Here. Let me help you with that.
Showing posts with label Music. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Music. Show all posts
30 April 2013
This is interesting
Finally found a recording on YouTube of a closer-to-original version of Allegri's Miserere.
6 March 2013
Bad Singing
I was informed by co-workers (I personally never watch the awards) that Anne Hathaway won an Oscar for her performance in Les Mis. I never saw Les Mis, so I can't comment on her performance, but I did find one of her songs from the show on YouTube.
This is a performance drenched in emotion and feeling. It is also an example of terrible singing technique. For all its expressiveness, Ms. Hathaway's voice is small and weak, barely more than a whisper for most of the song and would never carry off the stage in a live performance, inaudible over the orchestra. Her singing here is made possible only by the invention of the microphone and the mixer, which allows bad singing to masquerade as good singing.
This is not a condemnation of using microphones per se. Movies may accomplish whatever effects they may wish in their studios and sound rooms. Modern rock concerts are utterly dependent upon electronic instruments and microphones and mixers, and- for many 'artists'- pre-recorded music.
The problem is that this type of electronically enhanced singing and music has so saturated our culture, that many people take it as good and proper singing, and try and emulate it, singing in half voice or less, substituting volume for 'feeling!' where ever they go, including church.
Some songs written in recent years lend themselves to this kind of singing. Think of the incopetent and incomprehensible schmaltz that is the old seventies standby: "His Peace is flowing Like a River." There is a song that is meant to be sung like you have tears trickling down your cheeks at all times. For other hymns, though, a little more technique and less feeling may be required.
I admit, I may not be the best person to discuss this. I have been given a loud and powerful voice. I can make myself heard in a full Cathedral. (Don't ask.) I have been asked to leave choirs as I tend to drown them out, and my singing teacher has told me my voice really isn't well suited to choral work, at least not at this stage. I fully realize that not everyone has my volume available for their voice. But most people can put out a decent sound without straining their voices with a little practice. If entire congregations cannot do this, the choir at least should. They are there to practice, and practice includes training whenever possble.
I see, in one church after another, singers using microphones as they mumble out their hymns. I have sang with full choirs, twenty voices or more, that have had microphones placed in front of them so they may be heard down in the pews. I have been in small churches in the countryside, some blest with beautiful acoustics, wherein the cantor and choir sing softly into microphones. Meanwhile, the congregation joins in the singing, barely audible as they whisper their praise of God. They are following in the choir's footsteps.
There is no need, and should never have been, any need for assisted singing in most churches. Yes, there are some very large, carpeted, cushioned pew churches which have all the acoustics of a down filled pillow, wherein a microphone is a must. But many churches, with decent acoustics, and not too large, have no need of them, yet are fully wired for sound. A cantor should be able to fill a small church with sound without aid. A choir of ten should be able to make themselves heard throughout a church easily. We don't need to get training, but we do need to rethink what it means to sing well, and to listen to those who can project a voice.
This is a performance drenched in emotion and feeling. It is also an example of terrible singing technique. For all its expressiveness, Ms. Hathaway's voice is small and weak, barely more than a whisper for most of the song and would never carry off the stage in a live performance, inaudible over the orchestra. Her singing here is made possible only by the invention of the microphone and the mixer, which allows bad singing to masquerade as good singing.
This is not a condemnation of using microphones per se. Movies may accomplish whatever effects they may wish in their studios and sound rooms. Modern rock concerts are utterly dependent upon electronic instruments and microphones and mixers, and- for many 'artists'- pre-recorded music.
The problem is that this type of electronically enhanced singing and music has so saturated our culture, that many people take it as good and proper singing, and try and emulate it, singing in half voice or less, substituting volume for 'feeling!' where ever they go, including church.
Some songs written in recent years lend themselves to this kind of singing. Think of the incopetent and incomprehensible schmaltz that is the old seventies standby: "His Peace is flowing Like a River." There is a song that is meant to be sung like you have tears trickling down your cheeks at all times. For other hymns, though, a little more technique and less feeling may be required.
I admit, I may not be the best person to discuss this. I have been given a loud and powerful voice. I can make myself heard in a full Cathedral. (Don't ask.) I have been asked to leave choirs as I tend to drown them out, and my singing teacher has told me my voice really isn't well suited to choral work, at least not at this stage. I fully realize that not everyone has my volume available for their voice. But most people can put out a decent sound without straining their voices with a little practice. If entire congregations cannot do this, the choir at least should. They are there to practice, and practice includes training whenever possble.
I see, in one church after another, singers using microphones as they mumble out their hymns. I have sang with full choirs, twenty voices or more, that have had microphones placed in front of them so they may be heard down in the pews. I have been in small churches in the countryside, some blest with beautiful acoustics, wherein the cantor and choir sing softly into microphones. Meanwhile, the congregation joins in the singing, barely audible as they whisper their praise of God. They are following in the choir's footsteps.
There is no need, and should never have been, any need for assisted singing in most churches. Yes, there are some very large, carpeted, cushioned pew churches which have all the acoustics of a down filled pillow, wherein a microphone is a must. But many churches, with decent acoustics, and not too large, have no need of them, yet are fully wired for sound. A cantor should be able to fill a small church with sound without aid. A choir of ten should be able to make themselves heard throughout a church easily. We don't need to get training, but we do need to rethink what it means to sing well, and to listen to those who can project a voice.
18 September 2012
3.5 Timeouts Tuesday
Lacking in ideas yet again, I am borrowing from Larry D- again. I will be doing some classical singing, a historical edition.
1.
Here is some attempt to explain what makes a tenor great.
Especially interesting is the explanation around the 4:00 mark that the nine(!) high C's in the aria "Ah Mes Amis" were originally yodels, which today would be completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, I can't find any recordings of a singer yodelling that passage.
2.
More on that last point: The male voice has shifts and bends in it, and we have to work through the transitions, for most men around an F. to sing the upper part of our voice. Modern singers often put a lot of strain on the voice, and try and sing in the same voice from the bottom to the top of the voice throughout the entire range. For illustration, here is Placido Domingo's rendition of E Lucevan le Stelle.
3.
It was not always so. Singers of the past would often shift from head to chest voice for effect, would not hesitate to make sounds we consider today to be ugly, and save their full voice for the big finale. Here is Benjamino Gigli singing the same song as above. Notice how the first time the voice rises in pitch, on the words "O dulci baccio..." he allows his voice to slide almost into falsetto. Today, such a thing would be unthinkable, yet Gigli was no untutored rookie, but a masterful singer regarded as one of the finest voices of his era.
3.5
Lastly, and for no other reason than because I like it, here is Franco Tenelli singing Nessun Dorma. With a voice like his, he could get a job with a demolition company, blowing the roofs off buildings.
7 February 2012
3.5 Time-Outs Tuesday
I started to write some quick posts, but I found they were quickly becoming long posts. I couldn't think of anything else, so today's 3.5 timeouts is a music edition, courtesy of YouTube.
1.
In my music lessons, I often find it useful to listen to various singers singing the same song, taking in the various interpretations. Today, I'll do the famous aria from Tosca: E lucevan le stelle. I'll begin with the man Pavorotti thought was the greatest tenor of all time, Jussi Bjorling.
2.
Second is Italian great Benjamino Gigli. He sang in the early twentieth century, in a much different style than is prevalent today. Notice how, for his first big rise on the words "O dulci baccio...." he goes into falsetto for effect, rather than maintaining full voice.
3.
Possibly my favourite tenor, Mario Del Monaco, the brass bull of Milan. Not the greatest singer, but there is something undeniably manly and powerful in his voice. His version of Nessun Dorma, for instance, is my favourite, though it is not the technical best.
.5
Just to prove that not all voices are suited for all songs, here's Del Monaco singing Panis Angelicus. He had a great, powerful voice, which was actually his problem: he couldn't reel it back in. He sings this song like he is standing on a street corner, hailing a cab.
Final bonus for those who made it this far:
Here's the man Placido Domingo believes could have been the best tenor of all, Mario Lanza, singing E Lucvan. Of them all, he is the only one who really enunciates his consonants. I mean that as high praise. Many singers just howl out an undiffereentiated vowel mash and are almost completely imcomprehensible as a result. For instance, Joan Sutherland was well known for it. True story: The day she died, my singing teacher was driving on some errands, listening to the radio play a retrospective on her life and work. They played a song of hers he had never heard before. "She's singing in German," he thought. "No wait, that's Italian. No German. Russian? No, definitely Italian. German." The song ended and the radio announcer named the song. As it turned out, the song was by Handel, and she had been singing in English.
27 January 2012
Watch this....
...and, magically, you won't feel so bad about the singing at your local parish.
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
23 December 2011
O Holy Night
Joan Sutherland.
That top note is killer.
Joan was well known for having an incredibly beautiful voice and for being totally incomprehensible. True story: My singing teacher was listening to he radio the day after she died, and they were playing an all day tribute to Joan. They played a song by her he had never heard before. At first he thought she was singing in Italian, then he thought it was German... no wait, Italian... it could be German... and so on. When the song ended, the announcer came on and revealed the song had been written by Handel, and was in English.
Another version by another great, the incomparable Leontyne Price.
You may now return to earth, and Merry Christmas.
That top note is killer.
Joan was well known for having an incredibly beautiful voice and for being totally incomprehensible. True story: My singing teacher was listening to he radio the day after she died, and they were playing an all day tribute to Joan. They played a song by her he had never heard before. At first he thought she was singing in Italian, then he thought it was German... no wait, Italian... it could be German... and so on. When the song ended, the announcer came on and revealed the song had been written by Handel, and was in English.
Another version by another great, the incomparable Leontyne Price.
You may now return to earth, and Merry Christmas.
28 November 2011
Another music documentary
BBC is continuing its excellent "Sacred Music" series of documentaries. This time around, they are doing more modern composers.
Embedding is, unfortunately, disabled. This video is the second part of the Faure and Poulenc episode. An interesting, if brief, part of the video begins at 5:50, where they discuss the kind of music that was popular in churches during Faure's time, including a brief piece of music from the period. It was exactly this kind of music that St Pius X wrote against and banned in his Tra La Solicitudine.
Embedding is, unfortunately, disabled. This video is the second part of the Faure and Poulenc episode. An interesting, if brief, part of the video begins at 5:50, where they discuss the kind of music that was popular in churches during Faure's time, including a brief piece of music from the period. It was exactly this kind of music that St Pius X wrote against and banned in his Tra La Solicitudine.
3 October 2011
The new Gloria
The family and I went to Mass at a different parish in another diocese yesterday. Call it Catholic tourism, if you will.
The parish had decided to use a setting of the new Gloria as a way of preparing the congregation for the new translation. The setting was, to be blunt and charitable, completely unsingable. This setting used a refrain for the congregation, rather than have them sing the whole thing. The refrain was terrible, to begin with. It sounded like a sea shanty. The average congregation cannot sing above a D. They went way above that. The verses had a meandering, wandering feel, not even remotely resembling a tune. They may have been trying to modernize chant, but, if so, they failed terribly.
I do try not to be negative over much, but this left me nothing to be positive about. The good news is that the translation is new, and it will take time for the wheat to be sifted from the chaff. Most of the music written in Mozart's time was not very good either, but time has forgotten the second rate and left only the best. We're just finding our feet for now. In time, better music will come.
The parish had decided to use a setting of the new Gloria as a way of preparing the congregation for the new translation. The setting was, to be blunt and charitable, completely unsingable. This setting used a refrain for the congregation, rather than have them sing the whole thing. The refrain was terrible, to begin with. It sounded like a sea shanty. The average congregation cannot sing above a D. They went way above that. The verses had a meandering, wandering feel, not even remotely resembling a tune. They may have been trying to modernize chant, but, if so, they failed terribly.
I do try not to be negative over much, but this left me nothing to be positive about. The good news is that the translation is new, and it will take time for the wheat to be sifted from the chaff. Most of the music written in Mozart's time was not very good either, but time has forgotten the second rate and left only the best. We're just finding our feet for now. In time, better music will come.
12 August 2011
An answer to another of the most pressing questions of our time.
I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire, do not often go out and about, but on the rare occasion that I do, the question I am asked more often than any other is: "Would you like fries with that?" To which I usually answer: "Did I ask for fries? No? Well then, I guess I don't want any, do I?" Unless, of course, I do in fact want fries with that, in which case I answer: "As a matter of fact, yes, I would like fries with that. Thank you for remembering."
The question I am asked next most often is: "Do you know what would Mozart's Ave Verum sound like if it were sung by a barbershop quartet?" To which I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire say: "Why, yes, as a matter of fact I do. It would sound just like this."
It seems as if they knew I knew, doesn't it? But then again, I am Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire. Of course they knew I knew.
The young gentlemen singing this piece also do William Byrd's version of the Ave Verum Corpus.
I, Bear, World famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire, feel it is important to delicately point out to you, my gentle readers, that while it is common to hear this piece sung by larger ensembles today, this version may not be a historically inaccurate performance of the Byrd piece. Byrd was a recucant Catholic in a time and place where it was dangerous to be so, and he wrote much of his music for small choirs singing clandestine Masses. His Masses for Three, Four and Five voices were exactly that. This piece may have been written for his fellow recusants, or it could have been written for Elizabeth's private Masses (she only outlawed the use of Latin at Mass for other people, not herself), or both.
The young man who upoloaded this video posted it with the explanation: "just having some fun with a few talented friends : )" I wish I could say the same except I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire do not use smileys. Also, while I, Bear, etc, would have loved to have gotten together with some of my university chums on a Friday night and sung Renaissance choral music, they always wanted to head to crowded nightclubs and get royally plastered. Such is the life of a Bear,
The question I am asked next most often is: "Do you know what would Mozart's Ave Verum sound like if it were sung by a barbershop quartet?" To which I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire say: "Why, yes, as a matter of fact I do. It would sound just like this."
It seems as if they knew I knew, doesn't it? But then again, I am Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire. Of course they knew I knew.
The young gentlemen singing this piece also do William Byrd's version of the Ave Verum Corpus.
I, Bear, World famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire, feel it is important to delicately point out to you, my gentle readers, that while it is common to hear this piece sung by larger ensembles today, this version may not be a historically inaccurate performance of the Byrd piece. Byrd was a recucant Catholic in a time and place where it was dangerous to be so, and he wrote much of his music for small choirs singing clandestine Masses. His Masses for Three, Four and Five voices were exactly that. This piece may have been written for his fellow recusants, or it could have been written for Elizabeth's private Masses (she only outlawed the use of Latin at Mass for other people, not herself), or both.
The young man who upoloaded this video posted it with the explanation: "just having some fun with a few talented friends : )" I wish I could say the same except I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire do not use smileys. Also, while I, Bear, etc, would have loved to have gotten together with some of my university chums on a Friday night and sung Renaissance choral music, they always wanted to head to crowded nightclubs and get royally plastered. Such is the life of a Bear,
1 August 2011
Still got nothin'
I was going to post something, but then the link I was going to use died, and I am still waiting for it to come back. Instead, here's the man some believe to be the greatest tenor ever.
Here he is, singing that other song that every other tenor sings.
By way of comparison, as I have done elsewhere on this blog, here is another great tenor- Mario Del Monaco aka The Brass Bull of Milan- singing Nessun Dorma in a completely different style, but also with power and feeling.
If you have a preference between these two, or have another singer you prefer, feel free to say so in the combox.
Here he is, singing that other song that every other tenor sings.
By way of comparison, as I have done elsewhere on this blog, here is another great tenor- Mario Del Monaco aka The Brass Bull of Milan- singing Nessun Dorma in a completely different style, but also with power and feeling.
If you have a preference between these two, or have another singer you prefer, feel free to say so in the combox.
23 July 2011
Amy Winehouse, RIP
Another star is gone.
I remember some years ago, after the death of Anna Nicole Smith, I sat at a table in a restaurant with Vox Cantoris, and we agreed just how sad it was. I admitted that I never thought I would feel as much pity for her as I did, and I said: "Was there no one in this woman's life who loved her?"
I agree with those who say Winehouse had great talent. She was one of the few modern singers who had a distinctive sound, who was not, it seemed to me, a product, or a brand. There was an honesty, an integrity about her music, which is lacking in so many other stars, who promote politics, or sex, in their noise. For her, it was about the music.
Her talents brought her wealth and fame and a million cameras, all pointed at her, chronicling her every move, her every misstep. She became more famous for her downward spiral than for her music, and she went into the rehab she sung she never would. But, as we have often seen, stars have ways of deceiving themselves. Or perhaps those around her put pressure on her. She made money not only for herself, but for her record label, her managers, her band, her roadies, publicists, lawyers and so on, and so on. She made no one money in rehab. The pressure must have been intense to get out of rehab and back onto the stage, and make more money for the machine.
And now, her demons have claimed her.
We humans often covet wealth and fame, but at times like this, they seem like no great gifts to me. I would almost wish to see a friend in hell as to wish this kind of wealth, temptation and scrutiny upon them. I often dream of wealth, of earning fame and recognition through my talents, of being able to tell my boss to stick it, of never going back to that place again, of doing as I please. But it's a sham. I am better off as I am. Greater wealth would be a source of greater temptation for me.
We often pray for the poor, and do our best to help the poor, and it is good, and just, and noble that we should do so, but I believe the wealthy and the famous need prayers as well, that prosperity does not tempt them to foolishness, that fame does not lead them to arrogance, and that people around them care for them and love them, for themselves. Pray for her soul, and the souls of others like her, whose great gifts bring great curses, and who bear a burden few of us will ever know, or understand, and give thanks that it is so.
I remember some years ago, after the death of Anna Nicole Smith, I sat at a table in a restaurant with Vox Cantoris, and we agreed just how sad it was. I admitted that I never thought I would feel as much pity for her as I did, and I said: "Was there no one in this woman's life who loved her?"
I agree with those who say Winehouse had great talent. She was one of the few modern singers who had a distinctive sound, who was not, it seemed to me, a product, or a brand. There was an honesty, an integrity about her music, which is lacking in so many other stars, who promote politics, or sex, in their noise. For her, it was about the music.
Her talents brought her wealth and fame and a million cameras, all pointed at her, chronicling her every move, her every misstep. She became more famous for her downward spiral than for her music, and she went into the rehab she sung she never would. But, as we have often seen, stars have ways of deceiving themselves. Or perhaps those around her put pressure on her. She made money not only for herself, but for her record label, her managers, her band, her roadies, publicists, lawyers and so on, and so on. She made no one money in rehab. The pressure must have been intense to get out of rehab and back onto the stage, and make more money for the machine.
And now, her demons have claimed her.
We humans often covet wealth and fame, but at times like this, they seem like no great gifts to me. I would almost wish to see a friend in hell as to wish this kind of wealth, temptation and scrutiny upon them. I often dream of wealth, of earning fame and recognition through my talents, of being able to tell my boss to stick it, of never going back to that place again, of doing as I please. But it's a sham. I am better off as I am. Greater wealth would be a source of greater temptation for me.
We often pray for the poor, and do our best to help the poor, and it is good, and just, and noble that we should do so, but I believe the wealthy and the famous need prayers as well, that prosperity does not tempt them to foolishness, that fame does not lead them to arrogance, and that people around them care for them and love them, for themselves. Pray for her soul, and the souls of others like her, whose great gifts bring great curses, and who bear a burden few of us will ever know, or understand, and give thanks that it is so.
14 July 2011
The good and the good
Here's another pair of videos of two singers singing the same song, in this case it's handel's Ombra Mai Fu. However, unlike the last time, this is an example of the Good and the Good. Both singers show exemplary technique in their radically different voices.
The first is the great baritone, Dmitri Hvorostovsky. His voice is, in my opinion, magnificent. I am also told that eighty five percent of women and fifteen percent of men find him to be rather satisfying eye candy as well.
It is easy to see in this video how Dmitri forms his words, and the exaggerated mouth and lip movements which are a part of good singing technique. My daughter asked me once: Why don't singers mouths move like when they are talking? The answer is: because they are not talking, they are singing. This kind of enunciation, which Dmitri makes look so easy, is critical to good singing for reasons of enunciation, clarity of vowels and projection.
A different technique is seen here, producing a much. much different sound.
The song really beings around 1:20.
It's easy to make jokes about the countertenor voice (usually about an unfortunate accident) but it is as difficult and as legitimate a voice as any. This is an excellent example of the style of voice. He situates his chin and moves his lips differently that Hvorostovsky, but he is also producing a much different sound.
In my previous post, I ended by noting that not all voices are suited to all songs. Here are two radically different voices singing the same song, but each beautiful in its own way. In this case, it is natural talent, combined with years of training and polishing, that work to create art of a very high caliber.
The first is the great baritone, Dmitri Hvorostovsky. His voice is, in my opinion, magnificent. I am also told that eighty five percent of women and fifteen percent of men find him to be rather satisfying eye candy as well.
It is easy to see in this video how Dmitri forms his words, and the exaggerated mouth and lip movements which are a part of good singing technique. My daughter asked me once: Why don't singers mouths move like when they are talking? The answer is: because they are not talking, they are singing. This kind of enunciation, which Dmitri makes look so easy, is critical to good singing for reasons of enunciation, clarity of vowels and projection.
A different technique is seen here, producing a much. much different sound.
The song really beings around 1:20.
It's easy to make jokes about the countertenor voice (usually about an unfortunate accident) but it is as difficult and as legitimate a voice as any. This is an excellent example of the style of voice. He situates his chin and moves his lips differently that Hvorostovsky, but he is also producing a much different sound.
In my previous post, I ended by noting that not all voices are suited to all songs. Here are two radically different voices singing the same song, but each beautiful in its own way. In this case, it is natural talent, combined with years of training and polishing, that work to create art of a very high caliber.
4 July 2011
On the Bishop's decision to only allow only four Ordinary Masses in the new translation to be sung for the first year of the new translation.
I commented in the post below that the Toronto bishops have decided to limit the number of musical settings of the new translation for the first year of implementation. In the spirit of trying to come to a better understanding of the situation rather than shooting from the lip, or at least to try and come to a better understanding after shooting from the lip, I have pondered this decision, read a bit more, and spoken about it to others. I can now say a few positive things about this decision.
First, the word is out that the decision was reached in order to keep out Haugen/Haas et al. OCP and GIA have been flooding Canadian parishes with copies of the new masses or updated masses by these and other composers. Unfortunately, it also bans a lot of good music.
Secondly, it isn't a bad idea, and probably a good one, that Catholics in Toronto archdiocese all know a few Masses together.
The question comes down to: why these ones? I have come to the conclusion that the bishops made the best decision they could. The Masses they have chosen cover cover a few different styles, including a chant based one. I believe, or at least imagine, that the bishops and diocesan liturgists tried to cover a variety of music because Toronto has a wide variety of musical styles and choirs in their parishes. One may have an argument about whether or not such styles should be allowed. I don't want to make such arguments at this time. There is no one style that would suit or please everyone. The bishops have therefore chosen a variety of musical styles, and seem to have hacked off everyone. What I wish to point out to those who are of a more conservative bent is what I have already said: one of the Masses is chant based. The bishops, in other words, have thrown us a bone. Yes, any choir that wishes to learn more than one setting in order to allow the parish music to reflect the changing of the seasons will have to learn one of the other settings, but it can go the other way too: other choirs will have to start learning the chant one in order to do the same.
This could work out well.
First, the word is out that the decision was reached in order to keep out Haugen/Haas et al. OCP and GIA have been flooding Canadian parishes with copies of the new masses or updated masses by these and other composers. Unfortunately, it also bans a lot of good music.
Secondly, it isn't a bad idea, and probably a good one, that Catholics in Toronto archdiocese all know a few Masses together.
The question comes down to: why these ones? I have come to the conclusion that the bishops made the best decision they could. The Masses they have chosen cover cover a few different styles, including a chant based one. I believe, or at least imagine, that the bishops and diocesan liturgists tried to cover a variety of music because Toronto has a wide variety of musical styles and choirs in their parishes. One may have an argument about whether or not such styles should be allowed. I don't want to make such arguments at this time. There is no one style that would suit or please everyone. The bishops have therefore chosen a variety of musical styles, and seem to have hacked off everyone. What I wish to point out to those who are of a more conservative bent is what I have already said: one of the Masses is chant based. The bishops, in other words, have thrown us a bone. Yes, any choir that wishes to learn more than one setting in order to allow the parish music to reflect the changing of the seasons will have to learn one of the other settings, but it can go the other way too: other choirs will have to start learning the chant one in order to do the same.
This could work out well.
22 June 2011
The Good, The Bad, and The Eugh!
One the great resources for my singing lessons is Youtube. In there one finds thousands upon thousands of songs, many of which are impossible to buy, for perusal and for the learning of lessons, both positive and negative. I often find myself listening to the same song but sung by different people as a way of devloping my ear, and also for hearing examples of techniques to be embraced, as well as those to be shunned.
As an example, here are three recordings of Franck's famous setting of Panis Angelicus.
The first, and an example of what I call "the good" is a version sung by the incomparable Leontyne Price. In case you were to ask, the place where she is singing is the also incomparable Basilique de Notre Dame in Montreal.
I have listened to this piece many, many times over, and every time I hear or see something new. This piece is a constant lesson to me of so many good practices, I can't even begin to name them all here. She does have what in another singer would be flaws, it is true, but for someone of her stature, what would be flaws in someone else are part of her style and artistry.
There is one thing I would like to point out: because of Leontyne's training and natural gifts, and the acousitcs of Notre Dame, she is able to sing on top of a fairly large ensemble without the aid of a microphone. That voice is her voice, and nothing else. The same cannot be said of the next person, whom I call "the bad. "
The style here seems to aim for cute, or perhaps precious would be a better term. The style is quite popular, but as far as vocal technique goes, it is very poor. Her breathy tone is due to air escaping as it is wasted: She would not be able to hold a note long. She also has no projection to her voice. Her unaided voice would barely fill the average living room. Her singing to a large crowd in this way would be impossible without a microphone. Microphones for singing are a crutch, and if someone learns to walk with a crutch, even though they may be healthy, they will always walk with a limp.
This kind of singing is, as I said, popular and common today. Many choirs have one or even several breathy voiced people sighing out their hymns, but what one hears in the congregation is air, a wind coming from the choir loft.
And now, the Eugh!
Dolores O' Riordan is the singer for the rock group The Cranberries. As such, her voice and her style is utterly unsuited for this piece. She is out of tune (as she is when she sings for her band, but there it does suit the music) and out of time, and gasping for breath at all the wrong points. We often get this kind of singing in our choirs as well- untrained enthusiasts giving it their best, to be sure, but with occasionally ear splitting results.
This is a simple lesson, as opposed to listening to a Jussi Bjorling version of a piece and comparing it to Mario Del Monaco's rendition, but it does get a point across: Not all voices are suited to every kind of music. For this song, lean more towards Price than Agnew. Work for a pure tone. If you sound like O'Riordan, sing something else.
As an example, here are three recordings of Franck's famous setting of Panis Angelicus.
The first, and an example of what I call "the good" is a version sung by the incomparable Leontyne Price. In case you were to ask, the place where she is singing is the also incomparable Basilique de Notre Dame in Montreal.
I have listened to this piece many, many times over, and every time I hear or see something new. This piece is a constant lesson to me of so many good practices, I can't even begin to name them all here. She does have what in another singer would be flaws, it is true, but for someone of her stature, what would be flaws in someone else are part of her style and artistry.
There is one thing I would like to point out: because of Leontyne's training and natural gifts, and the acousitcs of Notre Dame, she is able to sing on top of a fairly large ensemble without the aid of a microphone. That voice is her voice, and nothing else. The same cannot be said of the next person, whom I call "the bad. "
The style here seems to aim for cute, or perhaps precious would be a better term. The style is quite popular, but as far as vocal technique goes, it is very poor. Her breathy tone is due to air escaping as it is wasted: She would not be able to hold a note long. She also has no projection to her voice. Her unaided voice would barely fill the average living room. Her singing to a large crowd in this way would be impossible without a microphone. Microphones for singing are a crutch, and if someone learns to walk with a crutch, even though they may be healthy, they will always walk with a limp.
This kind of singing is, as I said, popular and common today. Many choirs have one or even several breathy voiced people sighing out their hymns, but what one hears in the congregation is air, a wind coming from the choir loft.
And now, the Eugh!
Dolores O' Riordan is the singer for the rock group The Cranberries. As such, her voice and her style is utterly unsuited for this piece. She is out of tune (as she is when she sings for her band, but there it does suit the music) and out of time, and gasping for breath at all the wrong points. We often get this kind of singing in our choirs as well- untrained enthusiasts giving it their best, to be sure, but with occasionally ear splitting results.
This is a simple lesson, as opposed to listening to a Jussi Bjorling version of a piece and comparing it to Mario Del Monaco's rendition, but it does get a point across: Not all voices are suited to every kind of music. For this song, lean more towards Price than Agnew. Work for a pure tone. If you sound like O'Riordan, sing something else.
8 February 2011
Choral bucket lists
During my recent posts on music- I'm too lazy to link, just scroll down a little- I mentioned some pieces I want to sing in choir before I die, a choral bucket list if you will. It started me thinking what other pieces I would like to do, at some point. I came up with a fair few, although the list is rather bland in some ways. Here's the top five, most of which i have already mentioned:
5: Tallis, Spem in Alium
4. Palestrina: Missa Papae Marcelli (These two are the most difficult and least likely I will ever sing, yet hope springs.)
3.Allegri's Miserere
2. Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus
1. (really cliched, now) Franck's Panis Angelicus. I suppose. in the end, I dream of being a soloist.
The odd part is that this is all solid Catholic music, all written for Mass or Divine Office, yet it is rare to hear any of it at a normal Mass, though it is fairly common to hear the last two at funerals and weddings- you know, places where people pick their own music, music they actually like. But they are fairly common at concerts and recitals, you know, where people pay money to go and hear music they actually like.
What the average congregation is more likely to hear, and the average choir more likely to sing, and why I left choral singing, is songs like these, which I call my "Anti Bucket List" (trademark pending): the reverse of the bucket list, in that I hope I die before I ever get stuck singing this stuff again:
5: Gather Us In
4. You Are Near
3. You are mine
2. City of God
1. Hosea
I didn't start off hating all these songs, but choral singing is a strange beast. When I joined the choir at my old parish, years ago, I had a list in my head of some songs I liked, and a few I didn't like. Most other songs I was more or less indifferent to. But things changed as the years rolled by, and our repertoire became repetitive. The list of hymns I liked stayed about the same length, but the list of songs I didn 't like was growing rapidly. We sang many songs over, and over, and over. I wouldn't want to sing something I liked as often as I sang many of these pieces to which I was originally indifferent, and so the indifference slowly became deepest loathing. I cringed when the choir director announced that these, and many others, were on menu for the four hymn sandwich that week.
So, at any rate, there is my bucket list and my anti bucket list. If anyone reading this wishes to add their own in the combox, or consider it a meme, please do.
5: Tallis, Spem in Alium
4. Palestrina: Missa Papae Marcelli (These two are the most difficult and least likely I will ever sing, yet hope springs.)
3.Allegri's Miserere
2. Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus
1. (really cliched, now) Franck's Panis Angelicus. I suppose. in the end, I dream of being a soloist.
The odd part is that this is all solid Catholic music, all written for Mass or Divine Office, yet it is rare to hear any of it at a normal Mass, though it is fairly common to hear the last two at funerals and weddings- you know, places where people pick their own music, music they actually like. But they are fairly common at concerts and recitals, you know, where people pay money to go and hear music they actually like.
What the average congregation is more likely to hear, and the average choir more likely to sing, and why I left choral singing, is songs like these, which I call my "Anti Bucket List" (trademark pending): the reverse of the bucket list, in that I hope I die before I ever get stuck singing this stuff again:
5: Gather Us In
4. You Are Near
3. You are mine
2. City of God
1. Hosea
I didn't start off hating all these songs, but choral singing is a strange beast. When I joined the choir at my old parish, years ago, I had a list in my head of some songs I liked, and a few I didn't like. Most other songs I was more or less indifferent to. But things changed as the years rolled by, and our repertoire became repetitive. The list of hymns I liked stayed about the same length, but the list of songs I didn 't like was growing rapidly. We sang many songs over, and over, and over. I wouldn't want to sing something I liked as often as I sang many of these pieces to which I was originally indifferent, and so the indifference slowly became deepest loathing. I cringed when the choir director announced that these, and many others, were on menu for the four hymn sandwich that week.
So, at any rate, there is my bucket list and my anti bucket list. If anyone reading this wishes to add their own in the combox, or consider it a meme, please do.
5 February 2011
Another good documentary from the BBC
This time, the documentary is about the history of a single song, Allegri's Miserere, and the complicated history of how it came down to us.
What I find particularly interesting is the part where Harry Christopher has his singers sing a part of what he believes to Allegri's original version of the piece.
This is another piece on my choral singing bucket list.
What I find particularly interesting is the part where Harry Christopher has his singers sing a part of what he believes to Allegri's original version of the piece.
This is another piece on my choral singing bucket list.
2 February 2011
Teaching music
Elder has just started a new term in school, and one of her new subjects is vocal music. She will be learning how to sing.
Or maybe not.
Before continuing on, a digression. When discussing the state of music in the Church, many people deplore how there are so few singers, and how few young singers come forward to sing at the average church. In addition, most choir masters I have worked under are too busy preparing the four hymn sandwich, or other music, for the weekly Mass to teach their singers how to sing properly. So those who say few churches are preparing the next generation of choir singers are correct, but what few people talk aboutin this debate is the state of music teaching in the schools. In most of the schools I have attended, or my children have attended, or that I have encountered, it is rare to run into a school where there are qualified music teachers. Usually they have some teacher from another field who has sung in choirs leading the choirs, or someone who has had piano instruction, who teaches the music. As it turns out, music teachers do not need to be qualified to teach music. Further, when schools are looking for a place to make cuts, the arts are one of the first places to get the axe. I was fortunate enough to have an excellent music teacher, but I was in the minority. In short, young people are not being taught to sing well in school, so hoping they would be willing to join choirs and sing well there is more or less futile.
Now, back to the discussion at hand.
Elder's music teacher admitted, straight off, that she was not a singer, but a piano player. (She was also Elder's religion teacher. She didn't know much about that, either.) She has told them a few sound points of singing theory, which could be got from a book, but it is too early to tell whether or not she knows much. The signs are not good, however. Elder was given her first piece of music to learn, which the choir will be singing at some school Mass in the future, and it is a song with saccharine lyrics and a melody pulled from an elevator speaker.
Furthermore, the teacher has made one blunder that I have seen many times over: she is not teaching the girls to read music, she has instead told them to pay attention to the notes, and go up in pitch when the notes go up, and go down when the notes go down. That way, she believes, the students will be able to pick up sight reading.
To which I say, Bull. I have sat through many choirs where the directors believed that the singers will learn how to read music just by following along, and I have never seen it work. Not once. It is a bad idea, and it is not teaching, not in any way. The singers do not know the notes to sing. What ends up, at best, is that the notes on the page become a mnemonic device, and reminds the singer of a tune they already know, rather than enable them to work out a new one. At worst, the singers just ignore the notes completely and sing the words from memory. Good memories, I should point out, are rare these days.
It is all the sadder because the Catholic Church invented the easiest and best way to teach music reading: chant notation. I told the story of how the notation came about in my post about Guido D'Arezzo. In short, the notes are named "do re mi fa sol la ti do". Guido used to teach his singers using interval training, wherein they sang out the names of the notes, in exactly the same way that Julie Andrews teaches the Von Trapp children to sing in the Sound of Music: "Sol do la fa mi re do. Sol do la fa la do re do! When you know the notes to sing, you can sing most anything! "
When written down, chant notation consists of a staff of four lines, as opposed to the five lines of modern notation, with one of two clefs, which tell the singer which line is either "do" or "fa". The remaining notes can be extrapolated from there.
I explained this to my daughter, in an effort to try and remedy the situation, and went to this website. I turned to page 19 (PDF numbering. Page 23 of the booklet) where, at the top of the page, there was a simple "Amen". The clef is the "do" clef, which means the notes are sol, sol, la. I had her sing that out a few times, and then went on the to words, thusly:
sol sol-la
a- me-en
After a few tries, she got it. We then went to the front of the book (page 5, PDF) , and looked at the Kyrie. After a few minutes, she worked out that the notes went "sol la ti ti." After a few minutes of practice, she got it, though she needed to work on her pronunciation. We are going to work a little more as the year goes on.
From here, it is not too hard to switch over to modern notation. Modern major keys are simply "do re mi fa sol la ti do" Minor keys are "la ti do re mi fa sol la" All that changes from key to key is the starting note. Simple, no?
Well no, not completely. But it's a darn sight better than crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.
The teacher will be teaching the students junk music, which they will not be able to read. I wonder what is the best for which she is hoping?
Or maybe not.
Before continuing on, a digression. When discussing the state of music in the Church, many people deplore how there are so few singers, and how few young singers come forward to sing at the average church. In addition, most choir masters I have worked under are too busy preparing the four hymn sandwich, or other music, for the weekly Mass to teach their singers how to sing properly. So those who say few churches are preparing the next generation of choir singers are correct, but what few people talk aboutin this debate is the state of music teaching in the schools. In most of the schools I have attended, or my children have attended, or that I have encountered, it is rare to run into a school where there are qualified music teachers. Usually they have some teacher from another field who has sung in choirs leading the choirs, or someone who has had piano instruction, who teaches the music. As it turns out, music teachers do not need to be qualified to teach music. Further, when schools are looking for a place to make cuts, the arts are one of the first places to get the axe. I was fortunate enough to have an excellent music teacher, but I was in the minority. In short, young people are not being taught to sing well in school, so hoping they would be willing to join choirs and sing well there is more or less futile.
Now, back to the discussion at hand.
Elder's music teacher admitted, straight off, that she was not a singer, but a piano player. (She was also Elder's religion teacher. She didn't know much about that, either.) She has told them a few sound points of singing theory, which could be got from a book, but it is too early to tell whether or not she knows much. The signs are not good, however. Elder was given her first piece of music to learn, which the choir will be singing at some school Mass in the future, and it is a song with saccharine lyrics and a melody pulled from an elevator speaker.
Furthermore, the teacher has made one blunder that I have seen many times over: she is not teaching the girls to read music, she has instead told them to pay attention to the notes, and go up in pitch when the notes go up, and go down when the notes go down. That way, she believes, the students will be able to pick up sight reading.
To which I say, Bull. I have sat through many choirs where the directors believed that the singers will learn how to read music just by following along, and I have never seen it work. Not once. It is a bad idea, and it is not teaching, not in any way. The singers do not know the notes to sing. What ends up, at best, is that the notes on the page become a mnemonic device, and reminds the singer of a tune they already know, rather than enable them to work out a new one. At worst, the singers just ignore the notes completely and sing the words from memory. Good memories, I should point out, are rare these days.
It is all the sadder because the Catholic Church invented the easiest and best way to teach music reading: chant notation. I told the story of how the notation came about in my post about Guido D'Arezzo. In short, the notes are named "do re mi fa sol la ti do". Guido used to teach his singers using interval training, wherein they sang out the names of the notes, in exactly the same way that Julie Andrews teaches the Von Trapp children to sing in the Sound of Music: "Sol do la fa mi re do. Sol do la fa la do re do! When you know the notes to sing, you can sing most anything! "
When written down, chant notation consists of a staff of four lines, as opposed to the five lines of modern notation, with one of two clefs, which tell the singer which line is either "do" or "fa". The remaining notes can be extrapolated from there.
I explained this to my daughter, in an effort to try and remedy the situation, and went to this website. I turned to page 19 (PDF numbering. Page 23 of the booklet) where, at the top of the page, there was a simple "Amen". The clef is the "do" clef, which means the notes are sol, sol, la. I had her sing that out a few times, and then went on the to words, thusly:
sol sol-la
a- me-en
After a few tries, she got it. We then went to the front of the book (page 5, PDF) , and looked at the Kyrie. After a few minutes, she worked out that the notes went "sol la ti ti." After a few minutes of practice, she got it, though she needed to work on her pronunciation. We are going to work a little more as the year goes on.
From here, it is not too hard to switch over to modern notation. Modern major keys are simply "do re mi fa sol la ti do" Minor keys are "la ti do re mi fa sol la" All that changes from key to key is the starting note. Simple, no?
Well no, not completely. But it's a darn sight better than crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.
The teacher will be teaching the students junk music, which they will not be able to read. I wonder what is the best for which she is hoping?
1 February 2011
Good documentary from the BBC
I found a documentary on sacred music on Youtube that is well worth watching. It is in four parts, beginning with the Gothic Revolution, then Palestrina, then Byrd and Tallis, and ending up with Luther and Bach.The singing in each part is exquisite. Each part has several installments on Youtube, and the embed is disabled, so I link only to the first installment of each part.
Gothic
Palestrina
Tallis and Byrd
Bach
Gothic
Palestrina
Tallis and Byrd
Bach
30 January 2011
The 5 greatest composers?
LarryD linked to an article in the New York Times in which the writer chose a list of the ten greatest composers of all time. Of course, the list was partial, surprisingly eurocentric for a politically correct paper, and endlessly debatable. The top three, in order, were Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. No surprises there, although I wouldn't have put Beethoven that high up the list myself, as you shall see. However, as Larry pointed out, the list was also interesting in what was not on the list. No Chopin, Liszt, Tchaikovsky. Even more interesting, to me, there was no one before Bach's time.
So, in the interest of naming my own personal greatest, I've come up with a list of 5, with a brief example of why I have chosen these. It is a partial list in all senses of the word, and has no greater authority than my own, mean opinion. It's all for fun, so feel free to disagree and debate.
Without further ado, the five:
5: Thomas Tallis. Recusant Catholic who survived and was patronized by a protestant, then an uber protestant, then a Catholic, then another Protestant monarch. My reason for picking him is simple: Anyone who could write this, deserves a place near the top.
I dream of one day singing this piece in a choir.
My only problem with this piece is that it is incomprehensible. After the first few bars of the piece, the words vanish into a wall of sound. The next on the list worked against that problem, and it is reputed that by doing so, saved polyphonic music from being banned by the council of Trent.
4. Palestrina. He wrote hundreds of Masses and motets, and earned the name "The saviour of Church music". Here's his anthem to the Pope's, Tu es Petrus.
3. Mozart. He had to be somewhere on the list. As one writer said of him: "Mozart is God's way of making the rest of us feel insignificant." At the age of five, Mozart wrote the tune "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star", which is also the tune for the alphabet song. To put that another way, at the age of five, Mozart wrote the most popular tune, ever. He also wrote many symphonies and operas, and also several Masses and music to accompany the Mass, including this little piece in honour of the Body of Christ, which has been called the most perfect forty-six bars of music ever composed.
It is also my desire to sing this piece in a choir, one day.
2. J.S. Bach. the man wrote over a thousand pieces of music, and not one of them was of inferior quality. I love so many of his pieces, I have a hard time picking just one. So, at random, (almost) I pick this one:
I also dream of one day playing this piece on a pipe organ. I've been working at it, and am getting close.
Now, for number one, I actually choose two. I couldn't decide between the two of them, so I call them 1a and 1b.
1a. Anonymous. My favourite artist of them all. Anonymous composed for such a long period, through so many genres, styles and mediums, his genius is unparalleled. Virtually any accomplishment in art, performed by any great artist, was prefigured and often done better by Anonymous. So numerous are his compositions, including almost the entire body of Gregorian Chant, I cannot think of a single example to name for you. Pick one of your own. Anonymous, I salute you!
1b Guido D'Arezzo. I have written his story before for this blog. Now, most of you don't know about this towering genius, and those of you who do may be surprised that I chose a man to whom no known compositions may be attributed, although he is connected to this one:
For the full story, see my link. The short story is that through this piece, Guido named the tones of the scale: ut, later do, re, mi, fa, sol, la. Because he named the tones, he could then write down the names, and in so doing he invented reliable written music, without which none of the other composers on this list could have composed at all. For making written music possible at all, and making it possible for Julie Andrews to sing "Do, a Deer, a female deer" I name Guido D'Arezzo the greatest composer of all.
As I said, these are my own choices, informed by my own opinion. You may have your own list that varies greatly. Feel free to say so in the combox.
So, in the interest of naming my own personal greatest, I've come up with a list of 5, with a brief example of why I have chosen these. It is a partial list in all senses of the word, and has no greater authority than my own, mean opinion. It's all for fun, so feel free to disagree and debate.
Without further ado, the five:
5: Thomas Tallis. Recusant Catholic who survived and was patronized by a protestant, then an uber protestant, then a Catholic, then another Protestant monarch. My reason for picking him is simple: Anyone who could write this, deserves a place near the top.
I dream of one day singing this piece in a choir.
My only problem with this piece is that it is incomprehensible. After the first few bars of the piece, the words vanish into a wall of sound. The next on the list worked against that problem, and it is reputed that by doing so, saved polyphonic music from being banned by the council of Trent.
4. Palestrina. He wrote hundreds of Masses and motets, and earned the name "The saviour of Church music". Here's his anthem to the Pope's, Tu es Petrus.
3. Mozart. He had to be somewhere on the list. As one writer said of him: "Mozart is God's way of making the rest of us feel insignificant." At the age of five, Mozart wrote the tune "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star", which is also the tune for the alphabet song. To put that another way, at the age of five, Mozart wrote the most popular tune, ever. He also wrote many symphonies and operas, and also several Masses and music to accompany the Mass, including this little piece in honour of the Body of Christ, which has been called the most perfect forty-six bars of music ever composed.
It is also my desire to sing this piece in a choir, one day.
2. J.S. Bach. the man wrote over a thousand pieces of music, and not one of them was of inferior quality. I love so many of his pieces, I have a hard time picking just one. So, at random, (almost) I pick this one:
I also dream of one day playing this piece on a pipe organ. I've been working at it, and am getting close.
Now, for number one, I actually choose two. I couldn't decide between the two of them, so I call them 1a and 1b.
1a. Anonymous. My favourite artist of them all. Anonymous composed for such a long period, through so many genres, styles and mediums, his genius is unparalleled. Virtually any accomplishment in art, performed by any great artist, was prefigured and often done better by Anonymous. So numerous are his compositions, including almost the entire body of Gregorian Chant, I cannot think of a single example to name for you. Pick one of your own. Anonymous, I salute you!
1b Guido D'Arezzo. I have written his story before for this blog. Now, most of you don't know about this towering genius, and those of you who do may be surprised that I chose a man to whom no known compositions may be attributed, although he is connected to this one:
For the full story, see my link. The short story is that through this piece, Guido named the tones of the scale: ut, later do, re, mi, fa, sol, la. Because he named the tones, he could then write down the names, and in so doing he invented reliable written music, without which none of the other composers on this list could have composed at all. For making written music possible at all, and making it possible for Julie Andrews to sing "Do, a Deer, a female deer" I name Guido D'Arezzo the greatest composer of all.
As I said, these are my own choices, informed by my own opinion. You may have your own list that varies greatly. Feel free to say so in the combox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)