Voice to eye or ear?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Simple question for distillation: all things being equal, when it comes to the moment and progression of a chant performance, which is the more important sensory tool, the eye or the ear. I'm really not interested in equivocating the two, so at your gut level, which one do you rely upon?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,499
    Eye, definitely. But more ear than when singing or playing 5 line music.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    As an untrained occasional cantor, who can read a vocal line, but not at performance speed, ear clearly. But as a mathematician by profession, I would say you can't divorce the different ways of looking at things, an equation is both an abstract collection of logical symbols AND it's geometric representation. The neumes are a trigger for my inner ear, then the physical sound lets me know whether I performed what I imagined.
    On the other hand, I was recently thrust a vocal and organ score of the Asperges, when the designated cantor was unavailable, and the modern notation trapped me into at least one error.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    Without sight one cannot read notation,
    but the ear is the organ of equal importance to the voice in musical performance.
    The eye sees a notated fourth, the mind comprehends it, the ear is the governor of what the voice does. We sing as much with our ears as with our voices. Sight, actually, is important only in reading something new, it is not utilised when singing something already known.

    As a Post Script:
    I am surely not the only, first, or last, person who has or will have noticed that, in fact, what the eye sees can impede, deflect, the full and sprititual apprehension of what is heard, especially music. On the other hand, music has the capacity to transfix what is seen, at times to make music of that which is seen, to the extent that all that one casts one's eyes upon becomes music. Not for nothing has architecture been said to be frozen music. To which one can with confidence add, when seen while experiencing music, architecture becomes un-frozen (not melted! but un-frozen, alive!). There is, indeed, a state in which one does not see objects, but sees music.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I tend to agree with MJO. You gotta use it all. Having a mastery of 'self' (and that means all the senses) makes the difference between a musician and a good musician. The other things you didn't mention are the will and breathing AND VIBRATO.

    The will is usually the biggest problem I have encoutered in good performance. I have had technically good singers who can read well but insist on doing it their own way. That is no better than having an amateur who can't sing worth a darn with a great willingness to do what is asked.

    Breathing is another very important element. Breath support is critical. Can't do it well without that!

    ...and then there is vibrato... Don't get me started on that one.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Ear.

    The notes are on the page, but when I'm singing with a group I'm listening to and following them... especially on music I'm unfamiliar with or with a group I haven't been with for long.

    Page shows what to expect, but ear dictates what happens.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I wish a few more folks would read, whether a question or statement, a written contention with more attention to detail.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    It's a talent that is being quickly lost in this digital...Oh, Look! A Squirrel! A Purple Squirrel!
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    Seriously, purple squirrels aside, singing chant from tiny notes in the comment modern format, puts more weight on ear in performance. If square notes were larger either on oversize hand-held pages or large sheets in front of the choir, the balance would be 50/50, as your eyes could confirm that the melody you are hearing follows the map drawn on paper.

    At this point with modern editions when you go to perform, you are stuck with fine print.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Ear. The music is not the dots or squares on the page. They are only a guide for the ear.
    Thanked by 2melofluent CHGiffen
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Salieri wins the CrackerJacks!
    Years ago at one of the CMAA events I remember one of the many sage voices basically specifying why and how neumes are so much more effective for accurate, synchronous rendition of chant. What Wendy and I, as well as members of our schola now realize is that for much of the simpler English and Latin chant settings, only minimal chironomy is occasionally needed to help unify singers. Such repertoire would include the Weber, Kelly, Rice, and other missal chants. It's stunningly wonderful to chant Proper verses with my wife and maybe two others without having to rely upon me or anyone else using visual signals.
    Another signifier of that was at last Wednesday's rehearsal we trouped out Richard Proulx's little "Hymn to St. Cecilia" for the weekend, done in standard notation, and as we started reading it (we've done it before, but about a decade ago) we were actually getting hung up by the oddity of chanted Latin text delivered to round notes! It was weird!
    I've had some other occasions when helping others from parishes other than mine when their "version" of chironomy actually inhibits the flow, and thus the comprehensibility of the chanted text phrases. That, too, is weird to me.
    So, obviously I'm an ear guy. I've always maintained that as a musician I could stomach the loss of my sight, but Ludwig's fate would be a living hell for me as well.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen noel jones, aago
Add a Comment