ChoralNet

The professional networking site for the global online choral community.

You are here: Home / Others / GUEST BLOG: “Effect or Meaning” by Edward Palmer

GUEST BLOG: “Effect or Meaning” by Edward Palmer

by Leave a Comment


"Effect or Meaning" ~ by Edward Palmer

 
Does music that is composed for “effect” stimulate the natural use of the voice, or does it require an artificial vocal sound that is commonly called, “straight?” Straight vocalizationis limited in its dynamic capability, particularly messa di voce, which is the most effective tool for expression. ”Straight” is a manufactured vocalism that does not carry in it the sound of drama or character. Certainly, some chords need straight, “in tune” attention, and certain words may call for minimal or no vibrato, but a composition sung entirely with straight vocalization can become tiring for the singer and dull and for the listener.
 
The human voice is a gift, given for the purpose of communicating ideas, thoughts and urgency; therefore, if there is no clear thought in mind- in the song – the voice is “commanded” to do so-and-so rather than enjoy thought-driven expression.In the music of “effect” a well-trained singer finds conflict between a passive, textually dull music and that which has concrete idea content and that natural desire to communicate. In my opinion, “effect” songs are very much about “me” with little outgoing humanity or spirituality.
 

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. “One finds it difficult….” In this choral (ChoraLNet) context we are, of course, referring to singing. We sing vowels. They are the part we sustain and have pitch.
    If a vowel is not detectable, is it then noise or effect? The screeching of a high c or even only a is not a language component.
    Instruments do not play vowels, singers must when communicating a language. 
     
    The “experiment.” I think the original is published in F. If you know the song, you know the first note is d above middle c.       Whatever the voice classification, one would tend to lift in the throat.
    The second part of the experiment (routine) is aimed at stabilizing the larynx. Did I say that already?
    As the pitch varies, the depth of meaning must vary correspondingly. Sounds like you and your teacher are close to what this is.
    Hard to put in words. May do a video soon.
     
    Thanks, Austen
     
    Ed Palmer
     
     

  2. I think I am still confused. These two sentences seem to have different meaning to me:
     
    “One finds it difficut to hear meaning in pitches that have no language function at all.”
     
    “If a vowel is not detectable as one sings. the word is non-existant and without meaning because language components are missing and only the surrounding neighborhood of consonants reveal the word.”
     
    As I read it, the second one deals exclusively with diction. Instrumental music could be classified in the first statement.
     
    With the experiment you suggested, I would probably sing in a quasi-baritone range because I am a baritone. In addition, what do you mean by the usual key?
     
    I agree with the following statement “However, if I asked you to speak the phrase as above and immediately afterward sing the phrase without changing the sensation in your throat, you wiould be shocked at the dimension and quality of your “sound,’ and that with no great effort.” My voice teacher works on that concept with me and I work on that concept with my singers.
     
    I do not understand “the higher the note, the deeper the meaning.” Are you implying that music with lower notes has less meaning than music with higher notes?
     
    Austen
     
     

  3. Hmmm!  Five quotes, five  back at yas!
     
    I. Efficient; that is clear of extra vibrations, clear vowel, maximum output for minimum input???? Sad is the reverse!
     
    2. The human voice mechanism is the only one with incredible language capabilities. Yea, whales, dolphins etc. have their  
            own “language.” Crickets, too.
     
    3. Certainly, in all creatures with a vibrating mechanism, your purposes are there, but as in 2, the human larynx is unique.
     
    4. Ha, ha! Old Eden was in Iraq, somewhere. In the Bible, too. no joke, but you know that.
     
    5. I did not mean to obsess the “straight” thing. There is a lot of non-straight singing that is could use some meaning. It takes work to sing with “meaning.”
     
    I think I’ll make a video to on this stuff.
     
    Good on all,
     
    EP
     

  4. Hi, Austen,
     
    If a vowel is not detectable as one sings. the word is non-existant and without meaning because language components are missing and only the surrounding neighborhood of consonants reveal the word.
     
    I use the word “meaning” in another additional sense to which I referred earlier, I think.
    Let me risk something here: If you were to say in your lower medium voice, “I dream of Jeanie with the light brown I hair” and then I asked you to sing it in the usual key, you more than likely would sing in a quasi tenor quality in order to accomodate the pitch requirements. However, if I asked you to speak the phrase as above and immediately afterward sing the phrase without changing the sensation in your throat, you wiould be shocked at the dimension and quality of your “sound,’ and that with no great effort. Think the lower oreintation of the throat as you sing the phrase.
     
    With that germ of thought, reconsider my truism, “the higher the note, the deeper the meaning.”
    This is a very sophisticated use of language to achieve a “line” and ease in one’s singing. You have larynx stabilization without gimmickry and that is what I call narural use of the voice, but it does not come naturally, it takes work.
     
    Check it out and reply. Don’t try to sing loudly, dimension happens.
     
    EP
     
     

  5. I was with Philip and didn’t understand your line of thinking. That is, until the second to the last sentence you wrote. Now it makes more sense.
     
    However, I’m wondering what you meant by “One finds it difficut to hear meaning in pitches that have no language function at all.” Are you implying that instrumental music has no meaning?
     
    Austen

  6. Hm,

    I’ll bite..

    One need not go into interpretation in order to find ideal phonation. (Some call it “placing the voice” which seems to imply a stationary location)

    I think you’re presumption is suggesting that art be efficient.  While I don’t agree they share the same space, I suppose even that can be in the eye of the beholder.  I just don’t subscribe to that notion.  In fact, I prefer my art not necessarily be efficient in the least.

    It is good to get as close as possible to the use the Creator intended…

    Is it?  Good for what purpose?  To follow that to it’s logical conclusion, straight tone is sinful.  Ruh roh raggie.  And to think I was unblemished….

    Can one agree that it is for spoken word communication? 

    Actually, the vocal mechanism does a lot of things.  It prevents food lungs – that’s kind of important.  It allows us to engage in the act of sub-glottal pressure for, well – let’s just say expelling things….and babies.

    Remember the Garden of Eden.

    I don’t actually, but I’ll take you’re word for it.

    If after hearing a song you entertain a balanced cognitive/emotive awareness, you have experienced “meaning;”  if not, you have experienced “effect.”

    I don’t think it’s a zero-sum game, nor would I suggest they are mutually exclusive.  However, not sure how exactly this can be considered a case for or against vibrato etiher way. But then again, I’m not sure that’s even still included in your hypothesis.

    Either way, interesting thoughts.  Been fun dialoguing with you.

     

  7. OK.
    One need not go into interpretation in order to find ideal phonation. (Some call it “placing the voice” which seems to imply a stationary location) It is good to get as close as possible to the use the Creator intended for the unique box in the human throat. Can one agree that it is for spoken word communication? Remember the Garden of Eden. We can use the speaking voice as a point of beginning.
    Now I seem to be repeating myself. See the above!
    Any utterance can be meaning to someone, yes? One finds it difficut to hear meaning in pitches that have no language function at all. Even professional singers are excused from “natural function” so long as the a880 is loud. Cathedral acoustics helpfully flatter.
    Enough for now, but just this. If after hearing a song you entertain a balanced cognitive/emotive awareness, you have experienced “meaning;”  if not, you have experienced “effect.”  It is more than “straight or not straight.”
     
    Yours,
    EP
     
     
     

  8. Hi Edward –

     

    I was resonding to what appeared to be a point against minimal vibrato singing.  I don’t usually feel compelled to respond to that because I think it is fairly futile.  

    We are dealing with artistic interpretation, expression etc. so in my mind – while there may be some extreme boundaries, I’d say there really isn’t a “correct” answer to be achieved.  When it comes to minimal or no vibrato in singing, the debate often becomes couched in what is “healthy.” I think it’s a bit of a “red herring.” Not because I think people aren’t being genuine with their concern for vocal health; but I rather I think the main motivation isn’t vocal health – but rather an artistic preference.  After all, considering the amount of awareness singers and conductors have about the myriad of mechanical aspects involved in singing – there is probably a much healthier use of the voice/body when singing than almost any activity involving the voice – even with the use of “minimal or no vibrato.”

    In other words, I don’t see the same passion about laughing correctly, clearing one’s throat correctly, yelling (healthy) at the game on Saturday, talking healthier on the phone – car – airplane – noisy environments etc.   

    Again, we are dealing with artistic interpretation, expression etc. so in my mind – while there may be some extreme boundaries, I’d say there really isn’t a “correct” answer to be achieved.  
     

  9. Maybe I am just not knowledgable enough or have missed something over the years but I am not sure what the point of this “argument” is.  Perhaps, you just wanted to stimualte discussion.  Good one.  
    Throat singing of many cultures and certainly our Canadian northern people is amazing indeed and the one type of “straight” singing I can think of.  When used alone or in conjunction with “conventional” type sounds it really makes an impact.  
    As long as you aren’t doing something that can injure voices, using different sounds to get the meaning across or entertain an audience can’t be bad.  After all, we are here to enjoy our music or we wouldn’t be doing it.  Let’s not get pretentious about it.  Relax, enjoy and let the music happen.
    Kitty

  10. Hello and touche, Josh,
     
    I had in fact used the word “artificial” in a hasty manner, but upon dictionary investigation, find that the word is indeed accurate in the aspect of “un-natural.” Now I have to share my dogmatic conviction of what is “natural.”
    Most languages share in the use of an “ah” vowel. (Certainlly most know this stuff, but I want to organize my argument)
    To maximize the qualitative and the quantitative aspect of the vocal “apparatus” one must begin with an efficient phonation.
    Speaking in a serious, calm, unhurried manner, most people use their instrument quite properly. Meaningfully, speak a memorized text of substance, something containing “ah” vowels. Stay in the medium lower range of voice. Then sustaining the “ah” vowel on about g below middle c (8ve for ladies) one should hear a pattern of repetition. We cannot count the cycles of the vocal folds (vocal lips, if you will), but must become aware of a repetitiious pattern. (The repetition is the pattern, in fact)
    Think – each cycle of the vocal folds is an “ah.” So that a-440 is 440 “ahs.” Now the vowel is the pitch, or the number of vowels is the pitch.
    One need not direct the sound in any way; it will occupy where it will and should, so long as one maintains the original phonation.
    And, that is the trick, the goal. Try bobbing back and forth from f to a flat while maintaining the calm depth of meaning you hopefully achieved earlier. Meaning is a key word for me. (I do not use the word high; a pitch is not high, but rapid or fast. “High” is destructive in the thinking of the singer and the gestures of a conductor)
    The internet is irritatingly blinking, so just remember to stay in a limited range as you explore this:
     
    THE FASTER THE NOTE, THE DEEPER THE MEANING. ( FASTER= “”higher)
     
    I have not tried to put this in written words before, outside of a dissertation. Hope I have not bored you. More if confusing.
     
    Sincerely and respectfully.
     
    EP
     

  11. Hi Edward –
     
    Just to clarify – “artificial” wasn’t my word choice.  
     
    “….or does it require an artificial vocal sound….”
     
    I was responding to your post suggesting that “artificial” doens’t really seem to fit when describing the sound which can be produced by the human voice.
     
    But yes, I think music can actually be intellectual, cognitive, and emotional.  I think vibrato/non-vibrato doesn’t have any significant bearing on the result of creating that.  But that’s just my opinion.  The variety  of opinions provides us great variety in the world of art!
     
     

  12. Julia,
     
    You nailed it!  Operative words might be: boring, dull, mushy, amorphous.
     
    I would like to hear some of your songs. Please inform me/us.
     
    EP

  13. Well, thanks for the responses!! Of course, these two points are mixed, not absolutely one or the other.
    I think it is agreed that some music has meaning as cognitive and some is largely “effect,” less intellectual- emotional.
    Personally, I sense nirvana in performances by some; one can see a transported visage as some choirs sing whatever period is chosen.
    One can be so transported by his own emotion that the listener is cast in the role of voyeur. And there is the concern that extreme emotion inhibits vocal action. We desire that the listener will have a full cognitive/emotional experience as we prresent our music, I think.
    Perhaps “resort” is better than your word, “artificial,” Josh. Given a limited vocal universe, one can “resort” to the variety on which you and Phillip seem to concur.
     
    Sincerely, EP
     
     

  14. Like Josh, I don’t follow your argument at all, Edward.
     
    Isn’t the fact that the voice can produce such a large variety of sounds part of what makes us human?
     
    Let us celebrate all of the sounds it can make and employ them all, with creativity, in the expression of human emotion and the declamation of text.
     
    Also . . . as a voice teacher on my faculty likes to say . . . even a “straight” tone has vibration in it.
     
    There are many ways to vary a tone with little vibrato – cresc., decrescendo, sfz, accent, metrical pulses, etc.
     
    Or how about this:  add vibrato for variety.  So many choices – an infinite variety.

  15. Hi Edward:
     
    Unlike most folks here I lack a formal music education and am playing catch up at age 55, so it is often a struggle to figure out exactly what someone is trying to communicate when using terms with which I am simply unfamiliar.  But if I understand you correctly (I Googled “straight singing,” and found a couple of YouTube examples of voice teachers demonstrating it), I strongly agree with you, and try very hard with my own compositions, both music and lyrics, to foster just as much humanity and natural expression as I possibly can.  I share your liking for songs with the characteristics you mentioned.
     
    But I still can’t think of any choral pieces that I’ve heard where straight singing was employed…except maybe one performance of Whitacre’s “Sleep.”  Or maybe I’m way off base there.  The old gray memory ain’t what she used to be.
     
    Julia

  16. “artificial vocal sound”
     
    Hi, I’m not trying to start a major debate – but I think that any sound made from the human body [alone] alone can’t really be considered “artificial” can it?
     
    And yes, there are many, many examples of vocal music (solo vocal and ensemble vocal) which uses very little “vibrato” that I find very compelling, communicative, effecvtive, and meaningful.

  17. Our goal is communication. Admittedly, I have a particular liking for songs that convey drama, (a story, if you will) a compelling idea, a scenic description, a sentiment; they tend to encourage a quality of phonation that is meaningful.
    Some choral works utilize text as vehicle for a particular style of sound. The music dominates the text which may not be worthy of illumination in the first place. Young voices, those that are in training through grad school, can be steered down a rough road by performing music that relies on “effect” for its value. As stated, a thought-driven sound is displaced by a command effort, and with that most voice teachers will agree.
     
    I would rather not cite any performance or print. Either run with my humbly stated thoughts or dismiss them
     
     
     

  18. Could you please provide a few examples (titles/composers/publishers) of the type of music you are talking about or, better yet, links to any performances of what you call “effect songs” on YouTube, etc.?  Am having a little difficulty trying to remember if I’ve ever heard pieces like those you describe.  Thank you.
     

  19. With regards to this post, are you referring strictly to Western European music? If my recollection is correct, there are other cultures where straight tone is the norm in singing.

Leave a Reply

© 2024 American Choral Directors Association. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy