As I bring this (long!) series to an end, I'll attempt to answer
questions or highlight comments made by others to this series--a huge
thanks to those who took the time to comment, correct, or add to what
I've said. I will likely say a few things more on Saturday before
signing off for the summer. If you have questions, ask them now!
A number of people have brought up issues of singing technique. My earlier posts (
here,
here, and
here)
[note that these links connect to my posts on ChoralBlog--that's where most the comments are] deal with different aspects. A few mentioned mouth position for vowels
and yes, this is important. While not all singers will use the same
mouth position for the same vowels (for example, I was suprised
watching
John Potter, a former member of the Hilliard Ensemble, to see how
little he opens his mouth!), with young singers what you
see can be an important clue to what they're doing correctly or incorrectly. Get out of the score and
watch your singers!
On my last post, both Stephen Bigger and William Copper (my most prolific commenter and one of the most interesting!) offered
comments.
Stephen spoke of tongue position (follow the link to the comments to
see the specifics). While I don't disagree with anything he said, I tend
to be conservative about dealing with issues of the tongue with my
choirs. Primarily, this is because I can't monitor something like tongue
position very well with a large group of singers. In the private voice
studio I would certainly do this, but then I can closely and easily
monitor what the singer does and correct it, if necessary. It's very
easy, in a large group of singers, for an individual to misunderstand
what I say and for me not to notice it. Part of this, of course, is also
that I've been dealing for a long time with relatively experienced
singers (at PLU or UNT with singers who are almost all taking private
voice). I expect that their teacher will deal with those issues, and
also don't want to "step on" the voice teacher's toes! Both at PLU and
UNT the relationship between voice faculty and choral faculty is
extraordinarily good (not always the case, I know!) and I want to make
sure that the things I ask for are congruent with teaching in the
studio. If I see/hear something specific happening with one of my
students, I don't hesitate to speak to their teacher and ask about it.
On the other hand, if I was working with a younger group where almost
no one was taking voice lessons, I'd probably do much more--as I mentioned in an earlier post, for many conductors,
you are the primary voice teacher for your singers.
The post just before that got the largest number of
comments.
I responded to most of them there, so won't reproduce all of them (you
can read them yourselves), but thought I'd reference solfege here, since
I haven't spoken of it.
I'm far
from an expert in solfege, but because most of my current singers are
from Texas and the UIL requirements are to read with moveable do
solfege, I will sometimes have my choir either read or rehearse with
solfege. In terms of intonation, solfege offers several advantages,
among them: singable vowels and the singer learning where various scale
degrees "belong" pitch-wise. Much as with count-singing, however, I tend
to use occasionally as a tool, rather than as part of my regular
teaching/rehearsal pattern. That has to do with my background and what,
over the years, I've found works for me - it may be to my detriment!
Again, personal experience: I came to
college not really reading, but having always learned by ear. I'd taken
some piano lessons the summer before I started and knew note names and
key signatures, but not to the point where it was automatic. I had to
work really hard to catch up since I was so far behind the other singers
and instrumentalists in my theory and sightsinging classes (by the way,
Joan Conlon was my freshman year ear-training teacher). We learned
with moveable do (although with do-re-me minor, not la-ti-do). This was
very helpful for me initially, since it did give me a reference point
for where pitches were in relation to Do. However, I never became truly
quick and proficient with solfege (I later worked a bit on fixed-do
solfege as well, after an experience with a teacher trained that way),
so can't, for example, read with solfege syllables as fast as many of my
students do (although I can read far better and more accurately than
they can!). It's my experience that solfege (unless you're incredibly
well trained) doesn't help much with really chromatic music of the 19th
century or 20th/21st century music.
Basically I learned to read . . . by
reading. I sang in virtually every grad student's recital (Bruce Browne
was one of the DMA students at the UW at that time, for example) and
simply got to the place where I had enough experience to just read. With
some friends I also got together regularly to read madrigals (wine was
also involved!). I believe strongly that one learns to read by reading -
it's one of the reasons I'll almost always let my choir read the music
we're doing, unless it's so difficult that's just not possible. I
encourage them to read however it works best for them, given the
difficulty of the music: complete with words, with solfege, on neutral
syllables--whatever's easiest--and if they get lost, find their way and
jump back in, not giving up. I want them to have that experience. I also
encourage them to sing in a good church choir (around here, many of
them can get a position as a paid section leader), which will force them
to read and learn a lot of repertoire. If you know Nancy Telfer's
sightreading series, I think she makes some excellent points about
reading with text.
When I started doing more 20th
century music, particularly after I became interested in Swedish music, I
worked some with Lars Edlund's classic Modus novus, which is a
great primer to reading non-tonal music. And as I conducted more and
more such music, my score-study and preparation made me a much better
musician and reader of this music. It really is all about experience.
Next, choral gesture as it relates to intonation: William Copper wrote a
post with
a great question: WHO adjusts pitch to tune a choir? I'd encourage you
to read all of it and the responses. Eugene Lysinger responds with a
comment about choral gesture, referencing the work of Rodney
Eichenberger (yes, my first real conducting teacher and Eugene and I
sang together with Rod some 40 years ago--and I sang in at least one of
Eugene's grad recitals at the time). This is to the effect of gesture on
intonation (and the way singers sing).
I certainly still use some of Rod's
concepts, although I don't conduct as low as most of his students do.
But I'm concerned with getting energy where it belongs (lower, where the
breath comes from) and not giving tense, high gestures that can cause
singers throat tension. It's not
that singers can't ignore that, but it's harder than you'd think! Even
experienced/professional singers will find it more difficult and young
singers will almost invariably get tension where you don't want it and
cause vocal and intonation problems.
I want my gesture to engender the breath flow that my singers need to sing well. It has to flow with the phrase. My sense is that gesture can
be higher if there is no tension and it also depends on how close I am
to my singers. My preference is NOT to be too close to the choir. That
makes a huge difference. I don't want tension in my hand (thumb and
forefinger pinched together, for example) or in my shoulders.
Eugene also references a technique of
Rod's using the hand (of the singer!) to lift the soft palate. I use
this all the time and with groups that are fairly experienced
or absolute beginners. Easy to show, hard to say in words! I turn to my
left, so the choir sees me from the side. With my right hand held next
to my face (like a karate chop, with the side of my hand directly toward
them), I'll ask the choir to do exactly as I do. The hand is first at a
45 degree angle and very flat/straight. I ask them to sing an ah on a
given pitch. While they're singing I rotate my hand forward and curve to
create an arch in my hand (they copy this, of course). I then go back
and forth between the two hand positions. The difference in sound is
remarkable, since
any singer, regardless of training, will lift
the soft palate as the hand mimics the position of the soft palate.
It's physiologically impossible for them
not to lift the soft
palate. Once they've done this a few times, I can use my left hand in
this manner to remind them, even in a performance, since it will remind
them of the physical feeling of lifting the soft palate. This is one of
the things I said early on was an important part of vocal technique to
sing in tune. Try it if you haven't before! (Rod's video,
What They See is What You Get, will give you lots of ideas about this topic and lots of things to try).
And finally, back to one of my original topics of just intonation: William Copper, as part of a series of comments
here
said, first quoting someone else, "This method becomes somewhat tricky
when singing through the circle of 5ths are what was once your 5th scale
degree (tuned higher), is now the root of the new key, so constant
adjustments must be made."
William then followed this with, "It becomes VERY tricky VERY fast:
you simply cannot sing many chord progressions in just intonation,
period. As a very simple and ubiquitous example, the progression I vi
ii V I in root position (triads in C major: C , a minor, d minor, G
major, C major) is impossible to sing accurately. Not just difficult,
impossible." He then offered: "
I
recently posted an illustrative video-score of a four-part a cappella
piece, with a tuning graph for each voice on youtube, showing just how
dramatically changeable tuning must be to keep both harmonic and melodic
intonation pure. Contact me for the link if interested." www.hartenshield.com
I think he's dead on about the (in)ability for choirs to keep to just intonation all
the time. And I don't try to do that, quite honestly. I also work
primarily by ear and demonstration. I'm always concerned with: 1)
working with the choir initially so they hear and can produce good
unisons, fifths and pure thirds 2) working to get pure thirds at
cadences (in passing harmonies I won't be as concerned) and 3) working
to stay in tune (i.e. in a cappella music, not going either sharp or
flat).
One of the things one has to deal with, given pure thirds and
trying to stay at the same pitch, is how to accomodate both.
Oversimplifying, barbershoppers want the lead (melody) to sing in tune
with the (equal-tempered) piano--then the harmony parts must sing pure
intervals from the lead, no matter whether it's on the root, third or
fifth. The other way to do this is to keep the roots of the chords in tune (i.e. with the equal-tempered piano) and tune purely around that. That's what I'm more likely to do.
If you know Bruckner's
Os justi (or can look at a copy from
cpdl),
we can use the opening as an example. It opens with an F major chord,
3rd in the soprano. I want that chord tuned purely (so will avoid giving
the chord on the piano, but teach the choir how to tune "justly" from
just the F)--the A will be lower than on the piano. Next the bass sings a
passing tone E to D, where the chord switches to d minor. In this case,
I want my basses to sing a fairly high E-natural and a D that matches
the piano (it's easy to sing too wide a half step from F to E, so the D
is flat--it's also a question of vowel--from the ee of justi to the eh
of meditabitur the basses must concentrate on a forward eh vowel, not
too far from the ee). That means the soprano A to D has to be a fraction
higher to make sure the lower pitch of the A (3rd of F major) to the D
that will match the basses's tempered D. In the fifth bar there's a G
major chord with the 3rd in the soprano (slightly lower), but in the
next bar the same B is the fifth of an e minor chord (and perhaps a
fraction higher). Note that I'm
not telling them to sing X
cents higher, but pointing out what needs to be higher or lower, getting
them to listen carefully and place the notes accordingly (I may need to
demonstrate as well where the notes belong). Having "anchor" chords
which must be tuned justly is part of what I figure out when learning
the piece. William mentioned in a previous
comment
about the need to sing sometimes with equally tempered intonation, and
that's absolutely true. You have to figure that out by the accompaniment
(you can't retune the piano or organ, although strings, winds and brass
can all play with just intonation) and by the style. If a composer
clearly thinks in equal temperament, sometimes just intonation simply
doesn't work (William gives a good example).
This may sound complicated, but it's really a matter of getting the
basses to sing their line absolutely in tune with the piano, but the
parts above to listen carefully and tune to it (it's one of the reasons
why, if my choir is in sections, the basses are most often behind the
sopranos--it makes it easier for the sopranos to tune if they hear the
bass part, which often has the roots). IF they've learned what nice just major
and minor chords sound like, it's not as difficult as it may seem. Of
course, to do this well, they have to have all the basics down and be
able to sing this with very little vibrato so the chords tune. Again,
I'm not attempting to tune every single chord with just
intonation, but listen for those places where it makes a difference, and
particularly at cadences.
Do the basses always stick with the piano? No. In Lauridsen's O Nata Lux
the opening chord is a D major 9th with the basses and sopranos on the
3rd. Here, I give a D, but want the basses and sopranos to sing a pure
third (lower than the piano). In order to keep the piece in tune I may
play single note pedals (usually above the soprano part, where it's more
easily heard) that usually (not always) correspond to the roots of
chords.
Once again, this has gone on longer than I thought!
I'll post at least one more time and address a few more issues. If
you have any final questions, ask them in the comments section or send a note.
