# classical music with non operatic voice?



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Maybe is a strange question, but often i can't stand the operatic voice. Sometimes i do love it, but often it seems clear to me the limits of expression of a style that probably was born to satisfy the lack of volume (microphones didn't exist yet) and sounds bombastic to me. So i'd like to know if there are modern classical composers that write music for "natural" voices (or for different vocal styles)


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I guess you already know about expressionist sprechgesang (Pierrot Lunaire etc.)? It's a bit diffrent. 

Btw, there is no such thing as operatic voice as far as I know, it's called classical trained voice and I think you have rather wrong picture of it (bombastic? ).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I guess you already know about expressionist sprechgesang (Pierrot Lunaire etc.)? It's a bit diffrent.
> 
> Btw, there is no such thing as operatic voice as far as I know, it's called classical trained voice


sorry, my english is not so good. Anyway, i think you have understood what i mean



Aramis said:


> and I think you have rather wrong picture of it (bombastic? ).


yes, there are pieces in which i cannot imagine another style and there are great singers (i'm not an expert but even for my ears Maria Callas is a goddess), but there are other times that even great singers sound to me like elephants in a crystalware. I think is true that is a vocal style created for the maximum volume possible, so in some pieces i don't like it at all and i think that a "natural" voice could be much better. It's like... the difference between the actors of the mute cinema who had to emphasize their gestures and the modern actors who can act naturally


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

This voice is "natural". It's just that popular culture can eat one's brain with it's stanards and I'm almost sure that you're one of those people that suffer from this disease. Did you listen to a lot of vocal music: operas (entire), oratorios, lieder, masses, do you know whole basic repertoire from common practice era? If not, I'm right and all you have to do is overcome your wrong idea by listening. If yes, well, perhaps you're special case but I doubt it. 

This "style" it not about volume, it's about mastering all aspects of human voice and there are no limitations, unless you consider sounding diffrent than Rihanna or George Michael as limitation.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well actually what you call natural is entirely false way of producing notes by straining vocal chords. What you call opera is true singing as you allow resonance and the notes produced are full.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aramis said:


> This voice is "natural". It's just that popular culture can eat one's brain with it's stanards and I'm almost sure that you're one of those people that suffer from this disease. Did you listen to a lot of vocal music: operas (entire), oratorios, lieder, masses, do you know whole basic repertoire from common practice era? If not, I'm right and all you have to do is overcome your wrong idea by listening. If yes, well, perhaps you're special case but I doubt it.


what does it means eat one's brain with it's stanards?
Anyway, i'm not an expert of opera, but i know enough lieders and choral music to know at least what i like. And there are not only classical or pop styles, there's the indian style, there is flamenco, there is sardinian style, mongolian and many others. Anyway, that's just my taste, i don't want to convince you, i'd like only to know if there's something like what i'm searching.



Aramis said:


> This "style" it not about volume,


of course it is, if you sing with an orchestra in a concert hall without microphone you must have volume, you can't sing like joao gilberto



Aramis said:


> it's about mastering all aspects of human voice and there are no limitations,


there are limitations, for example the comprehensibility of words, and also there is not the range and difference of different approaches you can find in other music (no Tom Waits, Dock Boggs, Robert Pete Williams, Nina Simone, Aretha, Tim Buckley, leon thomas, umm kalthoum, Jimmy Scott, etc).



Aramis said:


> unless you consider sounding diffrent than Rihanna or George Michael as limitation.


i think i've made better examples. But anyway, it's just my opinion and it wasn't what i'd like to talking about. And as i've said, i do like also classical trained voices.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Well actually what you call natural is entirely false way of producing notes by straining vocal chords.


"false way of singing"...well, what about "Stravinsky is not music", or "goya and picasso were not good painters"? To me, singing like any other art is about expression, not about other things. If you think that Aretha Franklin or Camaron de la Isla or Robert Pete Williams are bad singers, the problem from my point of view is your.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

so, is there classical music written for entirely sing in falsetto ?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> what does it means eat one's brain with it's stanards?


You're surrounded with popular music and amateurish pop singers, living in modern world filled with this music (unless you live in little village) makes you think that's natural way to sing and that classical voice training is some weird and unnatural thing.



> of course it is, if you sing with an orchestra in a concert hall without microphone you must have volume, you can't sing like joao gilberto


You're forgetting that people were singing this way before orchestra become such huge and loud monster as it is since XIXth century, theory that volume is main reason for which this vocal technique was developed is fairy tale.



> there are limitations, for example the comprehensibility of words


I don't have any problems with comprehensibility when I hear classical vocal music in my language.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aramis said:


> You're surrounded with popular music and amateurish pop singers, living in modern world filled with this music (unless you live in little village) makes you think that's natural way to sing and that classical voice training is some weird and unnatural thing.


oh, i'm an ignorant but you seriously think that i've began to listen music yesterday?



Aramis said:


> You're forgetting that people were singing this way before orchestra become such huge and loud monster as it is since XIXth century, theory that volume is main reason for which this vocal technique was developed is fairy tale.


as i've said i'm not an expert, but for what i've listened in gothic and rinascimental music the style was quite different. Maybe i'm wrong, anyway when did it start?



Aramis said:


> I don't have any problems with comprehensibility when I hear classical vocal music in my language.


oh come on, you are seriously saying that often there's not a problem of comprehensibility?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

jurianbai said:


> so, is there classical music written for entirely sing in falsetto ?


yes, there are great countertenors and natural castrati


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

norman bates said:


> "false way of singing"...well, what about "Stravinsky is not music", or "goya and picasso were not good painters"? To me, singing like any other art is about expression, not about other things. If you think that Aretha Franklin or Camaron de la Isla or Robert Pete Williams are bad singers, the problem from my point of view is your.


I used false in a different way. It is a perfectly acceptable way to sing and express yourself with song, however those singers you mention have not properly developed their voice. For this reason their songs are much simpler than the standard operatic line as theyve not been trained in how to produce notes etc..


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> oh, i'm an ignorant but you seriously think that i've began to listen music yesterday?


Dunno, I know that many people already appreciating instrumental classical music have problem like your and that's mainly because of this.



> as i've said i'm not an expert, but for what i've listened in gothic and rinascimental music the style was quite different. Maybe i'm wrong, anyway when did it start?


Yes, when you listen to medieval and other "early" music there is difference but I think we are talking about common practice period, right?



> oh come on, you are seriously saying that often there's not a problem of comprehensibility?


Yes. It's popular myth made by Americans surprised that they don't understand Verdi's operas like songs by Elvis.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> I used false in a different way. It is a perfectly acceptable way to sing and express yourself with song, however those singers you mention have not properly developed their voice. For this reason their songs are much simpler than the standard operatic line as theyve not been trained in how to produce notes etc..


what are you talking about?! If a melodic line is "simple" depends by the composer and the composition, anyway the concept of "properly devoleped" voice is absolutely eurocentric, it's like to say that Goya or Van Gogh weren't correctly trained painters because their paints are not as those of Ingres.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Dunno, I know that many people already appreciating instrumental classical music have problem like your and that's mainly because of this.


but as i've said i like also classical singing, it depends. I cannot think of Luonnotar sung with a natural voice



Aramis said:


> Yes, when you listen to medieval and other "early" music there is difference but I think we are talking about common practice period, right?


Yes, but also without considering the really big orchestras, i think it was important to have a good volume even with few instruments. It's clear i'm not speaking of the songs of Dowland for lute and voice



Aramis said:


> Yes. It's popular myth made by Americans surprised that they don't understand Verdi's operas like songs by Elvis.


Ehy, i'm italian. And often i don't understand a lot of what singers (even italian singers) sing in italian language. And even my "melomani" (sorry i don't know hot to say "fan of classical singing") friends, who know the genre certainly better than me say that often with certain singers is really difficult to understand what they are singing. Because they privelege intonation.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

norman bates said:


> what are you talking about?! If a melodic line is "simple" depends by the composer and the composition, anyway the concept of "properly devoleped" voice is absolutely eurocentric, it's like to say that Goya or Van Gogh weren't a correctly trained painter because his painters are not as those of Ingres.


I agree with Mr. Bates here. I generally dislike that operatic singing style. Maybe because it is so far removed from actual speech and instead focussed on transforming the voice into an instrument. Speech does not perform the melodic intervals normally found in opera and the unnecessary vibrato of that style of singing.

Harry Partch was a vocal opponent of that 'operatic' style of singing also. He claims the music drama loses its corporeality because the words are less intelligible for the benefit of the abstract idea of musical melody. So therefore to answer your original question, I'd recommend The 17 Lyrics of Li Po and Barstow by Partch for chamber and his U.S. Highball and Revelation in the Courthouse Park for bigger scale works. He doesn't call the vocal parts singing but instead 'intoning' the words to music. Maja S.K. Ratkje uses some unusual vocal techniques also.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Argus said:


> I agree with Mr. Bates here. I generally dislike that operatic singing style. Maybe because it is so far removed from actual speech and instead focussed on transforming the voice into an instrument. Speech does not perform the melodic intervals normally found in opera and the unnecessary vibrato of that style of singing.
> 
> Harry Partch was a vocal opponent of that 'operatic' style of singing also. He claims the music drama loses its corporeality because the words are less intelligible for the benefit of the abstract idea of musical melody. So therefore to answer your original question, I'd recommend The 17 Lyrics of Li Po and Barstow by Partch for chamber and his U.S. Highball and Revelation in the Courthouse Park for bigger scale works. He doesn't call the vocal parts singing but instead 'intoning' the words to music. Maja S.K. Ratkje uses some unusual vocal techniques also.


thank you Argus. I do know Barstow (but if i remember well the vocal part is spoken), but i don't know the other works, i'll check them out


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Yes, but also without considering the really big orchestras, i think it was important to have a good volume even with few instruments.


It was and always will be important, but not only orchestras, even concert audiences were much smaller back in baroque and classical periods. Noone had to fill whole Carnegie Hall with his unamplified voice. So I don't think that there was any pression back then that would force inviting new vocal technique just for the sake of volume.



> Ehy, i'm italian. And often i don't understand a lot of what singers (even italian singers) sings in italian language. And even my "melomani" (sorry i don't know hot to say "fan of classical singing") friends, who know the genre certainly better than me say that often with certain singers is really difficult to understand what they are singing. Because they privelege intonation.


I suppose it depends on genre. In bel canto when sopranos sing "aaa-aaAAaaaAaaaa-m-o-o-o-o-o-reeEEEeeeEee-e-e-eeeee! instead of "amoreee" it's easy to misunerstood but the problem is not the vocal technique itself but complicated melodic line that forces unnatural deconstruction of words.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I suppose it depends on genre. In bel canto when sopranos sing "aaa-aaAAaaaAaaaa-m-o-o-o-o-o-reeEEEeeeEee-e-e-eeeee! instead of "amoreee" it's easy to misunerstood but the problem is not the vocal technique itself but complicated melodic line that forces unnatural deconstruction of words.


it's not just that, and in this case i know perfectly what i'm saying, the problem is that often vowels are unrecognizable because of the style. Of course, there are singers that have a clear pronounce and if you know yet the words it is a lot more simple to decipher what they are saying, but often is not


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

But you said you already know about lieder and choral music. I don't understand what you are asking.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Webernite said:


> But you said you already know about lieder and choral music. I don't understand what you are asking.


i'd like to ear classical composers who use natural voice (or at least different vocal styles). I've forgot for example that there are some little pieces by Ives who sings with his horrible funny voice (he sounds like a punk)


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Argus said:


> I agree with Mr. Bates here. I generally dislike that operatic singing style. Maybe because it is so far removed from actual speech and instead focussed on transforming the voice into an instrument. Speech does not perform the melodic intervals normally found in opera and the unnecessary vibrato of that style of singing.
> 
> Harry Partch was a vocal opponent of that 'operatic' style of singing also. He claims the music drama loses its corporeality because the words are less intelligible for the benefit of the abstract idea of musical melody. So therefore to answer your original question, I'd recommend The 17 Lyrics of Li Po and Barstow by Partch for chamber and his U.S. Highball and Revelation in the Courthouse Park for bigger scale works. He doesn't call the vocal parts singing but instead 'intoning' the words to music. Maja S.K. Ratkje uses some unusual vocal techniques also.


I dont deny that non 'operatic' singing can be great and also constitutes real singing. The point im trying to express is that firstly, it is however a contortion and tension of the vocal chords which produces an unnatural timbre, secondly this style of singing does not suit the rich ornamentation, vocal range, clarity nor melodic speed that an 'operatic' voice can provide.
If you prefer it thats fine, im just saying.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont deny that non 'operatic' singing can be great and also constitutes real singing. The point im trying to express is that firstly, it is however a contortion and tension of the vocal chords which produces an unnatural timbre, secondly this style of singing does not suit the rich ornamentation, vocal range, clarity nor melodic speed that an 'operatic' voice can provide.
> If you prefer it thats fine, im just saying.


ok, this is different, but even if it's true that a lot of classical singers develop an agility that is uncommon between popular singers, i don't think is a matter of style but maybe of training. For example, take Bobby McFerrin






actually i don't like him, but his control is extraordinary. Anyway, i don't think that a great voice could be valued just for his ability. I much prefer an ugly, even off-key but expressive voice to the great virtuoso who leaves me cold


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont deny that non 'operatic' singing can be great and also constitutes real singing. The point im trying to express is that firstly, it is however a contortion and tension of the vocal chords which produces an unnatural timbre, secondly this style of singing does not suit the rich ornamentation, vocal range, clarity nor melodic speed that an 'operatic' voice can provide.
> If you prefer it thats fine, im just saying.


The term 'natural' is a bit vague. I'd refer to regular speech patterns as being natural and any deviation from them to be less natural. So the elongation of vowels found in most vocal music is unnatural, but it is necessary for melody as vowels are the only throat sounds that sustain clear tones. Vibrato, vowel staccato, tremolo, ululation etc are fine for expressive purposes but I wouldn't call them natural. Then there's the obvious aspect that most vocal music requires words for the singer to sing. The clearest way for these words to be transmitted to the audience is by normal speech. Twisting and moulding words to fit melodic lines can only weaken their intelligibility. If the message isn't that important, like in abstract music, then I can understand complex vocalisation, but for music drama or opera, where the words are supposed to be quite important, a strange compromise is made. This is either from keeping tradition or a simple aesthetic choice on behalf of the artist, either way I don't like it.

I'll take Ralf, Florian and a vocoder over virtuosic warbling, but that's just me. Tibetan Buddhist or even Noh chanting would be preferable too, although I'd prefer instrumental Gagaku or Danmano.

To the psychopathic motel owner, would Berio's Folk Songs or Stockhausen's Stimmung be the kind of thing you're after. You're probably familiar with them anyway.:tiphat:


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Argus, I am always impressed by your knoweldge of so many different styles of music - If only I could be so open minded. 
Perhaps natural is not the correct word. Anyway, what you hear from Britney Spears is a strained contortion of the larynx, improper usage of the diaphragm. Inevitably without proper training you sacrifice much control over all aspects of singing.
Perhaps the psychopathic motel owner's problem is largely to do with the heavy vibrato used in opera?


----------

