• Sign In
  • ACDA.org
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
ChoralNet

ChoralNet

The professional networking site for the global online choral community.

  • Home
  • Blog
  • ACDA News
  • Events
  • Community
    • Announcements
    • Classifieds

You are here: Home / Others / CJ Replay: Blend, Part 3

CJ Replay: Blend, Part 3

May 30, 2012 by Scott Dorsey Leave a Comment


(From the multi-part Choral Journal article, “In Quest of Answers,” by Carole Glenn.)
 
In response to the questions, (a) Do you have any preferences in terms of blend? and (b) In terms of blend, how do you handle an outstanding solo singer in a choral situation  Howard Swan (California State University, Fullerton)  replied:
 
 (a) I made up my mind a long time ago while philosophically I could accept the idea of blend, I could not go as far with it as some of my colleagues. Probably blend is the most important choralobjective. We respond as listeners to the chorus singing as one voice. We work on blend by having sections sing alone a number of times in rehearsal. We don’t do this in sectional rehearsals, and we don’t try to go for a basic vowel sound, but there is a lot of tuning within the individual sections. If I feel that the basic production of a section is off, then I will work with the singers for a time employing various means to produce a consistency in production and pronunciation.  I will not go so far as to say that we blend vibrato. Sometimes this happens, and we’re delighted when it does happen. We try to place singers within the section so that there will be a suitable blend, a pleasing blend to the audience, and so that the singing process will be easier for each individual singer. Placement does help. Sometimes I carryon an experiment if I’m not completely satisfied with the placement of singers in a section. There is much changing of position to find which placement seems to be best for a given year. I’m not one who stays with a particular seating arrangement year in and year out. We do these things for blend, but we don’t carry it as far as some other people do.  I cannot go too far with blend because I feel that if I do, something very precious in an individual nature is destroyed, or at least is hurt very badly.
 
(b) I cannot think of a time when we have dropped a soloist from the choir. One of my reasons for working as I do with blend is to protect my solo voices. I believe that all young people who have talent and who are soloists should be allowed to let their voices develop properly.  Now, if a voice is huge in size you have to ask the singer to reduce its amplitude.  There has to be some give and take on the part of the solo voices; it cannot be just a question of a sort of “musical anarchy”.  But I find that insofar as vibrato is concerned and insofar as size of voice is concerned, much can be done if there is an understanding between the director and the singer. You tell the soloist, “I want you in the group. You don’t want your voice to be standing out in an ugly fashion or in a fashion which will detract from the listening pleasure of the audience. Therefore, let us work together. When I hear that your voice is too prominent or the vibrato is prominent, then I will tell you so. You must not take offense at this. Let us recognize together what you have in the way of talent. Let us recognize together that there are certain objectives for the group as a group namely blend and balance – which we must appreciate and which we must attempt to achieve.” This is the way that we usually go at it in my chorus. I usually find that with this kind of understanding, with the use of the ears, the use of the mind, and working with the voice on the part of the individual singer, we can make things come out pretty well.
 

Filed Under: Others

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. John Howell says

    June 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    The quotations from Howard Swan point up a deficiency in both vocal and choral music education that is too often swept under the table, but may be worth thinking about.
     
    Swan assumes–as I’m sure a great many of us in the profession do–that for a singer there are TWO choices:  to train as a soloist (the goal of most voice teachers) or to train as a choral musician (the ideal of most choral conductors).  Swan’s approach attempt to cross that artificial divide.  But that assumed dichotomy sets up the familiar tension between voice teachers and choral conductors.  (My own feeling, on the odd chance that anyone actually cares, is that each takes a rather different skill set, and while some singers are equally good at both, others are not.)
     
    But there is actually a THIRD choice that is almost completely ignored, at least in the colleges and universities that I’ve been associated with, and that is the in between world of vocal chamber music.  Instrumentalists understand, as a matter of course, that while they are learning to be good soloists (for which we require them to play recitals) and good large ensemble players (for which we require them to play in large ensembles), they also have a third option of participating in chamber music–string quartets, woodwind or brass quartets, or collaborative chamber music as a keyboard player–which is a separate and very different world.  A soloist can get by singing or playing by rote what her teacher has told her to do.  A large ensemble singer or player learns to follow the conductor’s interpretation.  But in chamber music one is REQUIRED to become a true musician, to experience the give and take of true collaborative performance, and to discover (hopefully with an experienced coach) what the music itself is really all about.
     
    So WHY is this not a common part of vocal training and experience for singers?!!!
     
    I admit to being very prejudiced.  I spent a 20-year first career singing in a vocal quartet, The Four Saints, that was very successful in entertainment in the ’50s and ’60s.  (We were also instrumentalists, but we were definitely NOT a “band”!)  At a later date I became especially interested in early music, in which almost all music was in fact “chamber” music, and very large ensembles were virtually unknown.  (When you are actually PAYING your musicians, you never hire any more than you actually have to!)  Most modern “chamber choirs” would have been full choirs or oversized choirs to Bach, Handel, or Vivaldi.  My son is a very good ensemble singer and an excellent soloist, but also had a good 4-year run with Chanticleer, which I would classify as choral chamber music because that’s exactly how they approach it–a collaborative and unified approach to their music.
     
    So why isn’t vocal chamber music considered important?
    All the best,
    John
    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • ACDA.org
  • The ChoralNet Daily Newsletter

 

Advertise on ChoralNet

Footer

Connect with us!

  • Home
  • About
  • Help
  • Contact Us
  • ACDA.org

Recent Blogs

  • Choral Ethics: Don’t Waste My Time!
  • Choral Ethics: Judging Others
  • Choral Ethics: Doing the Right Things
  • Choral Ethics: Working Together
  • The Conductor as Yogi:  The Calmest Person in the Room

American Choral Directors Association

PO Box 1705
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73101-1705

© 2026 American Choral Directors Association. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy