CASA - the contemporary a cappella society

Zhinga-zweee-BHOM!

Written by Deke Sharon

Friday, 12 August 2005

This column is a response to a reader email, requesting I give him some suggestions about his arrangement. Whereas I cant legally post the arrangement here on casa.org for copyright reasons, all you need to know to understand my response is that the arrangement is of Ben Folds song Army and that the arrangement was very solid, but contained only notes: no text or other markings.

John:

The arrangement looks very solid so far. I see no problems at all with what you have.

Less important than what you've included is what you've omitted: to be specific your arrangement deals entirely with only two elements of sound: pitch (which in combination becomes melody and harmony) and duration (when combined, duration becomes rhythm). Obviously the notes you choose are essential to the success of your arrangement. They're the foundation, the core, the "meat and potatoes."

However, the two other elements of sound: loudness (often called volume) and timbre (tone color/quality) are missing, and these two things are your spices, your added ingredients. Loudness, as it varies from note to note, becomes dynamics, the most frequently overlooked musical element in collegiate a cappella. Timbre is created by the syllables you choose, be they words, word fragments, nonsense syllables, extended vocal techniques, and the like.

You can live on meat and potatoes alone, but you're looking to be a chef, not an army mess hall cook, right?

I don't mean in any way to discourage you or disrespect what you've done. Nor am I assuming you think you're finished with the arrangement before at least writing in some background syllables. Nonetheless, the fact remains that most musicians think almost exclusively about melody, harmony and rhythm when making music, be it an improvised horn solo in the middle of a Thelonious Monk tune, a composer sweating over the development section of symphony movement, or a pop tunesmith. The standard theoretical scholastic regimen of counterpoint and harmonic writing do nothing to dissuade people from this perspective. Choose your notes wisely, as they're your music.

And yet, as an a cappella musician, and especially as an arranger, you have a chance to right some of the wrongs of how the voice has been treated by in large over 1,000 years of notated Western music. Give the singer the melody, slap some words under it, and you're good to go, right?

But what about the fact that the voice is the most versatile "instrument" in the world? Granted, a very powerful synthesizer can make more different sounds, but can it make you cry in a matter of seconds? There's no more powerful and capable music delivery system than the voice, be it alone or in combination with other voices.

So now that you've got all your notes in place, the fun begins. What textures are you striving for? If you gave this arrangement to 10 different arrangers, you'd likely get 10 quite different responses, with some versions building entirely on the sound of lyrics from the original, or perhaps texts from various branches of the armed services? Phrases from soldiers' letters home? The latest headlines from the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan? Phrases in other languages from their armed forces, or their feelings about our Army? Lots of ways you could go, and each would not only give a different sonic texture but also carry a message.

And that's only text! Consider with a voice you have an almost limitless range of sounds at your disposal. Instrumental imitation, precise or loose, has driven most contemporary a cappella backs that aren't text-based. That leaves perhaps 98% of the other sound combinations available to you. I've heard a bunch of "Jeng" in the past several years, but not much "shek" or "theeer." If it helps, consider each sound as any or all of the following: a starting sound (often consonant), a core, middle sound (vowel or resonating sound which can be steady or shift, like a diphthong) and a final sound (usually a consonant).

And then there's dynamics. Don't fall into the trap of going for forte at all times, or even changing dynamics once per section, unless that's definitely what you want. You can create a wonderful texture by changing dynamics from note to note: consider the difference between "p, f, p, f" on four quarter notes in 4/4 as opposed to "f, mf, mp, p." A world of difference.

Just as pitch and duration and melody and rhythm, are interwoven, so are timbre and volume. In fact, knowing that many people who sing a cappella are inexperienced or don't have the time to really polish their dynamics, in my songbooks I'll often force dynamics by my syllable choice. For example, "oo" in the first verse and "ah" in the second are an arranger-enforced dynamic decision, from quiet to loud.

Don't forget the fact that your group has more than their voices. The song is called "Army," so what's to keep you from using the sound of the group marching in place? Stomping and clapping? Whistling, as in the beginning of "Bridge on the River Kwai?"

Hopefully I've given you some useful ideas or at least an increased respect for the role of dynamics and timbre in your work. I look forward to hearing your choices!