Role of Voices

The role of voices can vary from piece to piece. In many of main-stream music it will have lyrics and a strong melody to work with. In the past(well I guess present too), it can be the entire harmony and have lyrics, and it plays as the main part of the music. But I've noticed lately (mostly in movie music) that vocals are being used more and more as a background tool. Like you look at Star Wars III and they use a lot of vocals, no lyrics, just an effect. It's almost like it's just another instrument in the orchestra. Has anyone else seen this change in the vocal behavior in music?

People are taking that approch. I think they do it in movies to have that dramatic effect, but the text doesnt matter because they cant focus on that text and the movie itself.

However the voice being used as an instrument is popular, and the text is important. People like Mahelr and John Adams wrote the voice to not be the forground all the time, i personally feel that they wrote it as another instrument.

Vocal music is just up in the air these days isnt it.

Umm, this is an upload forum, perhaps a Moderator can kick this to the discussion forum?

EDIT: thanks!

Yeah I noticed that later, my bad. I'm new.

To address the question:

Yes, vocals have become more commonly used as simply another instrument by some composers... myself included. There is no imperative that the voice be constantly treated as paramount; in fact, I believe that overuse of voices as primary melodic drivers has been a contributing reactive factor in this change of usage.

Personally, I feel that the moment a composer writes (or uses) lyrics, the rest of the music takes a back seat and is mentally relegated to second-class status. Immediately, the audience focuses on the words rather than on the music, which I find counterproductive. Nearly all of my vocal works feature nonsense lyrics just for that reason.

So when we look at rap music, are people listening for the lyrics? Because they seem crude and pretty much stupid. And other pop music, I know alot of people who never know the lyrics to some of their favorite songs. Are these just exeptions to the second-class status?

When can lyrics actually empower the music, because there are times when it is useful. Not everyone will want to here oo's and aah's all the time, so the tone variation must be good for something. How do you balance the variation and the distraction?

I am working on a choral piece, and as of the moment it's just aah's, but I think I can get something more from it by changing that.

So when we look at rap music, are people listening for the lyrics? Because they seem crude and pretty much stupid.

[warning shot...next time I shoot to kill ;) ]

Try not to make ignorant statements and sweeping generalizations about things with which you're unfamiliar.

Okay?

Anyway...let's not throw this thread off topic, continue on your merry way.

I can't comment on rap or pop music without causing controversy, but I'll say that people may not know the actual lyrics, but most of them fill in the blanks mentally with approximations.

As long as a person thinks or perceives that they are being sung intelligible phrases, they'll focus their concentration on the words over the music (unless there is something just as distracting going on musically) in attempt to understand what's being sung. But if they determine that the words don't mean anything, OR don't understand the words being sung, they'll pay more attention to the music as a whole.

Lyrics can be extremely useful and enhance the music, of course there is no doubt of that... I just don't personally feel compelled to use them. (I'm a composer, not a poet!)

Ok, sorry rap lyrics aren't stupid. I just don't like crude (vulgar) lyrics, which are common amongst rap music. I apologize, I'll think before I speak like that.

So I was listening to one of the songs from this site by MatthewSchwartz, Song without words for Piano, Flute & Chorus in A major – Cantabile con tenerezza. He uses the choral voice as a background effect, and he was rebuked for not giving a strong choral line. So is this actually downgraded the choral group? I'm sure other groups of instruments have played similar roles in famous works, so is it wrong to have the chorus do that?

;) :thumbsup:

I tend to agree with Flint. LYRICS - words - are something tangible and familiar that the listener latches on to. The most poignant and powerful music (to my ears) features SIMPLE accompaniment for beautiful, solid lyrics.

In jazz writing (usually large ensembles, but also smaller groups), it's becoming more and more common to hear voice used as a distinct colour. Kenny Wheeler pioneered this with his large-ensemble writing, with Norma Winstone given a lead vocalese line, often doubling solo trumpet or lead alto. It's a VERY cool sound.

...

The role of voices can vary from piece to piece. In many of main-stream music it will have lyrics and a strong melody to work with. In the past(well I guess present too), it can be the entire harmony and have lyrics, and it plays as the main part of the music. But I've noticed lately (mostly in movie music) that vocals are being used more and more as a background tool. Like you look at Star Wars III and they use a lot of vocals, no lyrics, just an effect. It's almost like it's just another instrument in the orchestra. Has anyone else seen this change in the vocal behavior in music?

Durrr...

The whole voice as an instrument thing starts showing up, though in a different sense, by Zemlinsky (in his lieder, the harmony dictates the voice's lines) and Wagner. Schoenberg already used this idea when writing atonal music for voice. It's very very challenging to sing stuff like Pierrot Lunaire for the same reason.

Then Berio, and other composers, attempted to remove the "automatic meaning" from human voice in music. Killing all assumed context by virtue of exploring more sound possibilities, messing with the lyrics, etc etc. Berio's Sequenza III for female voice is an example of this.

Nevermind that choirs have had an accompaniment function since way before the 20th century.

So... Really, there's not much to say other that modern music has totally ripped any "center" role voice may have just for the sake of being present. Instead, now you're free to treat voice(s) as you'd treat an Oboe, or you can do the more traditional thing. There's no real norm for it anymore.

Let's please try not to forget the art and craft that goes into lyric writing. It's its own form of poetry and a good pop or cabaret or musical theatre song is about the marriage of music and lyric. How the melody supports the lyric, how the accompaniment comments on both the lyric and the melody. How the harmonies can change the meaning of the melody and the lyric from verse to verse. How the lyric needs the music in order to really carry much weight.

We may not be able to force an audience to focus their attention away from the lyric and onto the song as a whole, but we can provide the full package, and dismissing the work of the lyricist as something that takes away from the music is a little irresponsible in my view. As someone who's been a lyricist, a composer and both at the same time, I say we all just do our job to our fullest, and give the audience the best package we can, for them to do with as they please.