3 THINGS CHORAL COMPOSERS DO WRONG

I've been thinking lately about some of the compositional pitfalls that are specific to writing vocal music. I see student composers fall victim to these all the time, and established professionals don't always do better! Let's explore...

1. STRESSING THE WRONG SYLLABLES

When strong syllables don't get placed on strong musical beats, it doesn't sound right. Tap the beat while you sing this, and see what I mean:

I hope it's obvious why this is bad - when you speak these words, you naturally lean on certain syllables (“STRESS the cor-RECT...”). But by putting the first (weak) part of “correct” on the strong beat 3, the natural stresses of the text and music are working against each other. The rhythm isn’t serving the text.

Here it is, fixed:

When the rhythm/phrasing is irregular, you can use mixed meter to keep strong syllables on strong beats. Here’s an excerpt from one of my liturgical settings - notice how every strong syllable is on a downbeat (or beat 3 of a 4/4 measure):

2. OVERWRITING

Three similar issues I see all the time:

a. WAY, WAY, WAY TOO MUCH HOMOPHONY. So much contemporary choral music is dominated by chordal textures. “Chord-Chord-Chord” gets exhausting to listen to. I wish composers would utilize more counterpoint and independent lines. The great composers seemed to think this was a good idea, but it seems like many of today’s composers aren’t so interested in writing distinct horizontal gestures in each voice part. 

b. CONSTANT DIVISI. There aren’t very many pieces that really need to be scored for 8 voices. When I hear a piece with a lot of divisi, I often feel like the composer is trying to use the “vertical busy-ness” to distract us from their lack of interesting musical ideas. Bach, Mozart, and countless others had no trouble writing nuanced, complex music in 4 voices. Why do so many contemporary choral composers and composition students think they need 6-8 parts all the time? It’s easy to throw down a bunch of thick, dense chords, but it’s much harder to deftly weave that many different parts into great music.

c. ALL THE PARTS SINGING ALL THE TIME. Even in music with fewer voices, if every section is singing the whole time, it’s going to get tiresome. Give each section a break. Writing rests is a compositional decision. Thinning out the texture will make your big moments more compelling by comparison.

3. SETTING UNMUSICAL POETRY

Every great poem is not a great poem to set to music. Here’s an example of an excellent poem that I would probably never use for a piece:

I like this poem a lot, but I don’t see a lot of room for music here. There are a few phrases that work (the last three lines are good, especially rising and gliding), but the others would be clunky to sing (When I was shown the charts and diagrams … where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room). These lines don’t feel inherently musical to me; they feel like prose.

In Jake Runestad’s recent interview with the International Choral Bulletin, he talked about setting text:

“There are so many engaging texts that have been written but not all lend themselves to being set to music. Many writings already contain all of the information (or too much information) one needs to experience their meaning. When searching for a text for vocal work, I seek words that are simple, direct, and communicate something about the human experience. These words must not be too flowery or too descriptive so that there is room for the music to add meaning of its own.”

“Simple and direct.” That’s the type of language that music brings to life most effectively. There’s a reason contemporary choral composers overuse Sara Teasdale. Look how much breathing room is in these lines. There is space for music to lift up the words:

WHY VOCAL JAZZ MATTERS (AND HOW TO STOP NOT DOING IT)

Image from www.KerryMarsh.com.

Last week I wrote that it seems like singers are often trained at the high school level in ways that emphasize their role as performers, while their instrumentalist counterparts are taught more comprehensive overall musicianship. One part of the solution to this problem is for more schools to offer a Vocal Jazz Ensemble, which is basically the singing equivalent of a jazz band. Both groups have a rhythm section (piano, bass, drums) and they perform similar musical styles. In vocal jazz, singers act like the horns of a big band. Here’s what it looks like:

University of North Texas Jazz Singers
Jennifer Barnes, director

A great jazz choir will become a destination ensemble within a music program. Students like it because they get to sing popular songs in a small group on individual microphones. More importantly, they have to get comfortable with close and complex harmony, syncopation, and improvisation. Learning to sing these characteristic elements of jazz style is a guaranteed musicianship boost. Having vocal jazz as part of a choral program means producing more complete singing musicians who have great ears and can sight-read (how is this sounding, choir directors?). And, of course, singing jazz is worth doing for its own sake.

In Nebraska, where I live/teach/compose/conduct, there are over 400 high schools, and by my count, there are exactly 10 (ten!) high school jazz choirs in the state. That’s a real bad batting average. If a school has the resources to field a jazz band, there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t have a corresponding vocal jazz ensemble. Instead, many vocal music departments choose to pour resources into ensembles that sing much less challenging music, devoting large sections of rehearsal time to organized movement, costuming, and other things that aren't music.

Of course, musical IQ and performing ability are not natural enemies. Singers do need to be performers as well as musicians. Even in vocal jazz, we talk about stage presence, moving naturally with the music, connecting with the audience, and, of course, how to deliver a lyric effectively. But this is all tied together in a context where developing comprehensive ensemble musicianship is the top priority. If the singers in my jazz choir can’t hear hard intervals, sing complex chords in tune, and maintain good time feel, their Performing ability means absolutely nothing. Music is for ears. The Show is only as good as it sounds through headphones.

RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS

Here are the concerns I usually hear from directors about why their school doesn't offer a vocal jazz ensemble:

"IT'S TOO HARD" / "I'VE NEVER DONE JAZZ"

Steve Zegree's book The Complete Guide to Teaching Vocal Jazz says:

"The current evolution of vocal jazz programs in schools is similar to the development of instrumental jazz programs during the late 1970s. Due in large part to the popularity of touring and recording bands led by Buddy Rich, Maynard Ferguson, Stan Kenton and Woody Herman during the 1970s and early 80s, many high school and college students were very interested in playing this style of music. Almost overnight, band directors with little or no jazz experience found themselves responsible for a stage band or jazz ensemble. Over the years, with the help of jazz education advocates such as Jamey Aebersold, David Baker and Jerry Coker, excellent performance standards and repertoire were developed for instrumental jazz groups of all ability levels. Today, most high schools and colleges include instrumental jazz as an integral part of their overall music program. A similar situation is emerging in vocal jazz education, with more and more teachers and administrators acknowledging the importance of including this music as a part of a total choral program…"

It has to start somewhere. Jazz is an aural tradition; the more you listen to it, the better you get. Introduce your students to Frank Sinatra, New York Voices, Take 6, and Kurt Elling. Listen to recordings of the charts you're rehearsing and have your singers try to mimic what they hear. Also, learning some basic jazz piano isn’t hard and will make a big difference in your ability to understand and teach the harmony you’ll encounter in jazz literature. Start with this book, or this one. You can also check out Steve Zegree’s book (see above) and Paris Rutherford’s book - both good resources for a beginning vocal jazz director.

One final note about the difficulty of teaching jazz: I don’t know many choir directors who have significant backgrounds and formal training in choreography, staging, costuming, lighting, etc., but I know many who have made extraordinary efforts to learn these things, or hired people who can do them well. We put effort into what we value, and results generally follow.

"MICROPHONES AND SOUND EQUIPMENT ARE EXPENSIVE"

Not as expensive as putting on a musical, buying 50 dresses and tuxedos, or fielding a football team! Again, we put resources into what we value. The one-time expense of a PA system for your jazz choir will pay off for years down the road.

However, if the cost of sound equipment is truly a deal-breaker in the short term, I will say that it is entirely possible to do vocal jazz without sound reinforcement (not ideal, but better than nothing). 12-20 voices will blend very well with unamplified acoustic bass, piano, and light percussion (not drum set - try shaker or cajón with brushes). 

"I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO RHYTHM SECTION PLAYERS"

Are you sure? You don’t need them at every rehearsal. The singers will take up most of your attention. I only bring in rhythm section to rehearse with my group 1-2 times before the concert (usually with one rhythm-only rehearsal before they join the singers).

Start by asking the rhythm section of your school’s jazz band. If that’s not an option, check with your instrumental director and singers to see if they know other students who play a rhythm instrument. You can hire local professional players, or players from a local college jazz program. If there’s no money to hire them, ask if they would donate their time for one concert per semester.

"I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO FIND VOCAL JAZZ MUSIC"

It is your lucky day.

http://www.uncjazzpress.com
http://www.smpjazz.com
http://newyorkvoices.com/shop/product-category/vocal-arrangements/
http://kerrymarshvocaljazz.myshopify.com
http://www.michmusic.com/store/
http://www.jeremyfox.net/scorestore/
http://www.jenniferbarnesmusic.com/audio/catalog.htm

GIVE IT A TRY

If you direct a high school or college choir, try starting vocal jazz on a trial basis and see how it goes. I would love to personally talk you through any concerns you have about getting started. Use the Contact page of this website to send me an email.

ONE FINAL NOTE:

Instrumental jazz directors, you're not off the hook here. The sound and style of jazz singing has much more in common with the instrumental jazz tradition than it does with traditional concert choir. In fact, some schools have vocal jazz as part of the instrumental jazz studies curriculum, not the choral program! You don’t need to be an expert in vocal production to coach singers on jazz style and time feel. Talk to them exactly how you would talk to the horns in your band, put a great rhythm section behind them, and watch the magic happen.

"SINGERS AND MUSICIANS"

We’ve all heard it. Someone is talking about an ensemble that has voices and instruments together, and they casually distinguish between the “singers” and the “musicians.” And by “musicians,” of course, they mean the instrumentalists. Now I don’t think most people who do this are implying anything malicious. I assume they actually know that singing is one way of being a musician, and that a singer’s voice is their instrument (the first instrument, in fact). But there’s a stereotype here: that singers somehow are not the real deal. That they aren’t as musically literate as their instrumentalist colleagues, and that they are perhaps less serious about becoming well-rounded musicians. I try to correct these generalizations when I hear them. Some of the very best musicians I know are singers, and there is, of course, no shortage of poor musicians who play an instrument.

But unfortunately, this stereotype doesn’t come from nowhere. In my experience teaching undergraduate composition, theory, and ear training, instrumentalists generally do better than singers. Why is this? I believe it’s because many music programs, especially ensemble offerings at the high school level, put more focus on teaching singers to become performers than on developing their overall musicianship.

Here in the midwest, at many high schools the most prestigious (and often the most select) vocal ensemble is a show choir. The nature of show choir necessitates that a large percentage of rehearsal time, thought, and energy be spent on non-musical elements: choreography, costuming, etc. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with these things, if this is the musical experience that teachers, parents and students value most highly, many schools will continue to produce Singer-Performers who are musically deficient. This is what I see happening.

What’s the solution? How do we help our singers build more meaningful musicianship? They can study theory, learn piano, and practice ear training. Musical theater repertoire and art songs are great for vocalists to develop their solo singing chops on serious literature. And, of course, having strong traditional concert choirs and select chamber choirs in our schools is extremely important - these ensembles go a long way toward developing musical IQ for singers.

But I think another type of vocal ensemble does the best job of bridging the musicianship gap between instrumentalists and singers. It’s a genre that’s difficult to do well, but students love the challenge. Singers in this type of group develop killer ears and sight-read like monsters. It lets you program arrangements of popular songs and has the cool factor in spades. But no one is doing it.

More on this next time.