on "a cappella definition"
Date: September 30, 2013
Dear friends, in the recent past I partecipate on this forum to some scattered and very interesting discussions which can be summarized under the title "what does it mean acappella today?". I would like to read your comments on a reflection of mine, which is just a weak attempt to understand a complex world as the acappella one, today. The reflection can be found on my site. Anyway, for your ease, I paste it inside this messages (pardon me, it is not so short...).
What does it mean "a cappella music" today?
I would like to speak of the meaning of "a cappella". Let us start with
Wikipedia definition of "a cappella": A cappella (Italian for "in the manner of the church" or "in the manner of the chapel", also see gospel music and choir) music is specifically solo or group singing without instrumental sound, or a piece intended to be performed in this way.
Or maybe you want the Oxford Dictionary definition: (with reference to choral music) sung without instrumental accompaniment.
Another simple definition of "a cappella" (I use it below):
Definition A: music made by singing with voices only.
I think that Wikipedia definition, Oxford Dictionary definition, or Definition A, are all misleading. They were good for the past. Not today. In the following when I mention "Definition A" I am referring to any of the three definitions above (and to every other similar definition which can be found on dictionaries/handbooks etc).
Nowadays the meaning of "a cappella" is wider:
Definition B: "music made by singing with voices, without standard musical instruments, with the possible complement of technological tools".
The difference between Definition B and the other ones is not so minor (if you are new to the topic, below I explain the impact of technology).
Where does Definition B come from? You will not find it on dictionaries. Definition B is in the real world: the majority of modern a cappella groups use more and more refined technological tools, but this practice does not change the name they are called: they remain "a cappella groups".
But remember: officially, Definition B does not exist!
I do not want to impose Definition B. Certainly I'm not the right person for delimiting any "a cappella" definition. Just use Definition B as a provisional, practical tool for better understanding what happens today in what is called "a cappella world".
For instance, look at this funny twist. An a cappella group makes an album using a lot of technology. Then they write the following presentation:
"All sounds on this album were created by the human voice, including the vocal percussion. No instrument or drum machines were used."
People read the presentation; then they read (on dictionaries, or somewhere else) the "a cappella" definition, that is something similar to Definition A. Then they listen to the album: "Listen here! It seems Pat Metheny! Listen there! It seems a brass section! Listen over there! It seems a church organ!!". Finally they say:"Wow!! Great! And they do everything WITH THEIR VOICES ONLY! Incredible!!".
So you understand the misunderstanding with "a cappella":
a cappella music was done yesterday, and is done today, without standard musical instruments; but TODAY this does not mean at all that it is done with voices ONLY. The sound source remains human voice. Then there is technology: accoding to the cases: a bit of technology, lots of technology, or tons of technology. Or maybe, no technology at all.
Summing up: Definition A gives a wrong picture of what "a cappella music" is now. Definition B could be rejected, but gives a more faithful description.
In order to substantiate a bit my thesis, let us look at live performances. We can classify a cappella groups according to how many technological tools accompany/help human voice in achieving the expected musical result. Remember: it is not important the classification by itself: if you do not like it, change it according to your experience. The focus is on the meaning of the term "a cappella".
Let us see this "technological ranking" of a cappella groups.
In my intention, this "technological ranking" has nothing to do with "artistic ranking". Speaking at a general level, I do not think that a 1-group is better than a 3-group, or viceversa. I have sung in various kinds of group: in my experience the overall quality depends more on competence, skill, care, enthusiasm, than on using/not using technology.
Anyway we must be aware of the differences: our expectations must be different according to which kind of group we are listening to. The so called "booming bass" is impossible with 0-groups, as well as a high sound pressure from the vocal percussion. Arranging for a 0-group, is quite different a matter from arranging for a 3-group. Similarly, the possibilities and corresponding directions of musical experimentation are quite different for the various kinds of group.
Finally, note that I have restricted the discussion to live performances. There would be a lot to say on studio recording sessions: in many cases technology has an overwhelming role with respect to voices. But this is another story.
I hope this reflection will be improved/developed by you. Good a cappella singing to you all, whichever n-group you belong to.
Replies (7): Threaded | Chronological