own way."

But they make sense. And their meaning lies in the juxtaposition to the "developments."

At least for me: because of the meaning I feel in this moment of the symphony (and which I did not feel once upon a time).

But... let's stick to <vocal technique, choral intonation>.

thallo wrote:

I admit that for me this adjective does not have a positive connotation, but I believe that to die-hard Beethovenians it might even seem interesting.

In fact, these declamato sections are my favorite part of the entire Symphony (even if I cannot say I am a die-hard Beethovenian!). Perhaps precisely because they are so eccentric, perhaps because they convey their "message to humanity" in such a direct and immediate way.

But the exchange relationship between voices and instruments is certainly complex: I think of the introductory Presto of the fourth movement, where it is the cellos and double basses performing the Recitative.

Besides, in Beethoven, moments where instruments "speak" are not rare: starting from op. 31 no. 2, reaching up to op. 135, passing through op. 81a, and without obviously forgetting the Arioso of op. 110, which is one of the most extraordinary points of Beethoven's "vocalism". Of course, it is a vocalism that is quite sui generis!