Resonance

There was some discussion today among those of us who wave our arms in the air hoping somehow to make music go into it, relating to a sort of tonal preference which we each have for the sound we hope for. It is assumed that each of us is moved by a certain quality of sound which may differ from person-to-person. One of us may be moved by a perfectly blended homogenous sound while another may hear it and have the same response one may have to homogenized milk after tasting the real stuff.

I am inclined to think this is the right answer to the wrong question. I find myself, upon hearing music, often violating my own supposed preferences. I may love the BYU Singers recordings for their pristine intonation, but listen to a Russian choir sing with so much gusto that I don't even notice they were a bit out of tune. No... there has to be some deeper unifying factor guiding our preferences.

I think we are moved when the sound is "good." Interesting too, that we should say "moved" because we are in fact describing what happens to our souls upon hearing the regular ordered movement of air molecules known as sound. If emotion comes from hearing and hearing comes from vibration, perhaps vibration is the central issue to how we define "good"... RESONANCE. I believe what we are really longing to hear is music that resounds.

It is a physical property of sound that when harmony is in pythagorian ratio (not tempered, like the piano), there is stronger vibration. The amplitude of the sound waves is increased via the constructive interference hapening between the various partials of the tones being produced. When music is in tune it resonates more.

This can be seen even in the preference one has for particular instruments. I have found that while many people hate the oboe, it is not because the sound of the oboe is somehow outside of their tonal ideal, but rather, that most oboe players they've encountered didn't play with a techique advanced enough so as to distribute the sonic energy in a balanced way among the various overtones in their sound. I find that I cannot condemn as ugly the tone of any truly good player on any instrument.

So, the ability to move the listener is a function of each individual musician's tone having a balanced overtone series and the total combined sound of the ensemble having a balanced overtone series. This is encouraging because it means that one can, with good rehearsal technique, create a resonant ensemble sound with a group full of players who, on their own, do not produce a balanced overtone series (though it is vastly more complex). The key is intonation. So, in ensemble performance, the ability to move the listener is limited first and foremost by intonation. Once the resonance is there, emotional meaning is found in how its energy is either built or dispelled. This is done via rhythm, harmonic motion, phrase, etc.

This brings us to choirs. The instrument of the human voice is unique in that it is so closely (and completely subconsciously) affected by the inner currents of the singer's self. It has been my continual experience that when every person in a choir is truly open, vulnerable, connected, part of the community, trusting, and present, that chords tune better and in a far superior way than can be achieved by any sort of overt pressure from the conductor. I believe the captivating quality that the music of a soulful choir has is a direct function of the individual singers' vocal technique being positively influenced by their joyful spirit in such a way as enhances and balances their individual overtone series.

And this is why one cannot push buttons on the piano to magically fix intonation.