I guess this is the wordy definition for combine, coalesce, mix, or meld.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Choral sound...
I don't like the word "blend." I think it's too cheap for what we do. I've heard the phrase "homogeneity of sound" lately, and I like this better; it has a better quality to it. But even this term, I think, bleeds too much - it doesn't really seem to allow each section to stand on its own. What if it's described as a conglomeration of SATB homogeneity of sound, meaning each section "blends," if you will, within itself while retaining its own identity that stands, not too distant, but in the next cubicle from the other sections.
I guess this is the wordy definition for combine, coalesce, mix, or meld.
I guess this is the wordy definition for combine, coalesce, mix, or meld.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
layman's terms, please...
If you say so!
Eddie says, "Hey man, I think you could be right. If by "blend" and "homogeneity of sound" you are referring to the sound of your choir. I think that any single-blanketing term is a difficult concept to get a unified consensus on. Maybe it is better to come up with an axiom or short statement that reflects your choral philosophy with regards to vocal technique? Personally, I think of it as a group of individuals using their techniques in a manner that is conducive to producing a collaborative product. One that showcases a groups effort and not any one individuals contribution. This doesn't mean 30 individuals singing together. It means 30, or whatever the number, making their own unique sacrifices, that every good singer is capable of, in order to benefit the group. Some people see these concepts as restricting. I see them as necessary and efficient use of a God-given instrument. Any further clarification would be appreciated. Dan Bara expects us to not any be able to teach these concepts, but to be able to speak on such things with clarity, literature, and conviction (in my opinion). Later
Post a Comment