Replies

  • Can we see the score?

    Campy

  • Ooops,

    Here is the score

    Sorry folks

    Canticle to the Earth.pdf

    https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/8608082281?profile=original
  • Since the audio is not kind to your work, it was helpful to see the score. 

    On paper, it looks nice. Near the end, basses are not going to like F to G-flat: enharmonic writing will help intonation. I am sure you know this, already.

    The words and music fit. It is easy to see on paper what you are trying to do. The question is: can a choir reproduce this with accuracy within a reasonable practice time? I would find it hard to work with a non-pro choir with the bi-tonal areas.

    One transcription I thought of upon hearing was for organ (since I'm an organist, I hear that easily). If you had a lesser-choir to work with, the piece can be simplified and filled in by the organ. Also strings and even woodwinds. 

    I like the work a lot. best wishes

  • Just a few quick thoughts:

     

    As with most pieces, the more I listened to your effort, the more I enjoyed and appreciated it. The piece seems to be what I call a “sound waft” where the music wafts over the listener in breezes and waves. I frankly think that composers do not create enough of this genre. In concert, it is nice for the audience to be able to  just close their eyes and let the music carry them away. 

    Nice use of dissonance and tonality.  Nice multi-textural passages.

    It is a fine musical experience. 

    For me the lyrics are less a verbal message than  a vehicle for the chorus to pronounce the music. It seemed to be mostly a musical adventure. And that’s just fine with me.

    Notationally and musically, I must “protest” :)   your expectation of a chorus lifting their voices to a ffff passage. I do not know if a vocalist can sing ffff without hurting something. Asking a bass to sing an low Ab in ffff sounds painful and un-musical to me. There is an old choral adage:  “never sing louder than lovely.”

    I think you can keep your relative dynamic ideas intact by asking the choir to sing no louder that ff. They understand ff to be as loud as is vocally lovely. 

    Crescendos from p to ff should  fulfill your intention of the passages adequately. 

    I am not sure who your target choir is here. To make it more accessible to more choirs you might try to reduce awkward and large  interval jumps and making entrances more intuitive for the parts. This is one of the things that I work hard at in my choral attempts.  If a singer can easily intuit an interval or entrance, rather than having to memorize it, it reduces their musical stress. It enables them to concentrate on nuance rather than notes. Sometimes it means your switching notes to different parts so that following notes are closer, but this does not often change the musicality.

    All for now. 

    More thoughts may pop up as I listen to it again.

    Campy

     



  • Steve Campagnoli said:

    Just a few quick thoughts:

     

    As with most pieces, the more I listened to your effort, the more I enjoyed and appreciated it. The piece seems to be what I call a “sound waft” where the music wafts over the listener in breezes and waves. I frankly think that composers do not create enough of this genre. In concert, it is nice for the audience to be able to  just close their eyes and let the music carry them away. 

    Nice use of dissonance and tonality.  Nice multi-textural passages.

    It is a fine musical experience. 

    For me the lyrics are less a verbal message than  a vehicle for the chorus to pronounce the music. It seemed to be mostly a musical adventure. And that’s just fine with me.

    Notationally and musically, I must “protest” :)   your expectation of a chorus lifting their voices to a ffff passage. I do not know if a vocalist can sing ffff without hurting something. Asking a bass to sing an low Ab in ffff sounds painful and un-musical to me. There is an old choral adage:  “never sing louder than lovely.”

    I think you can keep your relative dynamic ideas intact by asking the choir to sing no louder that ff. They understand ff to be as loud as is vocally lovely. 

    Crescendos from p to ff should  fulfill your intention of the passages adequately. 

    I am not sure who your target choir is here. To make it more accessible to more choirs you might try to reduce awkward and large  interval jumps and making entrances more intuitive for the parts. This is one of the things that I work hard at in my choral attempts.  If a singer can easily intuit an interval or entrance, rather than having to memorize it, it reduces their musical stress. It enables them to concentrate on nuance rather than notes. Sometimes it means your switching notes to different parts so that following notes are closer, but this does not often change the musicality.

    All for now. 

    More thoughts may pop up as I listen to it again.

    Campy

          Thank you for your responses.  Yes , in afterthought, I realizr that being of the wind instrument backround I did not take into x=consideration that choir, for the most part will probably have a much narrower dynamic range.  I am not giving excuses, but I love this medium, the expression of emotions can be so thrilling.  I Some of the dissonances were a bit ovrer the edge for most choirs.  As an experiemental piece, it accompolished what I wanted it to do.  It definately gave me some insight for wriitting my Requiem Mass.  Not that I will in any way go completely simple, but will take greater care when I choose the dissonances especially how they are approached and left. 

This reply was deleted.