In David Wulstan's Book, "Tudor Music," there is a chapter entitled "A High Clear Voice" dealing with the main two schools of voice production which I referred to in my post "Ah, Professional Rivalries." Wulstan speaks of the "cavernous and chinless gape seen on the operatic stage, associated with a consistently lowered tongue and retracted jaw (one might also add a lowered larynx)." He speaks of some pictures taken of the opera singer Enrico Caruso "taken in the act of singing each of the five cardinal vowels [as] peculiarly comical, ranging from an impression of a splenetic mafioso to that of a canvassing politician about to engage in statuatory baby-kissing. They unwittingly illustrate the 'uncomely gape of the mouth' disliked by Ornithoparcus and Finck. The Renaissance singer made the vowels with the tongue as in speech; the late nineteenth century, however, subverted natural methods by attempting to make the vowels with the mouth in order to keep the tongue low and static. It was Garcia (1840) who advocated the new technique which had come from the Parisian Opera a few years earlier and was called the voix sombree. The flattened tongue, withdrawn jaw and low position of the larynx, together with a consequent high breath pressure, fitted in with the Romantic ideal of eveness of loud tone. . . . this is in contrast with the classical low-pressure, which generated lower energy sounds having a high-frequency-emphasized harmonic content. The Romantic voice production was not espoused by all, for the old method of production survived with tenancity in certain places, and not only in English cathedral choirs. The agility displayed by Jenny Lind, for example, came from a higher and freer position of the larynx."
Monday, September 15, 2008
More on Different Types of Singing
In David Wulstan's Book, "Tudor Music," there is a chapter entitled "A High Clear Voice" dealing with the main two schools of voice production which I referred to in my post "Ah, Professional Rivalries." Wulstan speaks of the "cavernous and chinless gape seen on the operatic stage, associated with a consistently lowered tongue and retracted jaw (one might also add a lowered larynx)." He speaks of some pictures taken of the opera singer Enrico Caruso "taken in the act of singing each of the five cardinal vowels [as] peculiarly comical, ranging from an impression of a splenetic mafioso to that of a canvassing politician about to engage in statuatory baby-kissing. They unwittingly illustrate the 'uncomely gape of the mouth' disliked by Ornithoparcus and Finck. The Renaissance singer made the vowels with the tongue as in speech; the late nineteenth century, however, subverted natural methods by attempting to make the vowels with the mouth in order to keep the tongue low and static. It was Garcia (1840) who advocated the new technique which had come from the Parisian Opera a few years earlier and was called the voix sombree. The flattened tongue, withdrawn jaw and low position of the larynx, together with a consequent high breath pressure, fitted in with the Romantic ideal of eveness of loud tone. . . . this is in contrast with the classical low-pressure, which generated lower energy sounds having a high-frequency-emphasized harmonic content. The Romantic voice production was not espoused by all, for the old method of production survived with tenancity in certain places, and not only in English cathedral choirs. The agility displayed by Jenny Lind, for example, came from a higher and freer position of the larynx."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Hmm, this is a difficult post...I don't think I quite understand. Is the positioning we do to sing polyphony supposed to be different from "normal" voice technique? Which one does Josepha use, for instance, the Romantic style of voice production or the Renaissance? Don't we modify our vowels by changing the mouth shape?
It has been my ongoing struggle since I left choir to avoid the high larynx, because it causes fatigue and makes my voice weak and warbly. But I go back and forth. I want to sing kind of as Josepha does, with little thought or effort, but I find myself struggling to keep that good technique when I also have to make sure of the notes. How to sing and not listen (to oneself)? So hard. :)
There are gradations, but the larynx consistently lowered with the tongue consistently low and consistent chest voice and big vibrato represents what is today called "classical singing." According to Wulstan, this is an innovation of the 19th century. It is what most classical voice teachers teach today and some do so fanatically. What Josepha does is in between, but she has had to tone it down over the years to match what we do - thus proving it is possible to switch between the two. We modify our vowels both by the shape of the mouth AND by the placement of the tongue. An exaggerated Classical technique frustrates the normal movement of the tongue by ALWAYS keeping it low to get a certain sound.
The above comment was by me. In using a library computer someone else's google identity was left up, and I didn't realize it. I assure you I have not changed my name to "gergely."
I was wondering! Maybe "Gergely" could have been some funny childhood nickname none of us had heard about yet :-)
Ok, that makes sense, then. I suppose I have not been taught (or at any rate have not assimilated) the "consistent chest voice and big vibrato" of the classical style. I just can't do it, I think, because I am guessing I am probably a lyric or coloratura soprano that just needs training to 'get all the way up there.' Breath support, really. It's no fair how some people just breathe correctly right off; I think those are the people described as having natural singing talent. Not so for me... :)
I'm also fortunate in that the teachers I've had have stressed natural movements and not tried to get my tongue to go anyplace except just more relaxed. On second thought, maybe just getting me to relax was enough work for them!
"Maybe "Gergely" could have been some funny childhood nickname none of us had heard about yet :-)"
Actually, I'm thinking really hard, but I don't think any of us had nicknames when we were kids. But if Kurt did have a childhood nickname, I'd probably be the last to tell it, as I am the youngest and my brothers have far more "dirt" on me than I'll ever have on them. There might be retaliation in the form of stories of my childhood - the "I Did It!" incident or something similar.
As far as all this discussion of voice - I am untrained in this area, obviously, but I THINK I know what is meant by chest voice - and if I'm right, I find it much more comfortable to sing from my chest than any other way. Another clue, that, at least from the little I've read, sort of confirms my suspiscion that I'm probably a contralto. (I can get to the top of the mezzo soprano range, but I'm much more comfortable lower - even down into the tenor range). I've toyed with the idea of taking voice lessons sometime, just to see how I'd be categorized and if they could "do" anything with my voice.
Anne,
Actually, I doubt you sing with much of a chest voice in that it is a rather artifical thing. It is the "heavy" operatic vocal sound that really has to be learned. It is not something that comes naturally when people just sing. I could demonstrate the difference sometime. As to your range, I really don't know, however many women are either sopranos or mezzo-sopranos. A true contralto is much less common.
Well, ok....maybe it's not a true "chest" voice....but I can "belt" out a tune in my range pretty loudly - the polite term would be "project", I guess -and it's what I would interpret as a rather "dark" sound - not a flutey little voice at all. Maybe I don't understand the term.
I have read that contraltos are much less common...thing is, I can comfortably sing at a pretty decent volume ("project", if you will) up to about 4th ledger line D, then if conditions are right, I can sometimes hit the F at the top of the staff, but it's in a "different" voice quality - what I was interpreting to be "head" voice, since it is a thinner, less "full" voice than when I sing lower. (But I'm probably misinterpreting the whole thing). I can easily hit the F below middle C (which is supposed to be the bottom of the contralto range). I can get almost to the bottom of the tenor range, as well. This is where I am getting the information: http://www.music.vt.edu/
musicdictionary/appendix/voice/voice.html
But, like anything on the internet, there's no guarantee of accuracy, so let me know if this info is not correct.
To give a perspective - I'm very comfortable singing popular music done by Karen Carpenter, Anne Murray, Cass Elliot, etc., - much more so than Celine Dion, for instance.
Maybe you can listen to me sometime (if you can stand it) and let me know what you think.
You may be a true alto, then again you may be a mezzo-soprano who hasn't developed her upper range (what you describe would be consonant with either.) Many mezzo-sopranos get used as altos just because they have the range - they may even have a darker sound in the lower register.
Your not wrong about head versus chest voice, it is just that a true full-on chest voice - which is used in operatic singing - takes a lot of training and "artifice" to develop. Very few people can sing that way naturally, without any training.
Hmm...seems to me that "chest voice" might be a term that is used in different contexts. I have seen it referring to the physicalities of "where" one sings from when one moves up and down the register...more of a "mechanics" term. I would guess everyone naturally sings from chest and head, depending on where in their range they are. And some vocal types may be more comfortable singing more of their range in chest voice, others more in head voice.
But I think your post was referring to "chest voice" in a more stylistic sense..pushing it to be bigger and more dramatic, and to use it over more of the range. Am I close?
Ultimately, the term is properly used the way it is used by professionals in the field. That is second nature to me. To verbally explain it to a non-colleague is a bit difficult. The best way is to demonstrate it. In lieu of that a second best might be for me to think about it more and do a separate post.
That would be interesting, thanks. So many of these terms seem to be thrown about somewhat carelessly, and in different contexts by different people. I am somewhat curious about this stuff....didn't know there was so much to singing. ;-)
mm...seems to me that "chest voice" might be a term that is used in different contexts. I have seen it referring to the physicalities of "where" one sings from when one moves up and down the register...more of a "mechanics" term. I would guess everyone naturally sings from chest and head, depending on where in their range they are. And some vocal types may be more comfortable singing more of their range in chest voice, others more in head voice.
But I think your post was referring to "chest voice" in a more stylistic sense..pushing it to be bigger and more dramatic, and to use it over more of the range. Am I close?
Anne, that's what I thought too...maybe Dr. Poterack can demonstrate for me as well.
Post a Comment