"Where choral writing is going."

I disagree so strongly with the assessment that Whitacre is "where choral writing is going."

I think he's really just attaching new harmonic and rhythmic tropes onto the same sorts of text-painting that have been going on since before the 1500s.

So - where IS choral writing going?

Hell. or the opera.

I'm actually inclined to agree with "the opera." I think most innovations in choral music are happening in contemporary opera.

Whitacre's band music is really cool. It's very unusual repertoire - lots of extended techniques and stuff, which one doesn't usually see for that particular ensemble.

Wait...so you say he's implementing new ideas on old ideas...but say that he's nothing new...

I don't get that.

I'm saying he's implementing harmonic ideas from the 1920s and 1930s (from folk like Copland and Stravinsky) on top of ideas of choral text-setting implemented as far back as the mid 1500s.

Yeah - old ideas mixed in new ways. In any case, are you arguing he's not innovative, or that he's just...not the overall trend in choral writing?

I haven't noticed a particular trend in new choral writing, unless perhaps it's a tendency toward thicker textures and rich, complex, satisfying harmonies. Choral music is more luxuriant and symphonic now than it has probably ever been, though even that is a trend that began nearly a century ago with such works as Arnold Bax's Mater ora Filium and Randall Thompson's luscious (if not particularly adventurous) Alleluia. Eric Whitacre is certainly a contributor to this tradition, given that in large part his genius is exploring the potential of his forces and using his harmonic language to wonderful effect.

Otherwise, I don't really see how much further innovation can be made in choral music. It seemed to reach a pinnacle of nearly unperformable avant garde opaqueness about 40 years ago (Morton Feldman's Rothko Chapel comes to mind) and has been turning in other more sane/reasonable directions since. I don't see a lot of really wacky new stuff being done - just greater exploration of how delicious choral sound can get.

The most exciting and/or satisfying contemporary choral works I've heard/performed include it is at moments after i have dreamed by Ian Krouse, Sleep by Eric Whitacre, Napili Bay, 2 PM by JAC Redford, and Madrigali by Morten Lauridsen.

Interesting...they're all Los Angeles composers.

I have to admit, probably the most intriguing new major choral work I've heard recently was The Passion of Ramakrishna by Philip Glass, given its premiere by the Pacific Chorale and Symphony; not really my cup of tea, but it was a pretty effective piece. I don't think Glass' brand of minimalism is at all representative of where choral music might be going, though.

Question: does opera really count as choral music? I don't think so, but I'd like to hear other ideas.

Is there a particular direction any of you would like to see choral music go?

OK first off, I didn't mean to say Eric Whitacre is where choral writing is going. I ment to say its interesting...blah blah. I apolagize for the mix up.

SO, we can all have opinions, isnt that what music is anyway. I mean I can like Eric Whitacre and you can't, thats fine.

As for the "future" of choral music......we don't really know obviously. I mean the John Adams operas have some interesting stuff going on, as well as the Christopher Rouse Requiem. All we can do is write how we want and see where it goes. What we cant do is go backward. As composers we need to take risks and move forward.

Where do I want choral music to go? Well first I want it to live. And it might live on through high school chiors which is fine. :) Also, I wouln't mind not only choral music but all vocal music as well to get some respect. It goes back to that whole thread about opera and someone said well opera isnt music...blah blah.

Vocalists have music to perform just like those violin players!! lol

ok..........I'm done for now.

I would definitely say Opera and Choir are two separate..."genres." Just because they both use voice doesn't make them the same thing - I mean, pop uses voice, and that's not the same thing, right?

Lets not start this argument. OBVIOUSLY opera/vocal/choral music are all different.

I was just saying as a side note that i hope all genres of music requiring singers can get more respect.

geez people.

I was just saying as a side note that i hope all genres of music requiring singers can get more respect.

Not to split hairs, but I treat "singers" and "vocalists" very differently.

Vocalists are musicians whose instrument is voice. Vocalists are trained musicians, read music, and are generally musically knowledgeable. Vocalists are usually prepared, learn their music outside of rehearsal, and act professionally.

Singers are trained dogs. Singers almost can never read music, they learn by rote memorization, and generally take up the bulk of space in most choirs and musical productions. Singers learn nothing outside of rehearsal - they can't read music! Singers are never prepared, and reliance on rote memorization means that they go through little material, as they are continually having to re-hash and re-learn material they've forgotten.

I very rarely work choose to work with Singers.

Arooooo!

I sort of separate the two differently. I call anybody that sings a singer, but people that vocalize in ways other than singing (such as growls, etc.) I call vocalists. All singers are vocalists, while not all vocalists are singers.

But your method is cooler because it makes "singer" pejorative.

We're all free to name things as we perceive them. :)

WHOA Nelly!!!

This thread is about as non-controversial as it gets, and ALREADY tempers have flared!

So cool it guys.

Opera and choral music.. blah blah blah.

Obviously they're two completely different things, with very strong common elements.

I honestly don't see why you guys are getting worked up over this. Stop. Take a breath. Think about it: does it REALLY matter?

I can assure you that the answer is "no".

Where is choral music going?

From this argument, I'd say "to hell in a hand basket".

But again, does it matter where it's "going"?

Are you all musicologists, more preoccupied with abstract "what ifs" instead of practical application and actually writing music?

Not to split hairs, but I treat "singers" and "vocalists" very differently.

Vocalists are musicians whose instrument is voice. Vocalists are trained musicians, read music, and are generally musically knowledgeable. Vocalists are usually prepared, learn their music outside of rehearsal, and act professionally.

Singers are trained dogs. Singers almost can never read music, they learn by rote memorization, and generally take up the bulk of space in most choirs and musical productions. Singers learn nothing outside of rehearsal - they can't read music! Singers are never prepared, and reliance on rote memorization means that they go through little material, as they are continually having to re-hash and re-learn material they've forgotten.

I very rarely work choose to work with Singers.

Arooooo!

i to am not a singer, im a voicalist.

but i didnt want people to think i was saying vocalist and in people who sing art songs.

i guess i cant say anything right without people getting upset.

i guess i cant say anything right without people getting upset.

I would ask no greater profession of wisdom of you than the statement you just made. Trust me, throughout your life, someone will take offense at something you say, no matter what. The key is how you respond - a wise man accepts that they cannot make everyone happy and instead finds and deals with those whom he can. :D

thats actually a really good quote.....thanks. its cooled me down! lol

Not to split hairs, but I treat "singers" and "vocalists" very differently.

Vocalists are musicians whose instrument is voice. Vocalists are trained musicians, read music, and are generally musically knowledgeable. Vocalists are usually prepared, learn their music outside of rehearsal, and act professionally.

Singers are trained dogs. Singers almost can never read music, they learn by rote memorization, and generally take up the bulk of space in most choirs and musical productions. Singers learn nothing outside of rehearsal - they can't read music! Singers are never prepared, and reliance on rote memorization means that they go through little material, as they are continually having to re-hash and re-learn material they've forgotten.

I very rarely work choose to work with Singers.

Arooooo!

That's a really, REALLY weird division. For me singer is someone who... well, sings.

There are better singers than others, and methods may vary. But uh, the only difference I can probably make is a solo singer and a choir singer. That's mostly in technique and repertoire. Some singers work in choirs, some rather do solo careers.

I don't really know where you got your grudge, but well. Just weird that's all.

I don't know about all the American composers you guys keep talking about so much, but there's some really exciting church music being written in the UK at the moment. Maybe the church is a bigger musical force over here, I dunno. Tarik O'Regan (Tarik O'Regan) is definitely one of my favourite composers right now; you can listen to, and look at the first page of, pretty much all of his works on his website (there are some nice instrumental ones too). He tends to mix exciting rhythmic ideas with stuff taken from plainsong, often experimenting with unusual choral textures like that you'll see in the A1 and A2 lines if you go to the last 'choral and vocal' piece on page five of this section under the heading 'samples' on his website (it's called 'Gratias Tibi'). His newest pieces, 'Scattered Rhymes', are particularly rhythmically complex - I think one choir is largely notated as in plainsong, to use speech rhythms, and the other conventionally notated (he certainly does this for his 'Magnificat' anyway). It's a beautiful and intriguing way to create 'wash of sound' textures without relying on counterpoint; the effect does remind me a lot of 15th and 16th century polyphony (especially Palestrina Missa Papae Marcelli for some reason). Still, pretty much all of his music feels very modern. In his 'Dorchester Canticles' he writes for organ, 2 choirs, harp and percussion (if I remember correctly), and the percussion really makes it that bit more fantastic. I think it's very exciting and possibly a new direction for choral writing, especially in the church.

Jonathan Dove is another one I like a lot at the moment; he creates very exciting textures again, above all else, mainly by complex imitation throughout parts of reasonably uncomplicated ideas, a good example being his anthem 'Bless the Lord, O my Soul' (there are a few good recordings but the choir I sing in broadcast this on Radio 3 Live Evensong on Sunday, it should still be at BBC - Radio 3 - Choral Evensong - Live from Sheffield Cathedral - go to 35 mins and wait about 3, then it starts). (His operas are great too).

I'm really into choral music that is led by creating evocative textures; Whitacre does through 'nice' crazy harmony, Stockhausen etc. through 'weird' crazy harmony (and more weird stuff like whispering and whistling), and now these guys largely through rhythmic and textural interest and complexity, and a treatment of stuff like plainsong with new vigour. I couldn't disagree more with whoever it was that said choral music has run out of new stuff to do.

(Edit: if anyone does listen to that broadcast, at 35mins exactly is the end of the Responses by Gabriel Jackson, another interesting modern composer. It's quite Whitacre-ish, now I come to think of it.)

Jonathan Dove!! I heard his opera Tobais and the Angel!!!

Really interesting stuff. It was nice and my teacher Robert Cantrell and a good friend Lori Hultgren were both leads in the opera and said it was really challenging, but really rewarding. Jonathan Dove....good man.

Haha, I havn't heard Tobias and the Angel, but I did listen to 'Flight', which was pretty damn cool. You seem to have very similar tastes to me lol. I listened to 'The Rose and the Grave' - pretty moving stuff. Who performed it?

(Ps. I corrected the links in my post above).

I also really like 'Flight.' This past semester I took a course on contemporary European opera and we listened to that. Another opera that used its chorus in an interesting fashion was Kaja Sariaaho's 'L'amour de loin,' about 12th-century troubadour Jaufr

Terve:

Yea, I mean we both know who Butterworth is!! haha

The Baltimore Choral Arts Society..it was just a reading after a 30 min rehearsal.lol not a "performance".

I also think that, as far as British church music goes, James MacMillan has some good stuff going - he's the composer-in-residence for Westminster Cathedral. It's highly contrapuntal and vaguely Eastern-flavored, and most definitely inspired by chant.