Bill,
Like I said earlier, the music I am talking about is not complicated.
When it does get complicated, of course I use separate staves for
soloists and chorus. It's certainly got nothing to do with laziness,
either, as I'm being paid by the hour, here. The situation I am
talking about does not merit split staves, and is in fact less clear
with split staves.
The question is _not_ how to indicate a solo. "Solo" on a tenor staff
is perfectly clear. Obviously.
The only question is the most succinct, clear way to indicate "All
tenors except solo tenor." If the concertmaster was taking a solo
from the section and I wanted a response played by "all violins
except solo violin," I would use "gli altri" or "the rest," both of
which are perfectly well understood by orchestral string players.
If it's true that choral singers don't know what those terms mean,
there are any number of ways I can think of to indicate what I want:
"Chorus," "All Tenors (except soloist)," "Tutti (no soloist)," etc
etc etc. I was merely asking if there was a standard way, a choral
equivalent to "gli altri" that the singers might encounter frequently.
I have absolutely no idea what any of this has to do with academia.
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY
On 28 Feb 2006, at 1:25 AM, bill wrote:
I have no idea why this is even a question. Make a separate staff
for the
soloist, and then indicate "go get coffee" or something when she
doesn't
sing. I am opposed to anything that is too accedemic for
"musically-challanged" chorus members to digest. I am not that
financially
well-endowed to pay for the time it takes for 25 people to ask
"what does
that mean?"
Acedemia is wonderful in it's own merit. But, I have been a
producer for
over 25 years and pay for miscommunications that acedemia creates. I
suggest you all stop it, and try to be impossible to misunderstand,
irregardless of "tradition". That's the whole point of notation,
isn't it?
What's wrong with, "tenor solo"?? Seems clear to me. And, when
thing get
complicated, then split the parts out. Do I dectect some laziness
here?
sorry to ramble...it is my opinion.
Bill
From: Bruce K H Kau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:31:41 -1000
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Finale] Chorus question
In choral music I've seen, it's been more or less a non-issue, since
each part has a separate staff (or at least a separate line on a
staff -
stems up / stems down). The soloist is also broken out as a separate
staff. If the soloist is from a particular part (for example, a
single
tenor from the tenor section, as opposed to a feature soloist),
the way
I've seen it is that it is marked "Solo" and "All Tenors" on the
same staff.
Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 27 Feb 2006, at 9:08 PM, John Bell wrote:
In a Call and Response situation, solo and gli altri seems to me to
be very clear.
So would I, but apparently my client does not.
There are also passages where the soloist sings a moving line with
simple choral backgrounds, both on the same staff. (Yes, it's quite
clear without splitting the solo part out onto its own staff.)
How about just "Solo" and "Chorus"?
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
