# What is an "early music" singer?



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I had this thread under opera, where no one seemed to notice it. On reflection, I'd like some thoughts from people who might not frequent the "opera" category. So here it is:

For about the last forty years, give or take a few, a good many singers have specialized in the performance of "early" music, which is generally taken to mean music up to and including the Baroque, and sometimes the Classical period as well. In line with the efforts of instrumentalists to perform such music in ways that accord with what scholarship, as well as instrumental construction and techniques, tell us about performing practices of those times, singers have often modified their style and even their manner of vocal production in an effort to conform to current notions about "how they sang back then."

What do you think of the work of these "early music" singers? Are you convinced by their vocal and interpretive approaches? Do they sound "authentic," persuasive, convincing to you? Is their way better than the way people sang early music before the HIP (historically informed practice) movement changed the way we hear old music? Who, among today's singers or among those of long ago, do you think are outstanding interpreters of early music, and what makes them convincing to you? And if you like older - perhaps early or mid-twentieth-century - singers in, say, Bach or Mozart, whose singing do you enjoy, and why do you prefer it to what we may hear now?

What makes a good "early music" singer?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think its great that there are a lot of singers out there striving to recreate the sounds and singing styles of the past as accurately as possible, but the reality is it is fairly difficult to assess precisely how authentic these performances really are.

I think its about what seems to work and serve the music and create an enjoyable aural experience, in this sense I find I often enjoy HIP performances and I also often enjoy non-HIP, for me whether or not I enjoy the sounds I'm hearing is what is most important.

That said I do often enjoy HIP performances of early music, for example Jordi Savall's production of Monteverdi's _L'Orfeo_ I found had gorgeous singing that I thoroughly enjoyed, and in ways I find this style of singing more enjoyable and less abrasive than what I often hear in later Operas, but I think that is really personal preference. I think a good early music singer should be judged in the same way as singers from any other era - based on what they bring to the music.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I would name two that I've heard - Emma Kirkby and Michael Chance. Neither of whom have "modified their style and or their manner of vocal production" since that is how they sing. Interestingly, Ms Kirkby was not professionally trained but sang in choirs and small groups. Mr Chance although a choral scholar was not a classically trained singer and has developed the counter tenor repertoire.

Do they sound convincing? Definitely, try Emma Kirkby in Purcell's Indian Queen. Trouble is, we grew up on folk and HIP and never really did old style classical music. It's funny to listen to the Indian Queen and spot patter songs that wouldn't be out of place in G & S.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

I'd say that generally speaking polyphonic music benefits from little vibrato and laser sharp intonation. This is true in romantic period operas as well but hearing a lot of vibrato in all the voices in Renaissance music all the time is tiring. What can work is playing the other voices with instruments that don't use vibrato and singing the remaining voice with near opera level of vibrato, and then having some sections of group singing with vibrato.

Speaking of intonation, I think achieving good intonation is one of the main problems when performing this music _a cappella_. I don't have good ears when it comes to judging intonation, but I ran into this issue when listening to Sound and the Fury's third Gombert album. It's a live recording, and although otherwise very much to my taste - a true HIP performance - some of the later tracks have such a poor intonation that even I notice it. Comparing it with Brabant Ensemble, who have recorded some of the same pieces, it sounds less harmonious.

The Sound and the Fury is composed of experienced singers, some of them having sung in the Hilliard Ensemble, so you'd think that they can do solid live performances of this repertoire, but Gombert is quite difficult to sing, and to make the matters worse, the Sound and the Fury seem to focus on the horizontal aspect of the music a lot more than the vertical. Possibly they do so with good reason, yet it's odd to listen to performances where the chords, even if only a side effect of polyphony, don't always sound harmonious.

On the other hand, the problem with the Brabant Ensemble is the balance of the voices. It's the usual problem with English groups like the Tallis Scholars - their sopranos dominate. With Brabant Ensemble it's often really to an absurd degree that they dominate, and I often feel I have to strain to even be able to follow the other voices. Here, more HIP would correct the issue.

HIP groups also seem to differ from others in their interpretation of tempi, preferring faster ones. I think the Clerks are the supreme masters of rhythmic drive and sharpness with virtuosic and probably authentic tempi. Even when they're not particularly fast, there's a sort of clarity and sharpness to their rhythms that enlivens the music. (They do often use sopranos, contrary to proper HIP, but their balance is at least better than Brabant Ensemble's.)

Tallis Scholars and choirs like the Westminster Cathedral Choir give a completely different experience, slow and grave, all somber prettiness.

There aren't all that many groups I would consider pure HIP though. Binchois Consort does come to mind, and I recommend their recordings. They have amazing balance in Busnois' Missa L'homme arme and do it really well. They're also the way I imagine Dufay should be performed. I'm not an expert on HIP though, and perhaps we'll never know how Dufay truly intended his music to be performed. And it must be said that authentic isn't necessarily the same as ideal. These days I tend to think it's a richness that we have different approaches which to choose from, even if none of them is entirely authentic. I like variety, and for example just a few days ago I ran into a 1968 recording of two Dufay masses on spotify by Prague Madrigal Singers, and quite liked it, especially the Missa Ecce ancilla Domini. The tempi are super fast, there's vibrato, and they use instruments a lot, not even just for doubling, but often in place of singing. The funny thing is, who knows whether their tempi are more authentic than recent more "HIP" groups.


----------



## Musicforawhile (Oct 10, 2014)

Taggart said:


> I would name two that I've heard - Emma Kirkby and Michael Chance. Neither of whom have "modified their style and or their manner of vocal production" since that is how they sing. Interestingly, Ms Kirkby was not professionally trained but sang in choirs and small groups.


She must have had private singing lessons though, which is training if you take it seriously.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I guess someone who starts vocalizing exercises around 4:30 AM?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Musicforawhile said:


> She must have had private singing lessons though, which is training if you take it seriously.


Agreed. What I was trying to say is that neither of my choices had the full, formal, professional conservatoire type education but came in as part timers. (I know the work of a chorister \ choral scholar is really full time but they do other things as well) Yes Emma Kirkby had singing lessons at school and sang in choirs at University, yes she was "trained" - in the music the choirs were singing. What she missed out on was the training to sing the standard repertoire in the form that was considered acceptable for the concert hall.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

Musicforawhile said:


> She must have had private singing lessons though, which is training if you take it seriously.


Indeed she did, with Jessica Cash. My singing teacher is a student of Ms Kirkby and tells me she is "mad as a box of frogs but very lovely"!

Nancy Argenta is another wonderful early music singer:


----------



## Musicforawhile (Oct 10, 2014)

What I'd like to know is what is the evidence that early music singers sang with that pure, hooty sound? I am sure the historians think they have evidence...but what is it?


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

"Early music" encompasses a variety of styles and a wide time span. It's hard to pin down qualities of voice specific to early music as opposed to later music. The only thing I can think of that is essential for early music singing is the control of vibrato, i.e. refraining from it mostly. To my ears, vibrato in pre-Baroque music sounds grotesque. Baroque music can be sung with some vibrato and still sound convincing, but I basically prefer no vibrato.

Generally, I believe baroque singing requires technical mastery and control of breath that are very difficult for most human beings to achieve. Very few singers convince me in this regard.

I also believe the idea that a strong voice is not suitable for early music is a misconception. There is plenty of early music that would be better served by strong voices, as well as music that requires less volume and projection. But I guess modern operatic singing is a little too different from most early music singing for singers to be comfortable in both styles.

I have also observed that certain conductors bring out the best in singers. I am thinking of:

Alfred Deller, Trevor Pinnock, Gustav Leonhardt, and Masaaki Suzuki.

Alfred Deller's King Arthur (Purcell) is for me the performance that ideally captures the spirit of the work.

Trevor Pinnock's Messiah (Handel) is still my favorite -- Arleen Auger, Anne Sofie von Otter, & Michael Chance sound so much better in that performance than in others.

Gustav Leonhardt's B-minor Mass (Bach) has my favorite Laudamus Te sung by Isabelle Poulenard.

Under Masaaki Suzuki's direction, Midori Suzuki, Carolyn Sampson, Hana Blazikova, Robin Blaze, Yoshikazu Mera, and Peter Kooij all sound wonderful and convincing.

I also appreciate Philippe Herreweghe's & Jordi Savall's interpretations and what they bring out of singers.

Other singers I appreciate are:

Drew Minter
Andreas Scholl
Delphine Galou
Montserrat Figueras

So, in my opinion, good early music singers are Montserrat Figueras (1942-2011), Hana Blazikova, and Andreas Scholl, whose artistry, technique, and voice quality impress me consistently (more or less). I cannot ignore Emma Kirkby, who is a great singer, (but unfortunately I cannot appreciate her voice.) These singers sound "authentic, persuasive, convincing."

I don't actively keep up with who's hip in early music, so my opinions are based on rather passive but interested listening.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Here is a an ancient Britton, does this qualify as an early music singer?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think another conductor who does well with early vocal music is Rene Jacobs. I was pleased with the performances of the following vocalists under his direction:

Maria Cristina Kiehr
Rosa Dominguez
Andreas Scholl
Gerd Turk
Ulrich Messthaler


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> What makes a good "early music" singer?


Ouch! That is kicking where it hurts 

I like what Taggart and Dufay wrote earlier on, but I would find it very difficult to articulate why Emma Kirkby etc are 'good' early music singers. I know that I prefer less vibrato, a clear and transparent tone, lively tempi and vocal flexibility but beyond that ..... well, it just sounds 'right' to me .... and I don't really know why.

I guess a large part of it is trusting instinct - and recognising that there would have been a large degree of variability in preformance technique to match local traditions and the differing acoustics of particular venues

Good question - I look forward to being informed by my betters


----------



## Musicforawhile (Oct 10, 2014)

Here is something in the way of evidence from an essay which has used written evidence from the period. The full essay is here: http://www.york.ac.uk/music/conferences/nema/bethell/#chapter2

"I have two references for the Renaissance. The first is from Francino Gaffurio's Practica Musicae of 1496.

*[Gaffurio said that singers] should avoid tones having a wide and ringing vibrato, since these tones do not maintain a true pitch and because of the continuous wobble cannot form a balanced concord with other voices. (Gaffurio 1496) *(New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians 2001)

The next quotes are from Hermann Finck's Practica Musica of 1556, translated by F.E. Kirby:

The tone should not be too soft or too loud, but rather *like a properly built organ, the ensemble should remain unaltered and constant. *[Kirby then quotes Finck's satirical comments on performances he has heard:] *Fine compositions were monstrously distorted and deformed, with mouths twisted and wide open, heads thrown back and shaking, and wild vociferations, the singers suffering from the delusion that shouting is the same thing as singing. The bases make a rummbling noise like a hornet trapped in a boot, or else expel their breath like a solar eruption, [thus depriving the composition of its elegance, sweetness and grace. Instead of this, one should employ a quality of voice as sweet, as pleasing, as smooth, as polished as can be produced.* Equal attention should be paid to all the parts.] The higher a voice rises, the quieter and more gentle should be the tone; the lower it goes, the richer should be the sound, just as in an organ with various sizes of pipes, both large and small, the larger ones do not overpower the smaller, nor do the smaller ones with their bright tone swamp the larger, *with the result that the polyphony and harmony make their way evenly into the ear, in such a way that each voice plainly sounds just as clear, as gentle and as smooth as any other *and the listeners enjoy the performance to the full and experience the appropriate emotion. (Kirby 1961) (Finck 1556)[..]

Conference delegates will recall Phillip Thorby's brilliant workshops. He injected his own asides into the vibrato debate, noting Gerolamo Cardano's fascination with recorder vibrato. Cardano described how you can use a slightly opened finger hole to produce a vibrato, which was probably similar to the 'flattement' technique used in French 18th-century flute playing. He says:

A vox tremula that continues uninterruptedly on individual tones creates an unbelievably sweet effect. [But, elsewhere, discussing the tone to be used in instrumental consort playing, Cardano writes:] Therefore, evenness, accuracy, and smoothness produce a tone that is not only more pleasant but also clear, sustained, and of the proper volume. The opposite characteristics produce a tone that is harsh, uneven, fluctuating, and lacking proper volume. (Cardano Active 1546 to 1576)

So, perhaps selective vibrato is acceptable for solo instrumental playing, but not in concerted performance. *While Cardano doesn't comment specifically on vocal vibrato, his 5th and 6th precepts for singing (quoted below) suggest that he might not have approved of it.

[5] Let him take the greatest care to sing exactly on pitch and not let the note rise or drop a diesis [semitone]; [6] also, let him produce a tone that is clear but not violent, for in this way many singers suffer a ruptured blood vessel or a hernia. (Cardano)"*


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Musicforawhile said:


> http://www.york.ac.uk/music/conferences/nema/bethell/#chapter2


This is a great find. The part on the 19th century (Forgotten Controversy), is really interesting and stunningly researched. As he says, writing a paper like this would scarcely have been within human reach just a few years ago, due to this material not being searchable in databases. It would have taken a Charles Fort to go through all of it.

Of course, as he says, he has limited his study to English language sources, but it's still pretty good.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Musicforawhile said:


> Here is something in the way of evidence from an essay which has used written evidence from the period. The full essay is here: http://www.york.ac.uk/music/conferences/nema/bethell/#chapter2
> [/B]


This essay should certainly be read, but read carefully and critically. Of all the aspects of performance style relevant to the singing of "early" music (and this essay takes us into the nineteenth century), the subject of vibrato is one of the most contentious. The author takes an uncompromising stand, which in the end has him longing to hear Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini and even early Verdi sung by completely vibratoless voices. I don't know about you, but the the prospect of that fills me with the shaking horrors. I seriously have to wonder if our scholar even knows what demands these composers make on the range, flexibility, and dramatic capabilities of the voice, and whether he has ever heard their taxing arias, or tried to sing them himself, with the "straight" tone he thinks singers of the period used. For that matter, has he ever really listened to the operas of Mozart and Beethoven?

There is a lot of research behind Mr. Bethell's conclusions, but its meaning is not as clear as he thinks. Me? I don't believe for a minute that the singers of Mozart's or even Handel's day sounded like a bunch of air raid sirens and factory whistles. There is a broad continuum within the phenomenon called "vibrato," and although fashions in voices and singing style may change, the complete elimination of any natural and enlivening oscillation of the vocal chords during singing is a special effect which must be consciously applied, and is simply not compatible with effective or aurally tolerable tone production in much of the dynamically varied and technically taxing music of the eighteenth century, and perhaps none at all of the nineteenth century repertoire Mr. Bethell seems so eager to bequeath to the equivalent of English choirboys. I'm perfectly willing to concede that during Mr. Bethell's period of study the preference was for singers whose voices exhibited "minimal" vibrato - i.e., vibrato that added life to the tone but had virtually no effect on pitch and did not draw attention to itself. We can hear this kind of "tight" vibrato in the recordings of many singers during the early years of recording. The heavier vibrato we generally hear nowadays among opera singers was indeed less common back then, and I do in fact deplore the modern tolerance for it, as I think nineteenth-century critics did. But I am far from convinced that their criticisms were aimed at the total elimination of what is a natural phenomenon in a well-produced voice. And I'd bet the farm that this was as true in Farinelli's day as it was in Pasta's, Patti's, Caruso's, or Emma Kirkby's.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Let me just reflect on some great recent early music singing I've heard (live and recorded). Key themes? Good pitch and articulation - the pitch is there from the start of the note (and it's amazing the difference this makes to ensemble singing!!). Massive flexibility and control - long lines and echnical challenges thrown off with aplomb. Marvelously even tone - vibrato present as a servant of the music, fine gradations of dynamics while maintaining evenness of tone. I'm no expert on singers but these are some of things I picked up - probably shows my instrumental preoccupations

Bottom-line though, as always, is service to the music - the right skills for the job. You don't want someone whooping, scooping, bulging and wobbling their way through Bach or Monteverdi (or Mozart for that matter). Beautiful music presented simply - and it works for me. And I think it's fitting too that some singers with those skills can specialise somewhat in early music and really live and breathe that style (as I'm sure many others sing Romantic opera only). Interestingly, I know several singers who sing almost exclusively early and contemporary - they don't have the very specific sound desired for classcial or romantic opera but their fine musicianship, solid technique, flexibility of style and excellent reading skills give them plenty of options

Also - *sigh* Can't be bothered responding to the "gotcha" games where supposedly hoisting a scholar by his own petard supposedly discredits or 'shows care and caution should used' about a development in music that has happened over the past century or so. HIP this time? Sure - but it's completely overtaken the mid-century ways because it makes sense and is satisfying to musicians. Enjoy your old recordings as you wish - I'm sure there are a lot of wonderful performances on them. They're just not everyone's cup of tea any more


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> This essay should certainly be read, but read carefully and critically. Of all the aspects of performance style relevant to the singing of "early" music ... the subject of vibrato is one of the most contentious. The author takes an uncompromising stand, which in the end has him longing to hear Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini and even early Verdi sung by *completely vibratoless* voices.
> 
> There is a lot of research behind Mr. Bethell's conclusions, but its meaning is not as clear as he thinks. Me? I don't believe for a minute that the singers of Mozart's or even Handel's day sounded like a bunch of *air raid sirens and factory whistles*.


I read the paper, and I didn't hear the author advocating that kind (bolded) of singing. As I read it, the author is not against vibrato as "natural oscillations" of voice but the clearly audible wide fluctuations in pitch which actually change the perception of music. He takes a strong stand, but I wouldn't call it uncompromising... YMMV

I am now listening to Kelly Sweet as recommended by Bethell (the author of the paper). Never heard her before. I am enjoying her voice.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Unfortunately, I am not an early music voice specialist, but an immediate thought that comes to mind is that an excess of vibrato is unacceptable in early music—common practice, I believe, was to greatly limit it or restrict it entirely so that the harmonies could shine through more clearly. So when I hear someone singing Monteverdi with a Wagnerian vibrato, I am immediately turned off. I would need to conduct a bit more research before I comment any further.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dufay said:


> I read the paper, and I didn't hear the author advocating that kind (bolded) of singing. As I read it, the author is not against vibrato as "natural oscillations" of voice but the clearly audible wide fluctuations in pitch which actually change the perception of music. He takes a strong stand, but I wouldn't call it uncompromising... YMMV
> 
> I am now listening to Kelly Sweet as recommended by Bethell (the author of the paper). Never heard her before. I am enjoying her voice.


I listened to Kelly Sweet too. I can't imagine what relevance her breathy tone and intermittent slow vibrato have to classical music.

Here is a quote from near the end of Bethell's essay:

"Music by Schubert, Beethoven, Rossini, Bellini, Mendelssohn, Donizetti and probably Auber and Meyerbeer should normally be vibrato free. Verdi's early operas are historically correct either with vibrato, as used by Tamberlik, or without, as sung by Mario. While critics often deplored the use of vibrato in Wagner's music, the fact remains that Wagnerian tenors' vibrato ranged from zero (Italo Campanini), to minimal (Jean de Reské) and relatively wide (Hedmondt). Despite the evident disagreements, diversity prevailed in practice, suggesting that any of these approaches can be viewed as 'authentic' for music composed after about 1850."

I'm under the impression, from Bethell's whole discussion, that "vibrato free" here means exactly what it says. Can anyone really imagine the roles of Norma or Leonore or Donna Anna, with their powerful dramatic accents, being sung "vibrato free"? Or seriously contemplate a tenor singing Wagner with "zero" vibrato, as Italo Campanini is here said to have done? Does Bethell even know what such a sound would be like? Or, even more to the point, what a singer would put himself through trying to produce it through an evening of _Lohengrin_ or _Tristan_?

None of this is "early music," of course, which is the topic of this thread. But I think it illustrates the perils of fetishizing "authenticity" and leaving it to ivory-tower professors (or whatever title best suits this author) to "prove" what is the right and wrong way to perform music by deciding for us what people a century or three ago meant when they used certain words.

Bethell can dream on about those "authentic" vibrato-free Rossini productions he imagines for the future. I feel pretty sure that he'll have to fund them himself. There are still plenty of people around who know what good singing is, and the opera stages are never going to be overrun by flat-toned hooters or people who sound like Kelly Sweet.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I read the Richard Bethel paper about a year ago and I would agree with Woodduck's conclusion. The main problem is the lack of nuance in Bethel's understanding of the original sources, and particularly the context of those sources. The newspapers quoted are all from the English speaking world, which tended to judge vibrato more harshly than continental European critics did, to the extent that Italian singers whose reputations were secure on their home turf (not only Italy but Spain, South America, Russia often) never had major careers in the US or UK- Tamagno and de Lucia would be prime examples. In fact the best study of Anglophone attitudes to vibrato and its effects on the reception of Italian singers is to be found in Michael Henstock's biography of de Lucia- it is a must read for anyone interested in the operatic world of the late 19th century. The American press (and the lighter toned Brit publications such as Punch) had another peculiarity which Bethel does not remark upon- extroadinarily, since he quotes two of the most egregious examples I have seen- and that is a tendency to make caricatured descriptions of singers' supposed physical peculiarities. Here is what he quotes from an American reviewer on the subject of Emile Cossira (whose name is misspelled in the article):

"The tenor was M. Cossira, a gentleman who disported himself as a Romeo of 200 pounds avoirdupois and possessed a small tremulant voice like the patter of rain on a tin roof. In the expressive language of the American boys, he made me tired."

"It may be mentioned that Mr. Cossira is a large, fat tenor with a small, lean voice. The little voice and the large body wobble in unison with an obese French tremolo when the tenor is at work. The writer had the misfortune to see and hear this gelatinous shaker in Gounod's 'Romeo et Juliette' at the Paris Grand Opera. Physically he was the greatest Romeo we ever saw. Otherwise he wasn't."

You would imagine from this description that Cossira was physically grotesque, but there's no photographic evidence for that at all. I have some very nice pictures of him as Romeo which the computer gremlins are not allowing me to attach, and Artlyrique has a potted biography with more photos and a recording.

http://www.artlyriquefr.fr/personnages/Cossira Emile.html

So here's my point: if a singer's physical appearance could be caricatured beyond all recognition, why should we trust reviewers not to exaggerate reports of a singer's vocal style and technique? The NY Times reviewer just quoted was right about a couple of things: Cossira did have a modestly sized voice for a tenor who sang such heavy roles as Sigurd and Arnold (whether we put Romeo in that category is a matter of opinion) and his vibrato is among the more prominent of French singers of the period, although it does not seem to have caused consternation in Paris (nor probably in Italy, though I haven't read any of his Italian reviews.)

Julian Gayarre (no accent on the final e, please!) is an interesting example of a singer of the period with plenty of vibrato, but- and Bethel does not admit this- he presents a couple of problems. The first is that, like Campanini, he died tragically young, and thus too early to have made recordings, although we can certainly hear echoes of his style in both de Lucia and Fernando Valero, the 'little Gayarre'. The other problem is that Gayarre was a stylistic outlier whose unusual degree of vibrato was often remarked upon, which makes it problematic to generalise about the practices of other singers from descriptions of his 'goat bleat' vibrato, as influential as he may have been on his younger contemporaries. (In fact, the earliest Spanish tenor on recordings, Antonio Aramburo, has a metallic voice reminiscent of Tamagno but without the latter's prominent vibrato.)

There is a similar lack of context in Bethel's quotes from female singers' reviews. For example, Emma Eames' vibrato is praised as 'used effectively and not indiscriminately'- but when would a Marchesi pupil ever have used vibrato indiscriminately? Is it possible that the reviewer, having run out of superlatives, is simply casting about for things to say? I also feel that the Calvé quote deserves some caveats. It's legitimate to note that her article avoids the term 'vibrato', but we shouldn't assume that an article attributed to a singer is necessarily written by them, although it may be probable that it was. Secondly, Calvé was a flamboyant person given to descriptive rather than technical vocabulary, as we can see from her autobiography: perhaps she used 'thrill' rather than 'vibrato' because she felt it was a more attractive word as well or instead of because she wanted to sidestep the whole vibrato controversy. ('Thrill' was a poor choice IMO because it looks like a misprint for 'trill'.)

The main point though- apart from the lack of homework on singers- is that the whole enterprise of logging pro and anti vibrato reviews, mock-scientific bar charts and all, is fundamentally flawed: vibrato can be very much in the ear of the beholder, only noticed when it bothers us but possibly unnoticed by one who accepts and enjoys the sound, making pro vibrato reviews necessarily scarce. There's also the question that critics' attitudes may have shifted as did singing styles, but not necessarily in parallel: that is, vibrato may well have become more widely used in the late 19thC, but it could also be that critics simply became more sensitised to it for whatever reason.

A further point: Bethel asserts that 'around 15 years elapsed from 1890 until the recordings were made, during which time the singers probably adjusted their vibrato levels to match the wider oscillations customary in the first decade of the 20th century'. Really? Many old fashioned elements of style were preserved, yet vibrato alone was changed to move with the times? I can't prove him wrong, but I certainly dispute the word 'probably'. In fact, it is precisely because the singers born before about 1870 sound different from their successors that they are so interesting. If they had suddenly decided en masse that it was a new century and time to adopt the big wobbly vibrato of a Mario Sammarco, I for one would not bother listening to them. Clearly older singers substantially or even entirely preserved an older style. Likewise, it is absurd for Bethel to suggest that the increased vibrato he postulates might be age related: an age related tremolo would be irregular and uncontrolled, not the tight, even vibrato we can hear in pre verismo singers and beyond.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Emile Cossira as Romeo- not a bad looking chap at all!

Sorry Woodduck- I was planning a proper response to this thread but my ignorance of early music is pretty comprehensive. I had a few observations concerning early recordings of early music lined up but had trouble organising them into anything coherent or useful. Will try to post something more relevant later on.

Edited to add: I was wrong to say that Aramburo was the earliest Spanish tenor on records- assuming the dates are correct, Lorenzo Abruñedo (born 1836) was two or three years older:






Nothing whatsoever to do with early music- I just wanted to correct myself before someone else did


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I too am certainly no expert when it comes to early music, preferring the Verdi-Puccini-Donizetti-Bellini era and not really loving the Mozart/Rossini stuff all that much either.
But one thing I do like very much that is evocative of the past more than now is the light vibrato in some of our better singers today like Joseph Calleja and Sondra Radvanovsky.
And it's really not a matter of who's better at what in my case. It's what my ear hears and my gut internalizes.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I'd like at this point to offer some technical remarks on the subject of vocal vibrato, based on my own experience and study as a performing musician.

I spent most of the first 35 years of my life singing semi-professionally, soloing in churches and participating in some early music ensembles. I took a close interest in vocal pedagogy and in performance style. Studying voice formally in college, I came to understand a good deal about how the voice works as a physical mechanism. Vibrato was a subject of conversation between me and my teachers, but was never an issue for debate; it was simply considered, as in fact it is, a natural function of a consistent, focused, secure vocal tone produced with adequate breath support and the vocal chords held easily and securely together. Individual vibratos differ in both the speed of their pulsation and in the pitch variation they encompass; some people's vibratos are quicker and "narrower," others' are slower and "wider." Rarely a person will have no natural vibrato at all (or so I've read; I never encountered such a singer myself).

Almost any accomplished singer will tell you that a natural, unforced vibrato is an indicator of vocal health and ease. Unwanted tensions or lack of muscular coordination can result in distortions of the vocal chords' natural tendency to oscillate, creating slow "wobbles" or rapid, goatlike bleating effects; both of these distortions of natural vibrato can be heard in opera singers whose voices are poorly disciplined or have been forced and abused, and may also be heard in the voices of some popular singers whose voices have not been trained for the skills required by classical music. Many non-classical music styles of singing use what I would call "pseudo-vibrato" effects; jazz singers, for example, apply various wavering effects to their tones in a very deliberate manner which has nothing, physically, to do with the spontaneous oscillations of the true vocal vibrato.

My point here is that the true vibrato is not something deliberately _applied_ to the voice, and that if a trained singer wishes to sing without it he must deliberately suppress it. When people (like Mr. Bethell) talk about singers "using" vibrato, they often appear to assume that it is an effect applied entirely at will, as an instrumentalist would apply it, or an organist would pull out a "vox humana" stop (it's worth noting that instrumental vibrato is an effect intended specifically as an imitation of the human voice). Conscious manipulation of the voice's natural oscillations needs to be managed carefully for physical reasons; a singer engaged in making music with his vocal chords is, properly, not ordinarily calculating what kind of vibrato he is producing, even though it is possible to control (i.e. reduce or eliminate) one's vibrato under certain circumstances as a deliberate stylistic or expressive effect. In music of limited range and dynamic scale, such as much "early" music for small ensembles is, a less intense vocal tone with consciously reduced vibrato may be a feasible stylistic choice. In more intense, dramatic, and virtuosic styles of music, conscious manipulation of the vocal chords' natural functioning is likely to be a physically uncomfortable and perilous exercise, dangerous to the long-term health of the vocal mechanism. Different styles of music in the tradition we know as "classical" certainly do make different demands on singers. The vocal skills required by, say, a Mozart concert aria are different (and much greater) than those required by a Monteverdi madrigal. How these and other different musical styles can be articulated by the human voice for best artistic effect is a legitimate topic for discussion. But without a basic understanding of how the voice works, and what physical skills are required in any particular case, theories about how people sang, and ought to sing now, can easily run off the rails of common sense.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I'd like at this point to offer some technical remarks on the subject of vocal vibrato, based on my own experience and study as a performing musician.
> 
> I spent most of the first 35 years of my life singing semi-professionally, soloing in churches and participating in some early music ensembles. I took a close interest in vocal pedagogy and in performance style. Studying voice formally in college, I came to understand a good deal about how the voice works as a physical mechanism. Vibrato was a subject of conversation between me and my teachers, but was never an issue for debate; it was simply considered, as in fact it is, a natural function of a consistent, focused, secure vocal tone produced with adequate breath support and the vocal chords held easily and securely together. Individual vibratos differ in both the speed of their pulsation and in the pitch variation they encompass; some people's vibratos are quicker and "narrower," others' are slower and "wider." Rarely a person will have no natural vibrato at all (or so I've read; I never encountered such a singer myself).
> 
> ...


Do you remember always having a vibrato in your voice from the first moment that you started singing? Or could it be that you in some manner conditioned your brain to apply vibrato from an early age, lost in the mists of memory, so that now it seems the vibrato comes naturally and has always been there when in fact it could just be an ingrained habit?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: I dunno-someone in a chorus who has a problem coming in a half a beat premature on an entrance?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> OP: I dunno-someone in a chorus who has a problem coming in a half a beat premature on an entrance?


I can hardly wait for definition#3.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I can hardly wait for definition#3.


When it comes to me, it will come to you soon after.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> Do you remember always having a vibrato in your voice from the first moment that you started singing? Or could it be that you in some manner conditioned your brain to apply vibrato from an early age, lost in the mists of memory, so that now it seems the vibrato comes naturally and has always been there when in fact it could just be an ingrained habit?


I can't remember back that far. But vibrato is not a creation of the mind. Applied vibrato is a different muscular phenomenon, sounds different (usually slower and less regular), and is a mark of poor technique or simply a non-classical (e.g. pop or jazz) singing style. You can't do Purcell, Mozart, or Verdi with a phony vibrato! Sometimes beginning vocal students don't have vibrato; when the vocal chords get lined up properly and the breathing is controlled, they will.

Here's what a natural vibrato can sound like in early music:






That subtle, expressive, gorgeous shimmer could never be faked! The vibrato in a well-functioning voice is normally continuous and quick, and does not affect the clarity of pitch. Hear the way the strength of the pulsation varies with volume, pitch and emotional intensity. That happens for the most part naturally, without the singer having to alter it consciously, although there can be a certain amount of intentional control.

In the art of a great singer, the vibrato is an important musical resource. Any talk of eliminating it, from most music at least, simply baffles me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> When it comes to me, it will come to you soon after.


I could not be more certain of anything.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Sometimes beginning vocal students don't have vibrato; when the vocal chords get lined up properly and the breathing is controlled, they will.


Hmm, I wonder what a physiologist would say about that.

You may be right, but on the other hand perhaps applying proper vibrato is so easy that it only seems natural, and ever more natural the more it has become a habit.

I sing rarely, so my voice hasn't been trained, and it seems that both singing without vibrato and with vibrato are about as "natural" to me, but I do have to make the conscious decision to push my voice ever so slightly, to get it to vibrate - then, after that first threshold, it pretty much does so on its own. Depends on volume and pitch too.

It's night and I can't test this right now but I think that would be pretty accurate.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> Hmm, I wonder what a physiologist would say about that.
> 
> You may be right, but on the other hand *perhaps applying proper vibrato is so easy that it only seems natural*, and ever more natural the more it has become a habit.
> 
> ...


No, no, no! I've read what the physiologists say. It's a well-understood phenomenon, not an occult mystery. If your voice doesn't have a natural vibrato, you _cannot_ create one out of nothing by an act of will! You can create a wiggle or a wobble as some pop and jazz singers do, a "pseudo-vibrato," but not the real thing.

You may be in that "intermediate" place, as a beginner, where your voice will vibrate naturally at times but not with the speed and evenness that a fully trained voice will. Don't mistake that for an "applied" wavering of the tone that only "seems" natural. Vibrato will develop and become refined by degrees as muscular coordination improves, just like any other aspect of singing. You can affect it, alter it, modify it, even eliminate it voluntarily, but you can't induce it if it isn't there. We don't have that kind of control over the vocal chords, just as we don't voluntarily control the speed at which our vocal chords vibrate to make tones, but only their length and the pressure of air against them. From what you say, you probably have a vibrato, but a rudimentary one because your vocal muscles aren't toned like those of a trained singer. Some people have a fine, quick vibrato naturally from the start, in others it develops. But if you train the muscles, it almost always comes, and it sounds like nothing you can force to happen.

I think we get confused about this because there are so many vocal effects we commonly hear that imitate or approximate the true vibrato, and styles of singing in which singers sometimes allow the vibrato to emerge and other times alter or suppress it. The true vibrato isn't confined to operatic or classical singing, it's merely allowed to happen (_allowed_, not _made_ to happen!) there in a consistent way so that phrases can be sustained and other technical demands of the music can be met, such as rapid passage work and the swelling and diminishing of volume, without loss of tonal quality - and, of course, just to give life and excitement to the sound. Loud high notes are pretty excruciating without vibrato, or with badly functioning vibrato that wobbles, such as we hear in old or overworked voices.


----------

