Jaako,

The first response I have is this: choose worthy texts.

Too much new choral has trite or sugary lyrics. I teach high school in
America; my students love and appreciate good poetry which can be analyzed and
discussed before it is presented to an audience.

Good luck in Italy,
Jason Harney
Upland High School, Calif.
uhschoral(a)aol.com

At 9:12 PM +0300 7/10/04, Jaakko Mantyjarvi wrote:
>I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks'
>time. By way of a very informal poll, I would be interested to know:
>What would you say to composers writing choral music? What are they
>doing right? What should they NOT do? What could help them write music
>that better captures the interest of the choral community and its
>audiences? Yes, it's an enormous topic, but I'm interested in first
>reactions.
>
>
>Regards,
>Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
>Helsinki, Finland

Jaakko: Your email address came back as undeliverable, so I'm
sending this to the full list. My first reactions:

Before you sit down to compose, have very clear in your mind exactly
who you are composing for. Yes, the human voice can do amazing
things, but not every individual singer can do all or even part of
those things. If you compose music that can only be performed by 12
people in the world, or only by singers with absolute pitch, or only
by singers capable of producing accurate microtones, you may be
composing wonderful music but you also might not ever hear it
performed!

Best of alland this is exactly the way early music composers
workedcompose not for posterity and not for publication but for
very specific singers and ensembles, whose capabilities you know
very, very well. Posterity will take care of itself, if your work
deserves it, and publication is a business matter and takes a good
business sense. But your music will at least be heard, and that's
the necessary first step.

John



John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell(a)vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

What a great subject. As a non-composer, but as a singer and choral
director, I followed your request and went straight into typing without a
lot of organizing. Here are my first reactions.

First, for the choral community: give me songs that are singable. For
example pay lots of attention to voice leading and give cues in the
accompaniment or in other parts for entrances. Give me melodies that are fun
or emotionally heartwarming to sing avoid those that are excessively
angular or appear to go nowhere. By now, you can tell my preferences never
made it much past the Romantic era. Give me shapes to the music that build
and ebb locally as well as over the whole song. If writing in the singer's
native language, use words that convey some form of emotion. Use words that
are "singable" at the pitches you place them.

For the potential audience: there are so many kinds of people out there in
many differing countries. If you are going to compose classical in a
language not understood by the audience, then make it emotionally available.
If in the native language, tell a believable story.

For both: vary the rhythms and the melodic content. Use more than one theme,
but be sure to end the work by tying the themes together into a "comforting"
conclusion.


Bill Paisner
Teacher, Voice and Piano
Director, Temecula Vintage Singers
Director, Southwest Women's Chorus
wpaisner(a)post.harvard.edu
"Jaakko Mantyjarvi" wrote in message
news:ccpbjk$hmk$1(a)nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks'
> time. By way of a very informal poll, I would be interested to know:
> What would you say to composers writing choral music? What are they
> doing right? What should they NOT do? What could help them write music
> that better captures the interest of the choral community and its
> audiences? Yes, it's an enormous topic, but I'm interested in first
> reactions.
>
>
> Regards,
> Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
> Helsinki, Finland
>
> "Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."
>

Dear Jaako,

I would make one request: if there are composers who, with whatever melodic,
harmonic, rhythmic formulae and traits, start their creative processes with
the musical constructs (such as their "hooks," "cluster chord vocabulary,"
whatever...,) please, please, please don't retrofit them to sacred Latin texts
because of any contrived convenience. And for those who have any appreciation
of the Hebrew/Aramaic "Alleluia," avoid that as well. Randall Thompson's been
there, done that. How many more "Ave Maria's,"Regina caeli's," and "Ubi
caritas'" do we really need that seem crafted and often ill-suited for the
musical settings they're assigned to?

Blessings upon your work and students,

Charles Culbreth
Redwood HS/St. Mary's Parish
Visalia, CA

PS Hi, Jason Harney. What's the buzz, tell me whatsa happenin'? down there.
CC

As a composer AND a singer, I've had to consider this question from both
sides. My experience has been that it's always easy to tell when a piece for
chorus has been written by someone who is not a choral singer. The
instrument (that is, chorus as an entity unto itself) is not very well
understood by those outside the field. Here are some thoughts that come to
mind:

1. Consider how large a group you want to be writing for. Generally, a
smaller group (8-16 singers) will give you a better chance of finding a
consistently high quality of musicianship among the singers, and it will
also make it easier to assemble a "pickup" ensemble if you want to. However,
you will be much more limited in the depth and volume of the sound that is
possible. Keep in mind that in almost all cases, a large group will have a
much wider variation of talent and experience amongst the singers.

2. Consider the strain on the singer of concentrating most of the notes in a
long passage in the uppermost range of the singing voice. Not only will your
performers tend to hate you if you do this, it won't sound good either
unless you have an exceptional choir (and sometimes even so). Just because
Beethoven did it doesn't make it okay!

3. Before you take a new piece to a publisher or to its first rehearsal,
actually try singing each of the lines, in the octave that is most
comfortable to you. Don't worry about staying in tune or singing it well,
just see if the notes themselves constitute a memorable and interesting line
on their own. Singers always like to have a cantabile part, even if they
don't have the actual melody in a particular portion of the piece. Doing
this exercise will help you recognize if you've shafted a particular section
with a particularly tedious or impossible part.

4. Try to avoid leaping into dissonances, especially clusters. If you look
at some of Eric Whitacre's scores, one of the reasons he's been able to be
so successful with some fairly advanced techniques (i.e., diatonic clusters)
is that he invariably builds them up in a way that's friendly to the singer:
basically having the whole chorus sing a melody or a scale and having each
subsection stay on their note when they reach it, while the other voice
parts move on. Asking a singer to deal with a wide leap while simultaneously
maintaining a close dissonance is asking for trouble.

5. Be careful about including advanced or avant-garde techniques in your
work. For better or for worse, the choral community is a very different
animal from the rest of classical music. Many, if not most, choral singers
are in it very much for reasons that are extramusical (a sense of community
and togetherness, religious beliefs, a reason to get out of the house), and
often they want those impulses reflected in the music that they sing. For
this reason, I've found that choral singers (though not necessarily
conductors) can be among the most resistant of all musicians to new and
avant-garde techniques, even as they are also among the most receptive to
the IDEA of singing a new work by a living composer. However, I suspect that
composers of choral music are much more apt to write in a "traditional"
(i.e., Randall Thompson-esque or easier) style than composers who primarily
write for instruments.

6. Along the same lines, be sure to consider the contexts in which your
piece will be sung. If it can only be performed in a concert setting because
of the length, difficulty, or forces required, it is much less likely to win
over the hearts of those who sing it and establish a long-term presence.
There are people I know who remember every word and every note of certain
songs we sang 4 or 5 years ago, not because the music was frankly all that
remarkable, but because of the meaning and associations it had for them:
singing it on a whim in strange exotic locations, singing it to a lover,
singing it on the weekend of your graduation, and so on. They don't remember
any of the more "ambitious" works we did, except in some cases with a
general disdain.

7. However, if you have a vision, and the conviction behind that vision, and
you KNOW it will sound great with the right people, then don't let any of
this mundane stuff stop you. Instead, focus on finding the right people. (On
the other hand, the "right people" for you may be those who will remember
your piece 5, 10, 20 years later because of how beautiful and simple it was.
Don't discount the value of that either.)

Please note that this is all based on my experiences with American choruses,
which may differ from your and your students' experiences in Europe. I wish
you the best of luck.

Ian Moss

- Original Message -
From: "Jaakko Mantyjarvi"
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: [CHORALTALK-L] What would you say to composers writing choral
music?


> I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks'
> time. By way of a very informal poll, I would be interested to know:
> What would you say to composers writing choral music? What are they
> doing right? What should they NOT do? What could help them write music
> that better captures the interest of the choral community and its
> audiences? Yes, it's an enormous topic, but I'm interested in first
> reactions.
>
>
> Regards,
> Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
> Helsinki, Finland
>
> "Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."
>

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:12:47 +0300, Jaakko Mantyjarvi
wrote:

>I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks'
>time. By way of a very informal poll, I would be interested to know:
>What would you say to composers writing choral music? What are they
>doing right? What should they NOT do? What could help them write music
>that better captures the interest of the choral community and its
>audiences? Yes, it's an enormous topic, but I'm interested in first
>reactions.

I think some composers are freeing the binds of tradition, and use the
voice in a very colorful way. It has colors instrumentalists can't do,
but as with all music, there is true effect and contrived.

I would suggest those who would like to compose choral music sing in a
choir. There are tons of them all over, and one does not have to be a
great singer to gain experience.

Jaakko,

My advice for choral composer is READ.

Read specifically a LOT of poetry. Read it voraciously, read it passionately,
read it insightfully, read it alone, read it in groups, read it written by
contemporaries, read it by people far removed from you in space or time, read it
with openness, read it in your own language, read it in your non-native
languages. Or have intimate, insightful friends, partners, or spouses who do.

Pay particular attention also to poems which are taught in secondary schools
because experienced teachers have chosen these to open and inspire youthful
developing minds and thus may also serve to be accessible to the
public-at-large.

Emily Dickinson and most poets wrote mainly of four things: nature,
love, life, and death. Much of her work and the work of published poets -- is
like inspired improvisations. Some of it is erratic, some obviously
unfinished, thrown off in the heat of creation; some of it is frightfully obscure. But
in most poems the leaps of thought are so daring, the wordplay so fanciful yet
so exact, the imagination so startling and original that they are miracles of
joy and craft. The reader is magically enthralled at the way a poet tackles
and transforms enormous ideas into tense, terse verse. In poetry there is a kind
of super-observation that arrests us with magical and startling phrases.

Emily herself gives us a standard for judging poetry: “If I read a book and
it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know it is poetry.
If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know this is
poetry. These are the only ways I know it.”

Start with a poem that does this for you. And then live up to that poem in
your composition. Do it justice.

*** *** *** *** *** ***

Added suggestion: Make an assignment early in the workshop for your students
to collect three to seven poems that exhibit the top-of-the-head factor, and
have them bring the text of the poem on a sheet of paper (either a computer
printout, screen shot, or Xerox copies). Make sure they print the author's name
ON THE BACK. Then have either the group or pairs search and discuss the texts
they would truly love to set as a composition. You will send your students home
*filled* with ideas for compositions. Your workshop will result in a *number*
of quality composition.

HTH (Hope This Helps),
J. R. Norton
Freelance Writer/Journalist/Researcher
Denver, Colorado

Jaakko,

Encourage your students to resist modulating the key upward as the song
progresses. Many potentially great anthems have suffered needlessly from this in
recent years. Instead of introducing new themes, harmonies, rhythms, etc.,
composers start working in key changes; usually with big, sloppy rubato and
crescendo. Going up that half step once (or even twice) has compromised many good
anthems.

This is just my opinion and it sounds so judgmental. But if I have an octavo
in each hand either one with good text set into good music I will set
aside the anthem that modulates up in favor of the one that stays in one key.
Yes, we have "modulating music" in our choral library and, yes, I have pulled
it out and performed it in worship on occasion. I just prefer the
non-modulating songs.

Jim Edgar
Choral Director
Bay Shore Lutheran Church, ELCA
Milwaukee

UHSChoral(a)AOL.COM wrote:
> Too much new choral has trite or sugary lyrics.

Well, Jason, it's because they match the trite and sugary music! :-)



Mark Gresham, composer
mgresham(a)luxnova.com http://www.markgresham.com/
Lux Nova Press http://www.luxnova.com/
LNP Retail Webstore http://www.luxnova.com/lnpwebstore/

Jaakko Mantyjarvi wrote:

> I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks'
> time. By way of a very informal poll, I would be interested to know:
> What would you say to composers writing choral music?

Off the top of my head:

Learn the rudiments of vocal writing. Learn what voice ranges are. Learn
something about singing.

Ultimate Bad Example: a composer who wrote a massive work which started
with 18 minutes of a tenor chanting on a monotone. A monotone high A. He
was apparently perplexed at the lack of people who wanted the gig. He
was writing for a professional singers, and had the funding to pay scale
for the gig. Most of your music will be sung by amateurs, or not at all.
Bear in mind that while amateurs can be very capable, and very musical,
they tend to have less talent and technique than say, the chorus at La
Scala. If you write music which absolutely demands bulletproof
techniques, it will generally suffer in performance, if it's performed
at all.

Figure out who you're writing for. Write for a specific choir. If you
know a choir whose members can pull notes out of the air in the midst of
rapidly changing tone clusters, at the extremes of their range, by all
means write works for them. If you don't know such a choir, don't assume
that there are mobs of them wandering around out there somewhere.

Don't put singers at the very top or bottom of their range, or at the
very loudest or softest that they can sing, and park them there for half
an hour. It's not fun. Eventually, it hurts.

If you want to write a piece for SSAT, or SSTT don't try to broaden the
market by calling it a composition for SATB. If you are determined to
write high G's for the Alto section, you deserve the results you'll get.

Your performers, I reiterate, are amateurs. They do it for fun, and some
of them pay for the privilege. If you make demands on them, you have to
offer some rewards, musically.

rm

I am a lyricist who envies those with the ability to compose.

My request to choral composers is: write quality music. Do not
underestimate those of us who wish to find worthwhile texts and music for our singers.
Do not be tempted to add additional "cute" novelty pieces to an already
flooded market of drivel. Rather write what you love and do well remember
vocal limitations of singers but give us something to aspire to. If making
money is the only reason you can find now to write a piece, wait until you
know what exceptional "something" you will be able to offer in the writing of
it. Surely those quality compositions will be the ones that will be around in
years to come.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Lynda Boltz
Raleigh NC

"Allow your voice to serve the music not the other way around." - B. R.
Henson

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:12:47 +0300, Jaakko Mantyjarvi
wrote:

>I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks'
>time. By way of a very informal poll, I would be interested to know:
>What would you say to composers writing choral music? What are they
>doing right? What should they NOT do? What could help them write music
>that better captures the interest of the choral community and its
>audiences? Yes, it's an enormous topic, but I'm interested in first
>reactions.

As a tenor, could I put in a plea for interesting and melodic inside
parts? So often we end up with boring or angular parts just 'filling
in the chord'. Take a leaf out of Dvorac's book!

hth
Derek

>UHSChoral(a)AOL.COM wrote:
>>Too much new choral has trite or sugary lyrics.
>
>Well, Jason, it's because they match the trite and sugary music! :-)



Oh come on now! here in Tokyo we say that people with bad taste have just
as much right to be carried to the throne of the heavenly grace by their
kind of music; just so long as we, the choir, are allowed to keep on
slipping in the good stuff while they're not looking. ;-} And it turns out
they like it anyway.

For me, the big musical breakthrough came when I heard my father, who
insisted that 1930s dance band music was that all we should aspire to,
whistling that catchy theme from Mozarts's 39th symphony. As a London
taxi-driver was reported as saying, "It's a nice drop of tune, ennit?"

If people hear good music, they'll like it unless someone is lying in
wait to tell them it's not cool.

FWIW,

~Doreen Simmons
~

There is a lot of contemporary music that is simply way out of the reach of
most amateur choirs and indeed audiences (not yours, Jaakko). The composers
seem to miss the point that the work should be singable and good to listen
to, if a bit challenging. This sort of repertoire is also rarely performed
which makes the whole compositional effort virtually a waste of time. I like
atmospheric, melodic and/or rhythmical pieces.

Brendan

"Jaakko Mantyjarvi" wrote in message
news:ccpbjk$hmk$1(a)nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks'
> time. By way of a very informal poll, I would be interested to know:
> What would you say to composers writing choral music? What are they
> doing right? What should they NOT do? What could help them write music
> that better captures the interest of the choral community and its
> audiences? Yes, it's an enormous topic, but I'm interested in first
> reactions.

As a singer, I would have to say that the quality in new works is always
most apparent in those composers who demonstrably love the sounds the
voice can make in combination. Text, text, and more text it's what
makes the greatest choral works live, and what makes us love them.

Next: chords. Nothing as interesting in choral music: choirs love
meaty chords.

Then: line. If (as a bass) all I'm doing is tonics, fifths and fourths,
I will quickly lose interest. Give every part something singable, at
least some of the time. If at the end of a rehearsal the choir goes away
singing the tune _of their part_, you know the next rehearsal will be
easier.

Dynamics: use the potential of the voice, sforzandi and subito piano.
Think about the text always when writing, and don't give us fff on a
horrible vowel (like ü).

Things to make it easier: (1) Vocal cues, either from the instrumental
back, or from other parts. They don't have to be the same phrase or even
note any choir should be able to get the easier intervals. (2) Obvious
breaths (i.e. breaths in obvious places)

Those are things to make the rehearsal easier, but try not to make the
music itself too easy, or I will lose interest (this is a personal thing,
however :)


Rob

Understand and respect the passagio break. Look at Bach's tenor parts (and
remember the pitch creep over the centuries.) For amateur tenors and
baritones, hovering around the break is difficult, and unlovely at times.

Ray Klemchuk

- Original Message -
From: "dancertm"
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: What would you say to composers writing choral music?


> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:12:47 +0300, Jaakko Mantyjarvi
> wrote:
>
> >I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks'
> >time. By way of a very informal poll, I would be interested to know:
> >What would you say to composers writing choral music? What are they
> >doing right? What should they NOT do? What could help them write music
> >that better captures the interest of the choral community and its
> >audiences? Yes, it's an enormous topic, but I'm interested in first
> >reactions.
>
> I think some composers are freeing the binds of tradition, and use the
> voice in a very colorful way. It has colors instrumentalists can't do,
> but as with all music, there is true effect and contrived.
>
> I would suggest those who would like to compose choral music sing in a
> choir. There are tons of them all over, and one does not have to be a
> great singer to gain experience.

In article ,
choir-robot(a)mail.lluahsc.net (Choraltalk Gateway) wrote:

> Dear Jaako,
>
> I would make one request: if there are composers who, with whatever melodic,
> harmonic, rhythmic formulae and traits, start their creative processes with
> the musical constructs (such as their "hooks," "cluster chord vocabulary,"
> whatever...,) please, please, please don't retrofit them to sacred Latin texts
> because of any contrived convenience. And for those who have any appreciation
> of the Hebrew/Aramaic "Alleluia," avoid that as well. Randall Thompson's been
> there, done that. How many more "Ave Maria's,"Regina caeli's," and "Ubi
> caritas'" do we really need that seem crafted and often ill-suited for the
> musical settings they're assigned to?
>

Wow! Gently pushing back, I thought that Hovhanness had already done an
alleluia (though I am not sure who preceded who, in this case). I am
personally glad that Durufle wasn't put off by earlier settings of Ubi
Caritas...

I do agree however that if you set a text that's already set by many
others, you are entering a crowded field. As some modern hymn writers
have shown well, if you meet a need which little other music meets,
you're more likely to become well-known.

My personal pleas to the composers, in addition to the ones already
voiced: try to avoid, or at least only consciously use, the obvious
'traps'. I mean, for example, setting short notes before a short breath
it's hard not to 'snatch' the note; or setting patterns of intervals
on which choirs naturally tend to flatten or sharpen, all in succession.
Try to remember that breathing is natural and needs to happen. And,
please, no alto lines "D D D D E E D. C# D A D D C# D."

Dave Singer wrote:
>
> My personal pleas to the composers, in addition to the ones already
> voiced: try to avoid, or at least only consciously use, the obvious
> 'traps'. I mean, for example, setting short notes before a short breath
> it's hard not to 'snatch' the note; or setting patterns of intervals
> on which choirs naturally tend to flatten or sharpen, all in succession.

This, I may note briefly, opens one of the cans of worms I intend to
discuss in my course: "intervals on which choirs naturally tend to
flatten or sharpen". I can just see the blank stares now. :-) Nowhere
have I come across a composition course or instrumentation textbook that
addresses this, and really the only way to gain a working understanding
of this is to sing in a choir oneself. One of the paradoxes of writing
choral music is that one is (usually) imagining equal temperament for an
instrument that instinctively tends towards natural tuning. Then again,
try to instruct a choir to sing in natural tuning, and the result is
likely to be chaos!

> Try to remember that breathing is natural and needs to happen. And,
> please, no alto lines "D D D D E E D. C# D A D D C# D."

That's one of the ten characteristics of being an alto you get really
good at singing E flat. :-)


Regards,
Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
Helsinki, Finland

"Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 04:03:31 +0300, Jaakko Mantyjarvi
wrote:

>Dave Singer wrote:
>>
>> My personal pleas to the composers, in addition to the ones already
>> voiced: try to avoid, or at least only consciously use, the obvious
>> 'traps'. I mean, for example, setting short notes before a short breath
>> it's hard not to 'snatch' the note; or setting patterns of intervals
>> on which choirs naturally tend to flatten or sharpen, all in succession.
>
>This, I may note briefly, opens one of the cans of worms I intend to
>discuss in my course: "intervals on which choirs naturally tend to
>flatten or sharpen". I can just see the blank stares now. :-) Nowhere
>have I come across a composition course or instrumentation textbook that
>addresses this, and really the only way to gain a working understanding
>of this is to sing in a choir oneself. One of the paradoxes of writing
>choral music is that one is (usually) imagining equal temperament for an
>instrument that instinctively tends towards natural tuning. Then again,
>try to instruct a choir to sing in natural tuning, and the result is
>likely to be chaos!
>
>> Try to remember that breathing is natural and needs to happen. And,
>> please, no alto lines "D D D D E E D. C# D A D D C# D."
>
>That's one of the ten characteristics of being an alto you get really
>good at singing E flat. :-)

Some of it is voice leading, and all the basics we all know from first
year harmony, but over the years I've found certain voicings tend to
go flat. Thompson's Alleluia comes to mind as I just heard it, and the
tenors had the third of the chord, and yes, they had intonation
problems, that work always has intonation problems. Palastrina, on the
other hand, tends to not be as much of a problem. Take for example
Alma Redemtoris Mater, the voicings are so natural, and lay well for
the voice with a strong bass line, the parts sound without too much of
a problem.

So, it is my opinion its not so much the range of a work, but good
thoughtful voicing. Leading up to the note tends to cause intonation
problems, and a weak bass part can also cause problems.

Doreen Simmons wrote:

>> UHSChoral(a)AOL.COM wrote:
>>
>>> Too much new choral has trite or sugary lyrics.
>>
>> Well, Jason, it's because they match the trite and sugary music! :-)
>
> Oh come on now! here in Tokyo we say that people with bad taste have just
> as much right to be carried to the throne of the heavenly grace by their
> kind of music; just so long as we, the choir, are allowed to keep on
> slipping in the good stuff while they're not looking. ;-} And it turns out
> they like it anyway.

Noting your interesting caveat of "slipping in the good stuff," and
the subsequent ;-) attached...

> If people hear good music, they'll like it unless someone is lying in
> wait to tell them it's not cool.

That can be a big "if."
Unfortunately, there are some people who are indeed not merely lying
in wait, but pro-actively out to tell them that what you call "the good
stuff" *isn't* cool, and make sure they don't get exposed to it. I
know, because I've encountered them head-on. (Won't be the last time,
either.)
That aside, as Jason points out, the "commerce" of new choral music
is rife with "trite and sugary" selections. And while publishers have
contended that "if you didn't buy it we wouldn't sell it" there is a
degree to which that is a bogus argument, because it's awfully difficult
to buy what isn't on the menu.
McDonald's may have served billions and billions, but does that make
it "good" for mothers to be daily shoveling sugary ketchup-laden french
fries down the gullets of their increasingly fat infants because it is
so "convenient"? And what is the price to be paid for that?
It is precisely the axiom of the fast food industry to control the
customer by limiting the menu choices. If the choices are limited to
the "trite and sugary" (what one might suggest the fast-food equivalents
in publishing are offering) it certainly skews a few numbers; those
numbers subsequently encourage more of the same "trite and sugary" in
imitation, increasing the number of "replicants" published. What's
*not* on the menu is *not* going to show up in the quantitative PR of
"what people want (buy)" used in the "we wouldn't publish it if..."
answer. (As one wag put it: "Statistics are merely guesswork until
they're on your side.")
Certainly over the last quarter century, my observation is that the
selection of new publications of what you might be calling "the good
stuff" have dramatically decreased in proportion to the "trite and
sugary." Is it because of any dwindling "good taste" of choral
musicians? As a primary reason no, I don't think so. Rather, it
appears there are several larger cultural reasons, one might say largely
within the USA, but also part of globalized influences that currently
tend to reflect the trends of US commerce as the visible front line of
"social values" not merely "commerce values," particularly the era of
"McDonaldization" over nearly the last half of the 20th century.
1) I think that largely "trite and sugary" trend parallels that of
commerce in general over that time. That makes it a matter of greater
difficulty in fulfilling any contrary notion of "taste" (whether good,
bad or indifferent) within in the mainstream, based on what's available
on the menu and what's thereby promoted.
2) It parallels other trends in changing (US) social culture since
the 1960s. (For example, immediately before then "entertainment"
generally reflected the aspiration in youth towards post WWII "good
life" pleasures of adulthood; "entertainment" has since reflected an
aspiration to avoid losing youth at all costs (the baby boomer
generation don't trust anyone over 30). This youth orientation has
continued as the prime directive in US popular culture since.
3) Given the above, there has developed a "culture of convenience"
where results of *any* kind achieved with the least effort are accepted
as a desired goal. In popular culture, we now tend to want "instant
gratification," or (more accurately) the feeling of it. And so we are
willing to accept limited choices without qualitative consideration
(where quantity substitutes for quality willy-nilly) as long as they are
the path of least resistance.
4) Thus, there has been a widening of the gap between the
"simplistic" and the "inaccessible," with fewer challenging and
substantive but "accessible" works (though I hesitate to use the word,
as the bar for what constitutes "accessible" has been progressively
lowered over that time) which make a strong impact on raising the
"qualitative median" for overall repertoire, and raises the bar for what
we aspire to, qualitatively speaking (rather than sheer technical
difficulty).
HOWEVER, even in the face of times where there is a mainstream like
the above that is promoted as "what the people want" (however untruthful
that may actually be), there will be a segment of society that expresses
dissent and will resist it, fostering a minority creativity that can
hacve an impact if it happens to get loose upon the populace, or at
least the practitioners of the art in question.
That dissent is, in fact, part of the major changes that are taking
place now in the overall music industry, as giants consolidate then
"downsize" further, and an increasing body of "indies" with
"qualitative" motives find innovative ways to become established and
prosper like grass growing through cracks in concrete.
Definitely not the first time that such necessary upheaval has
happened, and certainly not the last. Such things are broadly cyclical
throughout history, though and most critically not previously
under the same kind of McDonaldized circumstances that exist today.
[Make note: I am a capitalist, not an anti-capitalist, but within
capitalism there is a wide range of human impact, positive and negative,
that can result from our qualitative choices or absence of them.
That is true for other touted economic systems as well, Q.E.D. over
history.]



Mark Gresham, composer
mgresham(a)luxnova.com http://www.markgresham.com/
Lux Nova Press http://www.luxnova.com/
LNP Retail Webstore http://www.luxnova.com/lnpwebstore/

"Jaakko Mantyjarvi" wrote in message
news:ccpbjk$hmk$1(a)nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks'
> time. By way of a very informal poll, I would be interested to know:
> What would you say to composers writing choral music? Yes, it's an
enormous topic, but I'm interested in first
> reactions.
>
>
> Regards,
> Jaakko Mäntyjärvi

Jaakko,

You've asked for first reactions: the first thing that came into my head
would be for choral composers to make the effort to be aware of what the
human voice can and cannot do. That may seem painfully obvious, but, as
someone who sang with the Dale Warland Singers for seven years and who will
be beginning my fourth season with the VocalEssence Ensemble Singers, I have
sung a lot of newly composed music. I never cease to be amazed by the
seeming lack of knowledge of the voice on the part of some composers. I
have performed pieces with a Bass II range well in excess of two octaves (my
favorite was the one that went from fortissimo low C to high g flat), pieces
where the bass line sat right around the passaggio for page after page (it
seems as though some composers REALLY like to do that to tenors!) and pieces
where I endured (as well as the audience, probably) singing at one extreme
or the other of my vocal range for extended periods.

Please tell your students to sing in a choir (if they've never done so),
take a few voice lessons (if they've never done so) and, if they have a
question about something, ask a singer!

Thanks for listening,

Jim Ramlet
VocalEssence Ensemble Singers

I tried to send the following response to Mr. Noone, but the address had
permanent errors. I don't want to belabor the discussion, but his response
requires me to amplify my point.


Dear Mr. Noone,

You responded to my post
alleluia (though I am not sure who preceded who, in this case). I am
personally glad that Durufle wasn't put off by earlier settings of Ubi
Caritas...">>

Cheap shot, Mr. Noone. Durufle and Hovhaness (and for that matter Thompson)
weren't scheissters or snake-oil salesmen out there legitimizing their
musical whimsies by the imposition of Latin texts. If one would need spelling
things out, do we need one more uninspired (take that literally) Latin setting by
K**** S***, Linda S****** (whatever her new last name is) or Eugene B****?
(All of whom I respect for the body of their work and contributions to enabling
youngsters to reach for the next rung on the choral ladder. )
At the opposite extreme, as a high school and parish choral director, I have
to determine if certain works of Part, Taverner, Gorecki, et al are too
esoteric for scholastic or liturgical consumption. I don't doubt the inspiration
at all in those Latinate settings. I just, like you cite, have to weigh their
worth in terms of time spent versus time alotted when comparing them to
Durufle, Faure, Michael Haydn, Victoria/Palestrina and so forth.
I hope this clarifies the intent of my post to "Jaako." To me, it's very
serious. Every time a composer opts to put into a textual context a Latin
proper, ordinary, canticle or whatever, AT THE EXPENSE of looking for a specific
poetical/prosaical text that s/he identifies with and absorbs, we are, in a
sense, deprived of the greater opportunity.

Charles Culbreth
Visalia, CA

I'm surprised that you of all people should be asking!

For me, music has to be challenging to be interesting in the first place. If
it
doesn't clear this first hurdle then it becomes 'wallpaper' -full of
predictable
patterns, and not very memorable. At the same time, while the composer
shouldn't 'dumb down', neither should the music be unnaturally quirky. If
the
piece has an interesting melodic line and an intriguing logical development,
then a choir will be willing to see where it leads.

The music repertoire must explore the full dynamic range and tessiatura of
the choir -even if it *sounds* effortless, the choir should work for its
results.

The music must fit the text, and the text must have a poetic value in its
own
right. (Britten's Flower Songs spring to mind...)

In performance, the music must communicate to the audience, otherwise the
choir is simply being self-indulgent. In this context (and notwithstanding
my
earlier comments) even simple music can be very moving; I had the pleasure
to experience this in Tallinn recently.

Just a few thoughts...

Bet wishes
Simon Drew

"Jaakko Mantyjarvi" skrev i en meddelelse
news:ccpbjk$hmk$1(a)nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks'
> time. By way of a very informal poll, I would be interested to know:
> What would you say to composers writing choral music? What are they
> doing right? What should they NOT do? What could help them write music
> that better captures the interest of the choral community and its
> audiences? Yes, it's an enormous topic, but I'm interested in first
> reactions.
>
>
> Regards,
> Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
> Helsinki, Finland
>
> "Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."
>

>One of the paradoxes of writing
> choral music is that one is (usually) imagining equal temperament for an
> instrument that instinctively tends towards natural tuning. Then again,
> try to instruct a choir to sing in natural tuning, and the result is
> likely to be chaos!

Of course this only applies to unaccompanied music.
I think it is up to choirs to pitch intervals "in tune" rather than
composers to write music that doesn't present problems.

>one is (usually) imagining equal temperament
Surely one would imagine "natural" tuning - but then most composers, unlike
Bach, are presumably bashing the thing out on the piano.

Stephen Barber

Simon Drew wrote:

> I'm surprised that you of all people should be asking!

Well, naturally I have, as Terry Pratchett would put it, Views. But I
felt that for this occasion I should have a somewhat broader sample to
rely on, given that my experiences derive largely from the Finnish
choral world and are thus notwithstanding the glowing praise heaped
on Scandinavian choral music abroad rather limited.

Also, if the response is large enough (and it seems gratifyingly so
already), I can draw a tentative conclusion as to what seems to be the
single most important thing that the people actually *using* choral
music want to find in new choral music.

'Singability' and 'high-quality texts' lead the field at the moment.


Regards,
Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
Helsinki, Finland

"Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."

At 9:12 PM +0300 7/10/04, Jaakko Mantyjarvi wrote:
>>I am teaching a course on choral composition in Italy in two weeks' time.
>>. .

Many interesting suggestions have been posted. Several months ago Daniel
Gawthrop posted a list of guidelines for choral composers (and later a
similar one for orchestral composers). This was one of the most insightful
and practical information I have seen on the topic. Perhaps he would resend
this information?

Charles Q. Sullivan
cqsmusic(a)hotmail.com

In a message dated 7/13/2004 4:23:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ScurraDei(a)AOL.COM writes:

Durufle and Hovhaness (and for that matter Thompson)
weren't scheissters or snake-oil salesmen out there legitimizing their
musical whimsies by the imposition of Latin texts. If one would need
spelling
things out, do we need one more uninspired (take that literally) Latin
setting by
K**** S***, Linda S****** (whatever her new last name is) or Eugene B****?
(All of whom I respect for the body of their work and contributions to
enabling
youngsters to reach for the next rung on the choral ladder. )
At the opposite extreme, as a high school and parish choral director, I have
to determine if certain works of Part, Taverner, Gorecki, et al are too
esoteric for scholastic or liturgical consumption. I don't doubt the
inspiration
at all in those Latinate settings. I just, like you cite, have to weigh their
worth in terms of time spent versus time alotted when comparing them to
Durufle, Faure, Michael Haydn, Victoria/Palestrina and so forth.
I hope this clarifies the intent of my post to "Jaako." To me, it's very
serious. Every time a composer opts to put into a textual context a Latin
proper, ordinary, canticle or whatever, AT THE EXPENSE of looking for a
specific
poetical/prosaical text that s/he identifies with and absorbs, we are, in a
sense, deprived of the greater opportunity.



Actually, I know quite a few people who would call Hovhaness a "scheister"
on several counts, though that really is immaterial.

The real issue is composers setting texts they don't really understand and
which are so far removed from the context for which they were created that they
no longer make sense. This is exceptionally obvious in the case of Latin
texts. Composers are often attracted to the sense of mystery and spirituality
they seem to entail, but set them without understanding what they mean or why.
An example of this is the text to a piece I recently encountered that ran:
"Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Alleluia, amen!" It is
hard to imagine the composer of this having any clue what the words are
about, so the relationship between the text and the musical composition is suspect
before it is even constructed.

On the other hand, sacred Latin texts are still the approved repertoire of
the Roman Church and it makes perfect sense that composers would continue to
set them, as Paert, Gorecki and others have done quite beautifully and
sensitively. Personally, I am quite glad that no one convinced Mozart that St. Thomas
Aquinas' texts had already been set plenty of times and he should go find
something new!

Dr. Keith Paulson-Thorp
Director of Music, Old Mission Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93105 USA

At 7:57 PM +0100 7/13/04, Stephen Barber wrote:
> >One of the paradoxes of writing
>> choral music is that one is (usually) imagining equal temperament for an
>> instrument that instinctively tends towards natural tuning. Then again,
>> try to instruct a choir to sing in natural tuning, and the result is
>> likely to be chaos!
>
>Of course this only applies to unaccompanied music.
>I think it is up to choirs to pitch intervals "in tune" rather than
>composers to write music that doesn't present problems.
>
>>one is (usually) imagining equal temperament
>Surely one would imagine "natural" tuning - but then most composers, unlike
>Bach, are presumably bashing the thing out on the piano.
>
>Stephen Barber

Our older son is finishing out 4 years with Chanticleer. According
to him, they change their tuning to fit the particular repertoire
they are singing at the moment. Pure intervals in Renaissance music,
equal singing jazz, etc. Makes sense to me. Of course they are not
your average community or collegiate singers!

John



John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell(a)vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

Jaakko Mantyjarvi wrote:
> One of the paradoxes of writing
> choral music is that one is (usually) imagining equal temperament for an
> instrument that instinctively tends towards natural tuning.

That's a curious thought, since I don't imagine equal temperament when
composing for chorus or, even more so, when composing for strings
(fingerings and hand positions) for another example in the instrumental
world.
Maybe that's why I write so little piano music, even though I began
study of music as a child on pianist. But perhaps also long experiences
singing in choruses in which care for tuning was paramount serves as a
factor (and I am a very average singer, not a solo vocalist).

Stephen Barber wrote:
> Of course this only applies to unaccompanied music.
> I think it is up to choirs to pitch intervals "in tune" rather than
> composers to write music that doesn't present problems.

Composers can help through thoughtful notation. I see many instances of
manuscript where composers make enharmonic spelling choices that don't
assist the singers (or conductor) with tuning, either harmonically and
linearly. While I would not want to obligate composers to write
non-problematic music (as some of the most inspired work I've seen poses
problematic but surmountable pitch issues) the composer doesn't have to
make deciphering the path so problematic.

> Surely one would imagine "natural" tuning - but then most composers,
> unlike Bach, are presumably bashing the thing out on the piano.

More likely midi than piano these days. That's also one of the sources
of bad notational spelling: non-critical use of midi-oriented notation
packages as composing tools, both in terms of pitch and rhythm, with
results that require intense proofreading and editing. In such
circumstances, the composer should still expect to exercise craft, using
a critical eye and ear when using any such tool of convenience, rather
than expecting software to serve as a substitute for compositional skill.
There are, those of us who make the effort sing (at least mentally)
through every line we write, away from piano, organ or midi.
More on this later when I will offer my own list of recommendations
to composers.



Mark Gresham, composer
mgresham(a)luxnova.com http://www.markgresham.com/
Lux Nova Press http://www.luxnova.com/
LNP Retail Webstore http://www.luxnova.com/lnpwebstore/

Latin or not Latin?

For many composers, Latin was (and is) a universal idiom enabling a choral
piece not be restricted to the natural range of a national language. This
has been particularily important in Europe, where English can not play that
role (yet?).

Kind regards

Georges Van den Broeck
tenor
Brussels

RE: Singability...

In my humble opinion, singability problems are aggravated by using computers
to write music. The computer play back of a composition does not give any
indication of how a real musician would perform. The computer is a useful
tool in musical composition but it does not substitute for compsitioinal
skill and hard work on the part of the composer.

Composers need to try out thier new pieces or even works-in-progress on real
singers until they develop a sense of what they can do. This does not
preclude writing difficult or challenging music. I have actually seen
published music that is almost impossible to sing unless the conductor does
some serious editing.

If the music is difficult, the difficulty should add something of value to
the music. It seems we are seeing more and more pieces where the musical
result is not worth the time and effort it takes to perform them.


My $.02,

Rob
From: Jaakko Mantyjarvi

Simon Drew wrote:

>I'm surprised that you of all people should be asking!

Well, naturally I have, as Terry Pratchett would put it, Views.
Also, if the response is large enough (and it seems gratifyingly so
already), I can draw a tentative conclusion as to what seems to be the
single most important thing that the people actually *using* choral
music want to find in new choral music.

'Singability' and 'high-quality texts' lead the field at the moment.

"Jaakko Mantyjarvi" wrote:
>
> (... snips for brevity)
>
> 'Singability' and 'high-quality texts' lead the field at the moment.

Jaakko,

You have some fine new inputs to add to your already-excellent outlook on
the subject. Here's one just to reinforce it on your list, and I apologize
if it's so plainly obvious as to be redundant.

It's more of a 'teaching' matter than one of composition.

Hoping that you have sufficient time for discussion, try (of course) to keep
it running on a two-way street.

You'll have students/listeners of varying degrees of inclination toward
choral composition, formed by their prior experience. That experience
includes listening and "feeling" music, as well as from other influences.
See if you can invoke some dialogue in several directions, among each other
as well as between you and them.

You might find some pretty passionate feeling there already, perhaps among
the more 'advanced' composers (not a good term, but you get the point). See
what moves them to create music for the human voice. From those expressions
of motivation, quite likely, will flow dialogues about what is "singable"
and what constitutes "high-quality texts".

In addition, it can be ingratiating to hear, from young choral composers,
just what it is that makes the human voice, and a chorus of human voices,
such a marvellous instrument.

Hope it helps,

Joe