My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold (SATB div.)

I really hate to upload this piece without a live recording of it, but I'm going to use it as a college submission, and I really would like some feedback ASAP. Please try your best to imagine it with real voices. Be aware that any time there's a divisi, Sibelius doubles the volume instead of halving it because it thinks I've added a new group of singers. I'll probably post a legit recording of this sometime soon, but until then, this will have to do.

The piece is a setting of a poem by William Wordsworth. It's short and sweet (only 2 mins). I liked the idea of painting the "Rainbow" by using a tone cluster. It's like all the frequencies lined up one after another (Although my cluster here is relatively small). I also tried painting "Sky" with a nice open voicing, leaving a whole octave b/w Sops 1 and 2. I also tried experimenting with light and dark. Certain measures have added beats, too. I tell performers to picture these as fermatae that have been written out. It's basically to emphasize the downbeat of the following measure.

Please tell me what you think, even if it's just an "I like it" (but preferably more in depth). Like I said, I'll be submitting this as part of my college application, so the sooner i get feedback, the better.

Once again, sorry for the crappy recording. Try to "hear" it with real voices! :-D

My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold (SATB div.)

I like it.

I like the soprano leap in m. 1, the rainbow chords, and the sky voicing, even if the wide space between sopranos is unusual. I would have liked to see a little less homophony (more independence of voices), but the piece is very pleasant and very singable as it is.

Notation... What are the dotted lines for? Do you specifically not want the vocalists to breath at those points? The phrase mark in mm. 7-8 seems out of place since it's the only one (you could use a breath mark after the phrase instead). When you have split voices I believe it's more common to put the lyrics for the upper part above the staff, but that's a "your call" kind of thing (like the tenor, m. 13). Upstem Bs bug me, even in vocal parts, but it's fine as you have it. In measures 22-24 the bass slur (bottom voice) should start on the C of 22 rather than the C of 23.

Nice work. It looks like a lot of thought went into this.

So this is for a college submission? It's very nice -- there's a certain charm in the tones presented here. But I think there's room for more harmonic work -- I would think that college instructors also want to see some more creativity in the colors of the rainbow and how they're portrayed. I hear an over-reliance on 9ths here, the "tone clusters", which make a wonderfully nice sound, especially in choirs, but there's more room for ways to make these 9ths and tone clusters stand out. That's just my viewpoint though.

(Also, measure 11 with the 3/4 seemed a bit awkward rhythmically when leading to that whole note in the next measure. Maybe make the half note two quarter notes and spread the "a" to the two staves in the Tenor and Bass if you want to keep that measure? But maybe it's just me.)

All-in-all, though, this is really nice. I hope your application goes well!

This genre isn't my forte and in my personal taste this particular sound is overdone. So I'll say that it was very nice to listen to (namely the leaps in the soprano and crunches) and get on with the criticisms.

-Isn't it idiomatic to have at most 2 parts per voice? With those three-note clusters I believe it'd be more conventional to have an alto take the lower note.

-m.1+2 why are your second sops taking the top notes?

-m.4 sop line is a mess.

-fix the tempo setting (q = fail)

-separate words mean you should break the beams of eigth notes, I believe.

-along the lines of what Orph said about the dotted slurs: something to think about- if the text has a punctuation mark, doesn't it make more sense for the natural flow of text in the music to take a breath there rather than no breath? You have a lot of instances where you request carryover through a comma or exclamation point.

-forte = dynamic. richly = expression. richly forte = babble. IMO. Mark the dynamic, then place the expression mark.

-finally, although I'm guilty of the same thing at times, be careful about when you have voices suddenly appear and disappear.

It's clever how you end the piece with such a vanilla chord (...major). The last words being "bound by natural piety", it seems fitting. Albeit a bit patte. You have some exploratory sounds in this work, but not much more than a glimmer or two here or there. Could use quite a bit more

Thanks for sharing! :phones: Best of luck.

-P

I liked the harmony, very nice, the divisi I think is ok, but no more thatn 2, I saw in m.4 the sopranos divided n 3, I think is better to divide the Altos or Tenors.

Try to create dialogs between voices, for instance Sopranos arrive to a word before the altos, or Altos finish the text phrase first and the sopranos sing the last syllable after the altos, etc, but if you start making those dialogs and you feel it was better like it was, then don't adventure too much.

I know software may not understand everything, but a comma is better for a pause that a blank bar....

Yes, most of the dotted slurs can be removed.

I like the very nice, rich harmonies I'm hearing...and your willingness to make it sound oddly tonal and disappear from that sound for very brief moments . I would be most curious to hear this live though...to see how the words play out (which, as a choral composer myself dealing with lack of singers, I feel your pain -_-)

Thank you so much for all your replies. I'm glad to see everything here has been mostly positive.

BlackOrpheus--

Thank you for all the notation help. You were right :happy: the dotted lines are No Breath marks!

Serge--

Thank you for the Review! I'll look into what you said about the clusters and making the ninths stand out more. For me, measure 11 sounds fine. I just listened to it again to make sure, and i like it the way it is. Still thank you for the review and the kind words!

Peter--

Thank you so much for the review! I think I'll respond to your comments one by one:

-- The 3 way split in the sops are due to voice leading. how do i get the altos up to the F without an awkward leap and without messing up the harmony beforehand? This seems to work well for me. And besides, since it's in the sopranos' upper register, it'll stand out more than the altos. This will hopefully counteract the imbalance in the parts slightly.

-- The last beat of the 2nd measure, i messed up, lol. They should be switched. But for the rest of it, Sop 2s take the high notes because they have the melody which ends up under the sop 1s. I need the Sop ones to sing that C for harmonic purposes. Then they end up above the sop 1s. Usu. the highest voice has the melody, but in this case it's the sop 2s.

--Do you mean visually? Because it works sound-wise for me. The only thing is that Sibelius triples the volume there in stead of dividing it by three. That causes clipping on my speakers, lol. But i need that cluster there, and dividing the sops there seemed like the best way to do it without sacrificing the alto line.

--Idk what you mean here. what's (q=fail) mean?

--The beams don't have to be separated. In older music, they separate the eight notes, 16ths, etc. like that, but in newer music it doesn't matter. I do it because it helps sight singers keep track of where the beats are in each measure (which can be a life saver sometimes!). Also, there are some pieces that don't use beaming at all! that's even worse for the singers, lol.

--The no breath marks are all there for a reason. In M.3 people simply tend to breathe there. They shouldn't. Mm 9-10, the men can absolutely not breathe there. it sounds horrible if they do, lol. the energy should continue after "began." If everyone stops there it would sound weird. In M. 19. I need to make sure no one breathes there so that it can contrast with the big breath they should take at M. 21. Finally in M. 23, the sops should keep that G there in that chord from breaking. Basically, except for the 1st one, all these marks are to make sure the singers/conductors don't stop at those commas, periods, and exclamation marks, lol. Thank you for the criticism tho!

--I'll try it your way and see if I like the way it looks. Also, I'll try to find out the rule for these kind of things.

--IDK what you mean here. can you give me a measure number as an example?

Once again, thanks for the review! it really helps a lot!

SYS--

Thank you so much for taking a look at this. I really appreciate all your comments. The stuff about the 3 sop parts is becoming a trend, so ill look into that. I think the dotted slurs are fine the way they are. Superfluous, perhaps. But if they arent doing any real harm, I'll keep 'em in. As for the blank bar, you're right. I cant find out how to make a caesura. I think it's cuz i have a "lite" version of Sibelius (Sibelius First). Still, I've been getting used to those four beats of rest rhythmically, and i may just keep it it. We'll see. Thank you again for taking the time to give this a look!

Prestidigilicious--Thank you very much for your kind words! I'll try to post a live version of this as soon as i can get one.

-- The 3 way split in the sops are due to voice leading. how do i get the altos up to the F without an awkward leap and without messing up the harmony beforehand? This seems to work well for me. And besides, since it's in the sopranos' upper register, it'll stand out more than the altos. This will hopefully counteract the imbalance in the parts slightly.

It's still awkward.

My suggestion would be to find your desired "crunch" in another voice.

Another alternative is to write a divisi alto part that DOES join the sopranos up there.

-- The last beat of the 2nd measure, i messed up, lol. They should be switched. But for the rest of it, Sop 2s take the high notes because they have the melody which ends up under the sop 1s. I need the Sop ones to sing that C for harmonic purposes. Then they end up above the sop 1s. Usu. the highest voice has the melody, but in this case it's the sop 2s.

I see what you say. But I don't agree. Unless the sop1s are holding one sustained note.

The only real reason to do that is to make an easy soprano 1 line.

*shrug* Don't take this personally, but IMO it simply looks sloppy. I'd strongly suggest thinking about either changing the repeated Cs to a whole note to justify the cross voice or else reassign the parts. We'll hear the same thing, yo.

--Do you mean visually?

Yes. It looks like 6 beats.

--Idk what you mean here. what's (q=fail) mean?

:P

The tempo marking. You have a "q" in place of a quarter note.

--The beams don't have to be separated. In older music, they separate the eight notes, 16ths, etc. like that, but in newer music it doesn't matter. I do it because it helps sight singers keep track of where the beats are in each measure (which can be a life saver sometimes!). Also, there are some pieces that don't use beaming at all! that's even worse for the singers, lol.

Well, if the only reason is readability, consider that this tune is in simple meter no bigger than 5/4 at a slow tempo.

--The no breath marks are all there for a reason. In M.3 people simply tend to breathe there. They shouldn't. Mm 9-10, the men can absolutely not breathe there. it sounds horrible if they do, lol. the energy should continue after "began." If everyone stops there it would sound weird. In M. 19. I need to make sure no one breathes there so that it can contrast with the big breath they should take at M. 21. Finally in M. 23, the sops should keep that G there in that chord from breaking. Basically, except for the 1st one, all these marks are to make sure the singers/conductors don't stop at those commas, periods, and exclamation marks, lol. Thank you for the criticism tho!

I think it's awkward, but you're the choral writer. ;) Go for it.

--IDK what you mean here. can you give me a measure number as an example?

Any time you go from divisi to unison. Particularly when the line in question hasn't been completed. As soon as the parts merge, the sonic volume diminishes by a huge margin. Like in mm.2, 3 and 4, m.16, m.19, m.23. If you have 4 voices, split off into 5. You immediately add 25% volume to the mix. Take that voice away, and you immediately take away 20% (ignore the magical percentage increase) of the volume. Just keep that in mind. I THINK you are putting more value on the harmonic content than you are of consistent voicing. If you can afford to split off into 6 voices in a transitory section of a phrase, then you can probably afford to voice a richer chord than 4 voices at the end of the phrase.

-P

It's still awkward.

My suggestion would be to find your desired "crunch" in another voice.

Another alternative is to write a divisi alto part that DOES join the sopranos up there.

I feel the only awkwardness that might arise here is imbalance with the other parts. For this section, I'm gonna wait until it's performed live so i can see how it sounds before i change it. I could divisi the altos like you said, but it just seems unnecessary, especially if I'm gonna send them up to an F.

I see what you say. But I don't agree. Unless the sop1s are holding one sustained note.

The only real reason to do that is to make an easy soprano 1 line.

*shrug* Don't take this personally, but IMO it simply looks sloppy. I'd strongly suggest thinking about either changing the repeated Cs to a whole note to justify the cross voice or else reassign the parts. We'll hear the same thing, yo.

I hear you. But I just cant think of any other way this would work. I can't give them a whole note. That would sound weird. I think in a live performance, it wouldn't be so bad, because the ear would be drawn to the sop 2's moving line.

Yes. It looks like 6 beats.

Darn Sibelius....

:P

The tempo marking. You have a "q" in place of a quarter note.

No I don't. Its something wrong with the pdf. Maybe your computer doesn't have the right font for it. Still, at least it's not something weird like an ampersand. :P

Well, if the only reason is readability, consider that this tune is in simple meter no bigger than 5/4 at a slow tempo.

In my experience, having bars here makes the score MORE readable (more SIGHT readable). I'm gonna leave it like this.

I think it's awkward, but you're the choral writer. ;) Go for it.

Lol. Okay. :phones:

Any time you go from divisi to unison. Particularly when the line in question hasn't been completed. As soon as the parts merge, the sonic volume diminishes by a huge margin. Like in mm.2, 3 and 4, m.16, m.19, m.23. If you have 4 voices, split off into 5. You immediately add 25% volume to the mix. Take that voice away, and you immediately take away 20% (ignore the magical percentage increase) of the volume. Just keep that in mind. I THINK you are putting more value on the harmonic content than you are of consistent voicing.

I see what you're saying about the percentages (and i get the magic math), but that's only in computer world. In an actual performance that effect would be reversed, and that's one of the things I'm counting on when i write my parts.

For example, at M. 23, the sops split into two voices. In computer world, the overall volume is increased by 25%, the Soprano volume is increased by 100%, and the volume of each soprano part stays constant. In the real world, however, the overall volume would stay constant, the Soprano volume would stay constant, but the volume of each soprano part would diminish by 50%.

See, Sibelius thinks I'm adding singers, which I'm not. I'm just dividing the singers that are already there.

If you can afford to split off into 6 voices in a transitory section of a phrase, then you can probably afford to voice a richer chord than 4 voices at the end of the phrase.

To which section are you referring?

Thank you for replying to my comments earlier. This sort of back-and-forth really helps! :toothygrin:

I hear you. But I just cant think of any other way this would work. I can't give them a whole note. That would sound weird. I think in a live performance, it wouldn't be so bad, because the ear would be drawn to the sop 2's moving line.

If you change the stems to keep voicings contant (sop 1 top, sop 2 bottom), the ear will STILL be drawn to the moving melody line. Unless the group is sub par at melding within sections (which actually is a concern).

No I don't. Its something wrong with the pdf. Maybe your computer doesn't have the right font for it.

I'll take your word for it. I've never known that to happen on the receiving end. Something may have happened in saving, but I don't see how it could happen in viewing.

In my experience, having bars here makes the score MORE readable (more SIGHT readable). I'm gonna leave it like this.

I was referring to beams, not bars.

I see what you're saying about the percentages (and i get the magic math), but that's only in computer world.

No no no, you're missing my point.

The SONIC volume increases. IE the thickness of the chord.

Regardless, you have a change of texture that the ear will pick up on when you split or merge voices. Particularly in the middle of a phrase. The volume of one voice will increase, and the depth of the harmony (a different set of volume) will decrease.

To which section are you referring?

It's on the last couple pages, I believe. The basses are what I remember. I don't have time to traipse about and check, I'm afraid.

Thank you for replying to my comments earlier.

np. :)

If you change the stems to keep voicings contant (sop 1 top, sop 2 bottom), the ear will STILL be drawn to the moving melody line. Unless the group is sub par at melding within sections (which actually is a concern).

Then I'll keep it like this because it's easier to sing this way i think.

I'll take your word for it. I've never known that to happen on the receiving end. Something may have happened in saving, but I don't see how it could happen in viewing.

Yeah, everything looks fine on my end.

I was referring to beams, not bars.

Had a brainfart. In my previous post I meant beams.

No no no, you're missing my point.

The SONIC volume increases. IE the thickness of the chord.

Regardless, you have a change of texture that the ear will pick up on when you split or merge voices. Particularly in the middle of a phrase. The volume of one voice will increase, and the depth of the harmony (a different set of volume) will decrease.

Ok, I think I'm starting to get what you're talking about now. But just barely. Not really sure what you mean by sonic volume. Is that a widely used term that I could look up?

It's on the last couple pages, I believe. The basses are what I remember. I don't have time to traipse about and check, I'm afraid.

That's ok, I'll look it over.

np. :)

Coolio! :)

No I don't. Its something wrong with the pdf. Maybe your computer doesn't have the right font for it. Still, at least it's not something weird like an ampersand. :P

Nothing's wrong with the .pdf. You need to embed fonts when creating .pdfs if you want everyone to view them without a problem. I use PrimoPDF and you have to select Prepress, rather than Print, for that.

Nothing's wrong with the .pdf. You need to embed fonts when creating .pdfs if you want everyone to view them without a problem. I use PrimoPDF and you have to select Prepress, rather than Print, for that.

I See... :thumbsup:

Thank you very very much for the review! :D

I have a few questions about your review though, since some of the stuff went a little over my head:

1. What do you mean by "thematic" material"? You said there "wasn't any to begin with." What did you mean by that?

2. Pretty sure I didn't use a single plagal cadence. Maybe a plagal half hadence, and I certainly ended a lot of phrases on IV, but I don't think I have a single IV-I progression at the end of a phrase. Maybe I missed something, idk....

3. Which parts would you say contain blatantly bad voice leading? Is it the opening section where the sopranos cross? Is it anywhere else? If you could be more specific, that would help lots.

4. Could you also give a few examples of the "non-functional" harmonies that you feel are inappropriate?

5. Which harmonies would you consider to be "white"?

Answering the Q's above would really help me out a ton! It's obvious you're not used to choral music, so I really appreciate you taking the time to review this anyway. Thanks again! :D

Hey, there's lots I like about this - I think the opening is great, and I love the chord on "sky" in b5 (which you also use in b14 and I think b23 as well) - I'm too rusty to think offhand what chord it actually is! I've had a look at some of the comments above but haven't scrutinised every syllable, so may be repeating things, but the main thing I would say is that some of the word settings are quite awkward (this may be deliberate?) - some examples are using a minim for "the" in b4; minim for the "be" of began in b8; minim for "a" in b11 - OK, running theme seems to be holding on to words that, when spoken, would be unstressed - is that something you've done to create a particular effect?

Also, I'm not altogether convinced by a few of the harmonies - the suspension in the tenor part in b16 is an example, and likewise the C sharps in the bass part in b10-11 (I don't know if that what johnbucket above is referring to as non-functional harmony, or indeed what you could replace it with).

Overall, though, I think you've got a lovely sound-world here, and I'd love to hear Clare College choir or similar folk singing it!

Hey, there's lots I like about this - I think the opening is great, and I love the chord on "sky" in b5 (which you also use in b14 and I think b23 as well) - I'm too rusty to think offhand what chord it actually is! I've had a look at some of the comments above but haven't scrutinised every syllable, so may be repeating things, but the main thing I would say is that some of the word settings are quite awkward (this may be deliberate?) - some examples are using a minim for "the" in b4; minim for the "be" of began in b8; minim for "a" in b11 - OK, running theme seems to be holding on to words that, when spoken, would be unstressed - is that something you've done to create a particular effect?

Also, I'm not altogether convinced by a few of the harmonies - the suspension in the tenor part in b16 is an example, and likewise the C sharps in the bass part in b10-11 (I don't know if that what johnbucket above is referring to as non-functional harmony, or indeed what you could replace it with).

Overall, though, I think you've got a lovely sound-world here, and I'd love to hear Clare College choir or similar folk singing it!

Hey, notlagj! Thanks for the comment. All those minims (I'm American so I call the half notes, lol) you were talking about are indeed for an effect. They last one beat longer than they should in order to emphasize the following note. It's as if it were just a quarter note with a fermata on top, except instead of that, I've just written it out. Also, I can see where your coming from with the tenor suspension. It's supposed to create a nice dissonance because it clashes with the altos. Still, the effect may not have gotten through because, let's be honest, this MIDI track sure ain't doing me any favors. :veryunsure: As for the men at measure 10, I think that's one of the few parts Ol' Bucket actually liked, lol. But we all have different harmonic tastes and such.

Thank you again for the great comment. And believe me, if you can get anyone to sing it, just let me know, hahaha! :toothygrin:

--Miggy

P.S. Just by the way, I just want to say once again. Your "Five Bagatelles for Violin and Piano" are truly wonderful. I really look forward to hearing more of your music. If anyone besides notlagj is reading this, check out this guy's stuff. You won't be disappointed.

Hey Miggy! I checked out your choral piece as promised.

I enjoyed it a lot! It had a really warm, happy, prideful type of atmosphere. Very nice.

Now, I haven't read any of the others' replies so as not to taint my opinion; so here is what I think if you're looking for a bit of criticism or suggestions.

Firstly, as I heard the opening, I really enjoyed the melody and such, but it felt... odd. I couldn't put my tongue on it. And then it hit me! Here's an idea I thought you could try. I felt like the beginning opened too boldly and fast paced, like march-like. To change this, maybe, from measures 1 through 5 (up through "sky:") make the tempo sort of... 'Freely'. Like, quarter note = low 50s, possibly even 60. So it's like a free, expressive opening figure. Sort of like a cadenza I suppose. And then they hold out this beautiful "Sky!", and then break out into the central story and melody of "So it was when my life began". Ya know what I'm saying? Just a suggestion, just my opinion, you don't have to. :)

Next, measure 14. I think the rhythm is awkward with the words. If it were me, this is exactly what I would do. Make "it" a dotted quarter note, put "when" on the 'and' of beat 4, and make "I shall" two eighth notes on the downbeat of measure 15. I think it'd sound less awkward.

Speaking of measure 15, in my personal opinion, I think the altos should resolve from C to B with the tenors. Just sayin'. Again, you don't have to.

Lastly, in the last four measures, I have a tiny suggestion. In measure 34, "natural" has the option of being three syllables; as in, na-tu-ral. Maybe make beat 1 two eighth notes (maintaining the same pitches) instead of a quarter? I dunno, that's just what I think.

Again! These are all just my opinions; I'm no professional. Heck I'm not even out of high school, I haven't taken any composition anythings. My suggestions are just based on instinct; take 'em or throw 'em out. :)

Nice work! I'd like to see more! Cheers!

-Keegan

Hey Miggy! I checked out your choral piece as promised.

I enjoyed it a lot! It had a really warm, happy, prideful type of atmosphere. Very nice.

Now, I haven't read any of the others' replies so as not to taint my opinion; so here is what I think if you're looking for a bit of criticism or suggestions.

Firstly, as I heard the opening, I really enjoyed the melody and such, but it felt... odd. I couldn't put my tongue on it. And then it hit me! Here's an idea I thought you could try. I felt like the beginning opened too boldly and fast paced, like march-like. To change this, maybe, from measures 1 through 5 (up through "sky:") make the tempo sort of... 'Freely'. Like, quarter note = low 50s, possibly even 60. So it's like a free, expressive opening figure. Sort of like a cadenza I suppose. And then they hold out this beautiful "Sky!", and then break out into the central story and melody of "So it was when my life began". Ya know what I'm saying? Just a suggestion, just my opinion, you don't have to. :)

Next, measure 14. I think the rhythm is awkward with the words. If it were me, this is exactly what I would do. Make "it" a dotted quarter note, put "when" on the 'and' of beat 4, and make "I shall" two eighth notes on the downbeat of measure 15. I think it'd sound less awkward.

Speaking of measure 15, in my personal opinion, I think the altos should resolve from C to B with the tenors. Just sayin'. Again, you don't have to.

Lastly, in the last four measures, I have a tiny suggestion. In measure 34, "natural" has the option of being three syllables; as in, na-tu-ral. Maybe make beat 1 two eighth notes (maintaining the same pitches) instead of a quarter? I dunno, that's just what I think.

Again! These are all just my opinions; I'm no professional. Heck I'm not even out of high school, I haven't taken any composition anythings. My suggestions are just based on instinct; take 'em or throw 'em out. :)

Nice work! I'd like to see more! Cheers!

-Keegan

Thanks Keegan!!! All of these comments really help. :D I especially liked what u said about the beginning. I'll definitely keep that in mind.

As for your opinions, don't worry about it. They're all good suggestions, lo. :D Besides, I'm just OUT of high school. :toothygrin: