I have this mental picture... or more like a mental recording... of how polyphony should sound. It should be a clear, beautiful sound of several voices joining together to create one unified sound (while you still hear the various melodies intertwining). This mental picture does not involve the inclusion of a heavy-handed organist beating out the notes for the bass section (who cannot sing their part without such help). Is it just me, or does the inclusion of this singing aid tend to ruin the a cappella sound? To me, there is a particular 'ring' that comes when the blend of voices is very nice... the singers are listening to each other and matching tones and making the chords have perfect harmony even with their imperfect instruments...
I had this discussion with the organist at our church (who persists in playing the bass part for all 'a cappella' pieces). Granted, our bass section has not been strong in the past. We have a couple of faithful, but untalented, section members who (over the course of many years' participation) have never managed to learn how to read music.
The organist maintains that : ...
"I'm with you about a cappella, its beautiful and most desirable. However a cappella is not as important as being comfortalbe (sic) and accurate. Sometime light accompaniement (sic) is needed. Scholars have learned that then as now, instruments of all types, organ, strings, brass have doubled [or replaced/served as a Choir 2] .....as needed. In other words they were eminently practical, flexible people. Sometimes not everybody is there or a section has weaknesess (sic). At that time they didn't distinguish between vocal and instrumental; i.e. write separate parts for the instruments and the singers. Even instrumentals such as Corelli Concerto Grossi, there are practical notes that "in the abscence of Violas, play this cue on the cello...etc."
I have mentioned that, if the choir is simply unable to really sing 'a cappella', it would be better to choose music that has an appropriate organ accompaniment intended until the needed skills are attained. Also, I think it is important that we work toward gaining those skills. If certain members of a particular section will never have those skills, then perhaps we should use a select group of individuals for a cappella pieces...
But then again... perhaps my mental recording is wrong and he is correct...
1 comment:
A comment I received via email (thanks very much -- gives me more to think about):
I just read a part of your blog - "Accompaniment for 'a cappella' pieces?", and found it interesting. I'm actually an organist, who primary plays music before 1750 (Baroque and before), and I have to say that having the organ doubling just the bass voice part for a cappella pieces is strange.
The use of instruments and organ were introduced to the church to double the voice parts for Renaissance polyphony, but to only double the bass part itself doesn't seem quite right to me. It would sound better to either completely double all of the voices with organ (using soft stops, like continuo organ - gedecht, flute) or to not double at all, and do actual a cappella. Either way, you'll have a homophonic, blending sound, instead of having just one part stick out.
Even when you look at choral pieces by Bach or Mozart, they will, from time to time, double the voice parts with instruments, but they do it in good taste and not as a crutch.
I, personally, advocate music literacy and solfege understanding with singers. If you want it a cappella, then definitely insist on not having the organ double the bass part. The bass singers will just have to actually learn solfege if they want to really want to sing.
Post a Comment