9 ms·

I listen to a fair amount of choral music, from plainchant and organum up through modern and contemporary works. I think the short answer is missing, which is t

I listen to a fair amount of choral music, from plainchant and organum up through modern and contemporary works. I think the short answer is missing, which is that most choral music just isn’t that exciting. The Wikipedia article for the Motet has an interesting quote which echoes the sentiment here: > [the motet is] not to be celebrated in the presence of common people, because they do not notice its subtlety, nor are they delighted in hearing it, but in the presence of the educated and of those who are seeking out subtleties in the arts. This quote is attributed to Johannes de Grocheio in the 1200s! That means that people have been saying that choral music is hard to appreciate for more than seven hundred years.

bobbiechen 1y ago
I totally agree - I've sung in a few choirs myself but even I myself hesitate to attend choral events sometimes. It takes effort to appreciate the depth involved, even with modern choral music (think Eric Whitacre) or even gospel choir, compared to other forms of entertainment. I also agree with the article that understanding the blend of voices is best "when you are singing in the midst of the action" rather than on a recording. But also, that means it's hard to gain familiarity with specific songs or genre-specific styles, which is another barrier to entry.
- dhosek 1y ago
  I think there’s a big issue with the recording style used for choral music. It tends to be recorded with a far mic in an echoey room which gives the experience of hearing it in church, but I think close micing the individual sections would give more of a sense of being in the choir and really help make everything more distinct. I don’t know any choral music recorded this way, but I know that one of Tony Banks’ (keyboard player for Genesis) orchestral suites was recorded this way which I think worked well.
  - simonask 1y ago
    There's lots of choir music recorded this way. Check out Caroline Shaw's "Partita for 8 voices", for example.
    - dhosek 1y ago
      D’oh! I even own this one!
  - Aidevah 1y ago
    A recent recording of Obrecht masses had close mic, recorded in a studio usually used for pop music with very little echo, with one voice per part [1]. The effect really is quite startling. The last time choral music was recorded like this was (coincidentally another Obrecht mass) more than 30 years ago [2]. I think a lot of vocal music written around 1500 would benefit from this approach. It has been remarked that this is really a sort of sacred chamber music rather than music requiring a huge choir. The music moves too fast and it's very difficult for a big choir in a very resonant space to do Obrecht, Josquin and friends full justice. [1] https://hyperion.lnk.to/cda68460 https://hyperion.lnk.to/cda68460 [2] https://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/dvg102.htm https://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/dvg102.htm
    - haberman 1y ago
      I completely agree that one-per-part singing really brings out the beauty in 16th century choral music. I sing in a choir that specializes in music of this period, and while our live performances usually use two singers per part to fill a room, our recordings are more often one-per-part with relatively close micing. We do record in churches because we like the reverb, so it's not quite the dry studio sound you're describing, but we do prioritize a clear sound stage where all of the parts can be clearly heard. We've found that a Blumlein mic configuration (two figure-8 pattern microphones placed at a 90 degree angle from each other) helps to create this clarity of texture, where all the parts can be heard individually across the stereo image, especially when listening with headphones. I can't take credit for this idea though: we learned it from the sound engineer who records the Tallis Scholars, who told us that they record in this configuration. Here are a couple examples of tracks recorded using this style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZgo2Z17nNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZgo2Z17nNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r0iyq7AvaU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r0iyq7AvaU
      - omnicognate 1y ago
        Please, please, please do this! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45011044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45011044 I do realise that's a monumental undertaking, though :-D
omnicognate 1y ago
I don't really know what's meant by "exciting" here, but there's plenty of choral music that's upbeat, joyful and rhythmical. For me the most enjoyable form of musical "excitement" is frisson, which choral music has in great abundance. Nothing can give you goosebumps like a good choir. I disagree with the premise. I don't think there's anything inherently "harder to appreciate" about choral music. It's just a personal, and no doubt culturally influenced, preference. I struggle to enjoy opera and hip-hop, but that's on me. I don't go around writing articles about how hard they are to appreciate.
sim7c00 1y ago
i think is also matter where you listen it. i think its very dull, but in a good church or room with a choir who is used to that specific place suddenly its like magic.

bobbiechen 1y ago

I totally agree - I've sung in a few choirs myself but even I myself hesitate to attend choral events sometimes. It takes effort to appreciate the depth involved, even with modern choral music (think Eric Whitacre) or even gospel choir, compared to other forms of entertainment. I also agree with the article that understanding the blend of voices is best "when you are singing in the midst of the action" rather than on a recording. But also, that means it's hard to gain familiarity with specific songs or genre-specific styles, which is another barrier to entry.

dhosek 1y ago
I think there’s a big issue with the recording style used for choral music. It tends to be recorded with a far mic in an echoey room which gives the experience of hearing it in church, but I think close micing the individual sections would give more of a sense of being in the choir and really help make everything more distinct. I don’t know any choral music recorded this way, but I know that one of Tony Banks’ (keyboard player for Genesis) orchestral suites was recorded this way which I think worked well.
- simonask 1y ago
  There's lots of choir music recorded this way. Check out Caroline Shaw's "Partita for 8 voices", for example.
  - dhosek 1y ago
    D’oh! I even own this one!
- Aidevah 1y ago
  A recent recording of Obrecht masses had close mic, recorded in a studio usually used for pop music with very little echo, with one voice per part [1]. The effect really is quite startling. The last time choral music was recorded like this was (coincidentally another Obrecht mass) more than 30 years ago [2]. I think a lot of vocal music written around 1500 would benefit from this approach. It has been remarked that this is really a sort of sacred chamber music rather than music requiring a huge choir. The music moves too fast and it's very difficult for a big choir in a very resonant space to do Obrecht, Josquin and friends full justice. [1] https://hyperion.lnk.to/cda68460 https://hyperion.lnk.to/cda68460 [2] https://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/dvg102.htm https://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/dvg102.htm
  - haberman 1y ago
    I completely agree that one-per-part singing really brings out the beauty in 16th century choral music. I sing in a choir that specializes in music of this period, and while our live performances usually use two singers per part to fill a room, our recordings are more often one-per-part with relatively close micing. We do record in churches because we like the reverb, so it's not quite the dry studio sound you're describing, but we do prioritize a clear sound stage where all of the parts can be clearly heard. We've found that a Blumlein mic configuration (two figure-8 pattern microphones placed at a 90 degree angle from each other) helps to create this clarity of texture, where all the parts can be heard individually across the stereo image, especially when listening with headphones. I can't take credit for this idea though: we learned it from the sound engineer who records the Tallis Scholars, who told us that they record in this configuration. Here are a couple examples of tracks recorded using this style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZgo2Z17nNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZgo2Z17nNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r0iyq7AvaU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r0iyq7AvaU
    - omnicognate 1y ago
      Please, please, please do this! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45011044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45011044 I do realise that's a monumental undertaking, though :-D

omnicognate 1y ago

I don't really know what's meant by "exciting" here, but there's plenty of choral music that's upbeat, joyful and rhythmical. For me the most enjoyable form of musical "excitement" is frisson, which choral music has in great abundance. Nothing can give you goosebumps like a good choir. I disagree with the premise. I don't think there's anything inherently "harder to appreciate" about choral music. It's just a personal, and no doubt culturally influenced, preference. I struggle to enjoy opera and hip-hop, but that's on me. I don't go around writing articles about how hard they are to appreciate.

sim7c00 1y ago

i think is also matter where you listen it. i think its very dull, but in a good church or room with a choir who is used to that specific place suddenly its like magic.