I offer a different perspective. I am not a choral director, but I write choral music and I only set English lyrics. The meaning of the words is not as important to me as the overall effect. I only speak English, but I enjoy tremendously choral music in Latin, German, Italian, French, etc., and often have very little understanding of the words. I assume there are many others like me. If I had to choose, I would rather the notes be on pitch and the rhythm precise than the lyrics be clearly understandable every time. To me, if your primary goal is to communicate the meaning of words, have them read or printed, don't have them sung. The very act of singing words changes their meaning, or transforms their meaning, into something else, a whole different meaning of "meaning". Not more important, not less, just different. A beautiful setting/performance of VCR instructions will move me more than a terrible but clear setting/performance of something by Rilke, Whitman, W.S.Merwin, a Psalm, etc.
Stu -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Delcour Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:57 PM To: David H. Bailey Cc: Chuck Israels; Finale Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: Pachelbel's canon Just as a matter of interest: as a choir conductor and choral composer/arranger, meaning of the lyrics comes very high on my list. I sometimes don't care if notes are off pitch, not in beat and all the other aspects, but meaning has to be conveyed to the audience no matter what. No meaning, and the rest of the list is absolutely useless and meaningless. I suppose this is a difference between instrumental and choral music. :-) Paul Delcour David H. Bailey wrote: > I agree with Chuck here -- I list for my students what order I (and I > am very careful to point out that this is my personal order of > importance) I feel musical elements should be thought of: > 1) rhythm > 2) pitch > 3) tempo variations > 4) articulations > 5) dynamics > > I tell them that, of course, we are trying our best to master music > well enough to attend to all of these items simultaneously, but if > they can't get everything right, be sure to get the rhythm correct, > because a right note played at the wrong time is still a wrong note. > > Then worry about pitch, and only after they are sure rhythm and pitch > are accurate do any of the other details take on any importance. > > It has gotten me through 40 years of musical life so far and I see no > need to change things. > > > Chuck Israels wrote: > >> At 10:40 PM +1000 6/5/02, Kenneth Kuhlmann wrote: >> >>> > From: "Chuck Israels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>>> >>>> The three most important things in music are: rhythm, rhythm, and >>>> rhythm, in that order. >>>> >>> >>> Chuck: Surely rhythm, melody and harmony are the eternal musical trinity >>> - allowing, of course, that the relative importance of each element >>> may vary between cultures? >>> >>> Is your emphasis on rhythm an over-compensation for the >>> relative rhythmic poverty of much of the popular canon of European >>> art music - cf. the Indian or African traditions or even the Eastern >>> Mediterannean, for instance? >> >> >> >> Dear Kenneth, >> >> Of course, statements like this are flippant and open to criticism >> for being superficial, but it has been my experience that if the >> timing's wrong, nothing you can do with the other elements will fix >> the problem - something like that. (And good rhythm will help to >> forgive shortcomings in melody and harmony.) At least it seems to >> work that way in my own listening and composing experience. >> >> >> Chuck > > > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
