I’m putting this here, although it could be CS or even GQ material. I am soliciting opinions though, so here goes.
A discussion arose during a choir rehearsal yesterday about an ambiguous situation.
Here it is: there is a chord, held across the barline (the chord is a G# minor with a major sixth in the alto). The alto note is re-spelled across the barline–from F-natural to E#. Here is the question–is the symbol between these two notes a slur or a tie?
The opinion in the choir (at least in my immediate vicinity) was slur, because the notes are not technically the same. I say (and the director of choral studies at UMSL agrees) that it is a tie, because the notes are effectively the same. More importantly, it sounds like a tie, and sound is what music is ultimately about.
What say you?
(It’s worth pointing out that the nature of this piece is such that it must be sung in equal temperament (it’s massively chromatic with no clear tonality) so F and E# really are the same.)
I’m not an expert on choral singing, but from what you say (the piece will be sung in the same way whether this is a slur or a tie) it seems that this is an empty question - it doesn’t matter what you call it. But, since you asked, I’d say it was a tie. AFAIK and IME, notes are written enharmonically when this would fit better with the prevailing key at the time. For example, perhaps the first bar in your example is predominantly in (say) C major, so F-natural makes more sense than E-sharp, whereas the second bar is in F-sharp minor, in which case E-sharp is more appropriate. The effect, though, remains that of a tie.
Yes, of course, the question is entirely academic. But I’m an academic, so these things interest me.
In this case, the only reason that I can think to respell it is this: the chord makes more sense with an E#, but the previous bar would be hard to read if he had written E# (the preceding note is E-flat). I happen to think that laboring to make the spelling harmonically “correct” at the expense of clarity is stupid, but Herbert Howells is famouser than I, so what the hell do I know?
Since there is no change of pitch, I would call it a tie, not a slur, based on your description. The enharmonic respelling is probably meant to clarify the harmony in the next bar (if it changes, using the carried over pitch as a common tone), or it might just be sloppy use of notation software.
It also could be an error. Perhaps it was meant to be E-natural?
On preview & reading your more recent post, Herbert Howells is infamous for enharmonically respelling chords. I can think of a half-dozen of his works that I"ve sung that feature similar episodes in one or more of the voice parts. In every case that I’ve seen it has been to more accurately represent the triadic spelling of the new harmony.
The entire chord is tied over. The score is a 1965 Novello, so no notation software. I am reasonably certain that it is not an E-natural (although the resulting sonority wouldn’t be out of place in the piece, it doesn’t make sense for this particular situation).
That is my assumption. There are also places where he respells to make the melodic movement easier to read (he spells one A in the tenors B-double flat so the next interval will be a minor sixth instead of an augmented fifth–actually at the expense of harmonic spelling, as the altos are singing an A at the same time). I find the practice of respelling for harmonic clarity silly, especially in this case. The piece is complicated enough without such things, and we’re not doing harmonic analysis on it anyway. It’s a choir, not a theory class.
The story there is that I spent many years vacillating between baritone and tenor, even performing a couple of substantial tenor roles. It’s not longer relevant (I’ve definitively settled on baritone), but it’s been my screen name for a while, and I’m attached to it.
True, but pianists and organists (who may be doubling parts or simply playing for reinforcement in rehearsal) usually prefer to see things spelled intervallically for ease of reading. An augmented second in place of a minor third, or other similarly odd interval can be confusing at first blush if your fingers are trying to find the right chord.
That’s what I was figuring. It’s not often you run across a fach confusion reference in a username It sounds like you’re one of those “Dieskau” baritones with enough easy high notes to confuse people. There’s a lot to envy about that kind of high baritone voice…especially the fact that most lieder becomes incredibly easy to sing, since it all sits right in your vocal sweet spot…as opposed to basses like me, who are always in the passaggio and above in that rep. What are you singing these days?
A bit bigger than Dieskau perhaps, but that’s essentially it.
My last role was Orgon in Tartuffe, which is not my Fach and was a little growly at times. My last substantial solo work was the baritone solos in Carmina Burana (which are pretty much perfect for me).
I’m not doing that much solo singing right now. I’m pursuing a teaching certificate in k-12 music, hoping to do high school choir (hopefully eventually college). The singing life just doesn’t quite jive with the family life for me. With a wife, a mortgage and a car payment, I just need something that’s a bit more consistent (and includes benefits and a retirement plan). I am waiting to hear back about singing the Father in Hansel and Gretel for the Aberdeen International Youth Festival in August, but that’s all I’ve got on the docket right now (and I don’t know yet whether they’ll cast me).
Thanks for sharing. Very similar to my own story, at least where the “car payment, benefits, and retirement plan” parts are concerned. My couple of years scratching it out as a freelance singer were financial disasters.
ciao, and good luck with the teaching degree.
~fig
Well, if you need more support, I, too, would call that a tie. If the F and E# were meant to be sung/played as slightly different notes (which is possible in certain context, although I don’t think I have ever seen a choir do such a thing), then it would be a slur. If it’s meant a respelling of the exact same note then, yes, of course it’s a tie.
Here here! A year or so ago I played accompaniment for a production of Once Upon a Matress. A few of the numbers had chords written in that, as written, had nothing at all to do with the key the song was in.
At some points, the vocal line was written in sharps, and the accompaniment in flats.
The music wasn’t “hard” music, but it was one of the most time-consuming things I’ve played, as I had to figure out what chord I was actually supposed to play as opposed to the ones written out.
I appreciate this argument. However, in this case, the re-spelling really doesn’t help anyone. The chord is tied; if you play it correctly to begin with, it’ll stay correct on the other side of the barline. Even in the reduction, the alto part appears to go down. It doesn’t clarify any of the following parts either. I’m convinced it’s simply a case of hyper-correct, overly pedantic writing (correctness at the expense of readability, whether choir or pianist).
I have to agree that it sounds pedantic from the perspective of a performer who’s only seeing his/her notes. When I was playing tuba, had I come across a progression like that I’d have looked at it sideways, since the notes would be played exactly the same. But, from the scoring perspective it does make sense, if only for scoring “correctly.”
It sounds like you’re one of those “Dieskau” baritones with enough easy high notes to confuse people. There’s a lot to envy about that kind of high baritone voice…especially the fact that most lieder becomes incredibly easy to sing, since it all sits right in your vocal sweet spot…as opposed to basses like me, who are always in the passaggio and above in that rep. What are you singing these days?