Subject: Re: Future of Close Harmony singing

> Subject: Re: Future of Close Harmony singing (was: Digest Number 3944)
> > Hi Daniel,
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:
> >> > (BTW, the single fact about voice leading that impresses
>> > me the most is that, in four voices, it's impossible to
>> > follow any of the standard rules sets and have two
>> > complete 7th chords in a row).
> > > > Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder which is the chicken
> and which is the egg?

It's a consequence of voice leading -- if the tonic is in the bass, then two upper voices switch from third and seventh to seventh and third, and the remaining voice, in order to avoid parallel fifths with the bass, can only have the fifth in one of the two chords, and will have to double something (most often the tonic) in the other chord.

I do find it impressive that barbershop singers can improvise (or is extemporize the better word?) this, and have, practically speaking, internalized most basic elements of the western voice leading tradition within the -- and this is typical for much American music -- seventh-chord saturated harmonic environment.

> > And once again, i will mention one of my favorite
> "most radically new" compositions: Erik Satie's
> _Sarabande No. 1_. It strings all manner of
> major-7th and dominant-9th chords together,
> one after another ... thus, breaking all the rules.
> And most importantly, it sounds beautiful.
> Yeah, but with Satie (& Debussy and Stravinsky...) we're really no longer in common practice land. A number of things are different here -- Satie doesn't stick to four voices, planing (massively parallel voice leading), reduced importance for authentic cadences, and going beyond a strict triadic (including diminished and augmented) + seventh (including augmented sixths and diminished) chordal lexicon. But it is also interesting to consider how Satie and his contemporaries did, in fact, stay consistent within their own rule sets. Satie's Rosicrucian music, for example, consistantly inverts the identities of the intervals in terms of consonance or dissonance.

(BTW I've heard barbershop singers sometimes use planing as well -- sliding up or down on a particular chord voicing as a special effect. I have the impression that they keep this well in reserve -- with overuse considered to be bad form, and certainly not as desirable as voice leading with contrary motion).

DJW

> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@> wrote:
> >
> >> > (BTW, the single fact about voice leading that impresses
> >> > me the most is that, in four voices, it's impossible to
> >> > follow any of the standard rules sets and have two
> >> > complete 7th chords in a row).
> >
> > Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder which is the chicken
> > and which is the egg?
>
> It's a consequence of voice leading -- if the tonic is in the
> bass, then two upper voices switch from third and seventh to
> seventh and third, and the remaining voice, in order to avoid
> parallel fifths with the bass, can only have the fifth in one
> of the two chords, and will have to double something (most
> often the tonic) in the other chord.

I think monz knows that... I think he was asking a deeper
question, and a very good one. How much of the above is
really important to musicality, and how much of musicality
is simply based on the above because that's what happenned
to be happenning?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> I think monz knows that... I think he was asking a deeper
> question, and a very good one. How much of the above is
> really important to musicality, and how much of musicality
> is simply based on the above because that's what happenned
> to be happenning?

I've got a much shallower question, which is I thought the rule was
you could put root or fifth in the bass for barbershop. Of course what
I'd prefer is to allow a person to put anything in the bass, which
gives much more freedom.

> Of course what I'd prefer is to allow a person to put anything
> in the bass, which gives much more freedom.

It doesn't always sound good. Some transpositions of utonal
chords are just a no-no if you want consonance, unless you
play them higher than a quartet can sing.

I took an arranging class at "harmony college". There are
basically about a half-dozen allowable voicings for all the
chords used in barbershop. There are exceptions, but not
many.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > Of course what I'd prefer is to allow a person to put anything
> > in the bass, which gives much more freedom.
>
> It doesn't always sound good. Some transpositions of utonal
> chords are just a no-no if you want consonance, unless you
> play them higher than a quartet can sing.

It depends on what you mean by "consonance"; there's a pretty strong
limit on how dissonant you can get in this way, which requires
sticking two low voices an 8/7 apart. That may be too muddy for
barbershop style, but as dissonance goes there's a lot worse. Of
course if you want to avoid polyphony and are even dubious about first
inversions, you may want to avoid it even with more normal voicings. I
wonder if preserving a homophonic texture isn't partly what these
rules are all about?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> I took an arranging class at "harmony college". There are
> basically about a half-dozen allowable voicings for all the
> chords used in barbershop. There are exceptions, but not
> many.

What are they, by the way?

> > > Of course what I'd prefer is to allow a person to put anything
> > > in the bass, which gives much more freedom.
> >
> > It doesn't always sound good. Some transpositions of utonal
> > chords are just a no-no if you want consonance, unless you
> > play them higher than a quartet can sing.
>
> It depends on what you mean by "consonance"; there's a pretty strong
> limit on how dissonant you can get in this way, which requires
> sticking two low voices an 8/7 apart. That may be too muddy for
> barbershop style, but as dissonance goes there's a lot worse.

When's the last time you listened to a close-voiced 11-limit
utonality in the quartet range?

> I wonder if preserving a homophonic texture isn't partly what
> these rules are all about?

They're largely about ease of singing, or at least that is how
they were explained to me. I think the rules of western voice
leading are still waiting to be explained, in general. If you
could show something along these lines, I'm sure people would
be interested.

-Carl

> > I took an arranging class at "harmony college". There are
> > basically about a half-dozen allowable voicings for all the
> > chords used in barbershop. There are exceptions, but not
> > many.
>
> What are they, by the way?

I don't remember them off hand, but I suppose I could look them
up in my notes. They have names like "Chinese sixth" and such.
IIRC that's a minor triad with bari and bass an octave apart.
Probably it would be easier to google this than dig up my notes.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> When's the last time you listened to a close-voiced 11-limit
> utonality in the quartet range?

I don't know the relevance of your question, but I've been listening
to 11-limit stuff lately since I'm working with octoid temperament.

> They're largely about ease of singing, or at least that is how
> they were explained to me.

Why are the rules so different than the old Renaissance rules? Didn't
they need to sing a capella also?

> > When's the last time you listened to a close-voiced 11-limit
> > utonality in the quartet range?
>
> I don't know the relevance of your question, but I've been listening
> to 11-limit stuff lately since I'm working with octoid temperament.

I would say certain voicings of the complete 11-limit utonality
in the quartet range is about maximally dissonant as far as music
is concerned. Playing a bunch of pairs of sawtooths a 1/4-step
apart might be in some way more intense, but no more muddy.

> > They're largely about ease of singing, or at least that is how
> > they were explained to me.
>
> Why are the rules so different than the old Renaissance rules?
> Didn't they need to sing a capella also?

They're not so different, but male quartet registration is
different and the presence of the 7 identity is different.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> > Why are the rules so different than the old Renaissance rules?
> > Didn't they need to sing a capella also?
>
> They're not so different, but male quartet registration is
> different and the presence of the 7 identity is different.

Renassiance a capella polyphony did not always use boys voices, but it
still isn't much like barbershop.

> I would say certain voicings of the complete 11-limit utonality
> in the quartet range is about maximally dissonant as far as music
> is concerned. Playing a bunch of pairs of sawtooths a 1/4-step
> apart might be in some way more intense, but no more muddy.

Okay, maybe a bit more muddy. But the point is, octave
equivalence is a shakey abstraction even in the 5-limit.
Voicing restrictions are needed to make consonant harmony
of the hymnsong variety in the usual human vocal range.

-Carl

> > > Why are the rules so different than the old Renaissance rules?
> > > Didn't they need to sing a capella also?
> >
> > They're not so different, but male quartet registration is
> > different and the presence of the 7 identity is different.
>
> Renassiance a capella polyphony did not always use boys voices,
> but it still isn't much like barbershop.

Oh, did you say Renaissance? That's not hymnsong at all.
Polyphony is a different breed of cat all together.

-Carl

My understanding about the rules for basses on fifths and roots, and
similar such rules:

There is a combination of factors, but these rules are DEFINITELY not
arbitrary to the stylistic, cultural goals. Because of the already tough
job of being exceptionally precise in blend and tuning and stability
for the goal of strong, expanded chords, there is a point where things
that may be theoretically possible are simply too hard for even the best
quartet to perfect. If the bass were on a 5 or 7 identity, it makes tuning
harder because the other parts have far fewer overtones from the bass
to match their notes to (because I'm assuming if the bass is on the 5
idenity, we aren't doubling it and losing the other identities).

If there were more than 4 parts, this might get easier. But for the
2, 3, and 7 identities to learn to match overtones from a low 3
identity note is probably beyond realistic capabilities of most even
very good singers. It would require the singer with the 2 identity to
come out and have the bass and other parts tune to that. And this
does happen!

However, if years of hard work is required to master barbershop
harmony as is, then telling each part that they have even more work
to do isn't going to be easy. If the basses get used to 2 and 3
identities, then they learn that feel and relation within the chords.
Baritones get used to harmonizing to the bass (and also to the chord
overall). If you put the baritone on a 2 identity and the bass on a 5,
then you are asking them to switch their mode of thinking. You're
asking the baritone to be strong and support the chord, while the
bass carefully tunes to the baritone. Simple deductions will show
you that a singer who is required to master both these modes of
harmonizing will have more work to do and it will be a greater
challenge.

That is all aside from the simple fact that lower identities lower in
the chord will always produce a simpler, easier blend and tuning.

Then on top of all of that, add the issue that the basses learn to
sing pythagorean notes in order to make the fifths resolution
patterns work, and then you're dealing with a bass who is used to
always singing around 81/64 (for example), and all of a sudden
asking them to sing 5/4. The tenors (and really all the upper parts)
have been practicing singing 5/4s over the bass forever. There
is simply no way that it will be easy for any quartet to make these
tuning shifts in their thinking that easy.

And again, add to that point that the 5 identity or 7 identity bass
note chords will never blend as easily or simply and you've got
a real problem trying to teach a quartet what it is they are listening
for and how much consonance to really expect.

Oh, and Carl's voice range issue as far as inverted chords in low
ranges is there too.

Anyway, I can clearly tell you that the basses on roots and fifths
rule was not decided by theorists, it was discovered as the case
after analyzing what woodshedding quartets were doing for
the most part. And these rules are not followed totally strictly
either. The tag for "Wild Irish Rose," among the most sung songs
of all has one chord with the basses on the 5 identity (and I can
tell you though that it is often, possibly majority of the time, sung
wrong or poorly, though it is nice when done right).

-Aaron

> If there were more than 4 parts, this might get easier. But for the
> 2, 3, and 7 identities to learn to match overtones from a low 3
> identity note is probably beyond realistic capabilities of most even
> very good singers.

TYPO ALERT: I meant "...to match overtones from a low 5 identity note..."

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:

> That is all aside from the simple fact that lower identities lower in
> the chord will always produce a simpler, easier blend and tuning.

Considering that in common practice music generally, the first
inversion is looked on with more favor that the second, it's got to be
a little more complicated than that.

> And again, add to that point that the 5 identity or 7 identity bass
> note chords will never blend as easily or simply and you've got
> a real problem trying to teach a quartet what it is they are listening
> for and how much consonance to really expect.

Once again, if the first inversion triads are so awful, why do common
practice composers use them so constantly?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
>
> > That is all aside from the simple fact that lower identities lower in
> > the chord will always produce a simpler, easier blend and tuning.
>
> Considering that in common practice music generally, the first
> inversion is looked on with more favor that the second, it's got to be
> a little more complicated than that.
>
> > And again, add to that point that the 5 identity or 7 identity bass
> > note chords will never blend as easily or simply and you've got
> > a real problem trying to teach a quartet what it is they are listening
> > for and how much consonance to really expect.
>
> Once again, if the first inversion triads are so awful, why do common
> practice composers use them so constantly?
>

Gene, you've got a basic misunderstanding here. Nobody said first
inversion chords were "awful."

Simply put, it is basic acoustics that defines that 1st inversion chords
are harder to justly tune and blend than second inversion. That
doesn't mean they are awful or worse. But very little common practice
music puts emphasis on expanded, tightly tuned harmonic structures
anywhere near as much as in barbershop. Fact is, barbershoppers
could easily sing first inversion chords, if they simply accept that
they won't blend very well and will sound much less consonant than
the normal chords barbershoppers go for. But most barbershoppers
want to focus on getting all the chords blended and get that expanded
sound.

Besides, how much common practice music actually differentiates at
all between pythagorean and harmonic intervals? Since most common
practice music is not as precisely harmonically tuned as barbershop,
the less perfectly harmonically tuned root position chord isn't as
extremely consonant as so is less different from the 1st inversion.

Another angle: in barbershop, the chords are so harmonically tuned
that when the bass is on the fifth of the chord, it doesn't sound that
much like a classical second inversion chord, because the expanded
harmonic sound blends everything together and we can even still
sense the fundamental missing low root note. Common practice
music generally thinks in terms of voice-leading that is based
on perceiving each part as its own line. In well done barbershop,
the bass isn't meant to be heard as a distinct polyphonic part, but
rather the entire quartet is heard as almost one sound.

A tangential question would be: how common is it in classical
repertoire for organ to have an organ tone that includes a particularly
low third in the tone structure? Since barbershop quartets try to
become one sound, it is almost more fair to compare the blend
of the quartet to the varying tones of an organ, more than comparing
each singer to polyphonic parts of a classical composition.

Additionally, the bass in barbershop is almost never on the fifth
of a major triad. The bass is only on the fifth of seventh chords. So,
whereas in common practice music, 1st inversion is common on
triads, barbershop sticks just to root position. That isn't contradictory,
just simpler even.

I doubt that you can find an example of a cappella common practice
music that *both* has lots of 1st inversion chords and also has anything
similar to the barbershop focus on harmonic blend as opposed to
polyphonic melodic focus. But if you can, I'd be curious to hear it.

-Aaron