# Who is using microphones?



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

You may or may not know it, but a large number of opera houses world-wide have been catering to smaller voiced singers with sophisticated microphones and sound systems. I wonder what other opera fans think of this?

Personally even though I love the sound of peter mattei, for example, I wouldn't consider him a true opera singer since he lacks the projection needed to be heard in a big house.






Yes its a beautiful voice, but look at 1:17, he clearly pulls out his mike, and this is don giovanni mind you, not Wagner or Verdi!

I have my suspicions about other singers who seem to lack projection, Dmitri Hvorostovsky, Angela Gheorghiu for example, and even Jonas Kaufmann (shock horror) but no I cannot prove it for certain.

Franco Tenelli, a Dramatic Tenor and youtuber has posted some information on the subject.






What do you think?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm uncomfortable with miking because I wouldn't want amplification to become the norm with operatic singing - although I like small but very beautiful voices. Projection is a skill that should be learned, it adds to the performance but if you've got a small voice there might be only so much you can do. On the other hand, opera houses have become larger over time and that's not necessary a good thing either. Maybe Mozart and Baroque should be performed in different (smaller) venues than Verdi, Wagner and so on. It is weird/confusing to notice that some singers perform miked whilst others in the same production don't.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

If it's miked it ain't opera.
And it needs to be made known to the audience.
Figures though with the absence of great singers.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Itullian said:


> If it's miked it ain't opera.
> And it needs to be made known to the audience.
> Figures though with the absence of great singers.


Yes, I think the absence of great singers is largely caused by the fact that opinions on what is a good singing technique are so divided these days, and also that vocal students at universities and conservatories are taught just to sing beautifully and lyrically, and advised to avoid singing in a dramatic style so as to not damage their voices. Tenelli has quite a bit to say on the matter if you visit his channel.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Jobis said:


> Yes, I think the absence of great singers is largely caused by the fact that opinions on what is a good singing technique are so divided these days, and also that vocal students at universities and conservatories are taught just to sing beautifully and lyrically, and advised to avoid singing in a dramatic style so as to not damage their voices. Tenelli has quite a bit to say on the matter if you visit his channel.


As long as it's made known, fine.
It's the dishonesty, the fooling of the audience, that really bothers me.
Let it be known.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

Jobis said:


> You may or may not know it, but a large number of opera houses world-wide have been catering to smaller voiced singers with sophisticated microphones and sound systems. I wonder what other opera fans think of this?


Can you give some examples of these opera houses ?

In the example you post of Peter Mattei, have you considered this microphone (if there is one on him) is needed for the recording, and not for amplification ?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Anything that is recorded for visual media is obviously going to be miked. How else are we going to hear them?


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Anything that is recorded for visual media is obviously going to be miked. How else are we going to hear them?


Indeed. In live opera recordings mics are usually not on the singers but are placed on the stage or in the auditorium.

Opera is all about keeping the practice alive that was used at the time the opera was premiered. There are even groups who go so far as to use the exact instruments and playing practice that was used at that time (so called HIP).

The way a voice can fill a theater can never be reached with amplification. Opera will use it's magic.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I don't know who might or might not be miked, and I can't honestly say that I've been to an opera performance that I suspected was miked, or even to one where I had a lot of trouble hearing the singers (it's usually more or less hard for the first few minutes of a performance, but gradually your ear gets accustomed to the acoustic). But I do have mixed feelings about a couple of the points made in this thread. First, I'd like to say that I agree with Jobis when he refers to the almost ridiculously prevelant fears that young opera singers will "ruin their voices" by (correctly) singing dramatically. You see it all the time on Youtube: "If so and so keeps on singing Verdi she will ruin her voice!" It's true enough that Verdi, Wagner, and Puccini are not for every singer...still, _someone_ has to sing those composers' works. Just the other day I saw a recently made internet comment that Jonas Kaufmann should "wait until he's older before singing heavy roles." Well, he's 44! How much longer is he supposed to wait? Sometimes I think this overblown fear is a reflection of our modern habit of wanting to have everything available to us at all times. And we never want to see anything come to an end, least of all a favorite singer's career.

I'm a bit puzzled by the opinions that opera singers today are not taught to project their voices. I've studied singing and have read a good deal about it, and it's my understanding that correct, classical voice training _necessarily entails projection _ -- which is not about "getting your voice out there" so much as it is about creating your own resonance (by directing the voice into the hollow cavities of the face) so that you are, in a sense, "self-amplified." In other words, much of vocal study is about creating resonance, and it is this resonance that allows a voice to be heard over long distances and over an orchestra. To paraphrase Alfredo Kraus: volume means nothing; rather, by virtue of resonance the voice must travel to the ear of every listener in an auditorium. So, to sum up, if today's singers are not being taught to project their voices, it must be that they're not being taught to create resonance -- but that doesn't seem possible, since classical voice study is largely about creating resonance.

I stick to my belief (first stated in my "No Big Voices Today" thread) that, more than the singers, _the way we listen_ has changed drastically over time; we've progressively become conditioned to expect huge sounds. With each decade sound reproduction has become more life-like, and everyday life has become noisier. Consider what type of day-to-day noise there was in, say, the early career years of Nellie Melba: the clomping of horses' hooves, shops without background music, primitive gramophones. Today we're used to constant noise and everything in high definition, and I suspect that when many people go to the opera house they don't know _how_ to listen: rather than really concentrating and listening through the orchestra, they expect the sound to come right out to them, as it does when listening to recorded music at home. I actually always make a habit of not turning my CD player up very loud at all, so that when I get to the opera theater I won't have unrealistic expectations for volume.

If opera houses are using microphones, then I believe it's not so much the singers' fault as it is a symptom of a certain "noise pollution" in modern life.

Edited to add: And I've long been suspicious of the "we today lack great singers" idea. Every era has thought the same thing -- even the era that produced Caruso.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Bellinilover said:


> I don't know who might or might not be miked, and I can't honestly say that I've been to an opera performance that I suspected was miked, or even to one where I had a lot of trouble hearing the singers (it's usually more or less hard for the first few minutes of a performance, but gradually your ear gets accustomed to the acoustic). But I do have mixed feelings about a couple of the points made in this thread. First, I'd like to say that I agree with Jobis when he refers to the almost ridiculously prevelant fears that young opera singers will "ruin their voices" by (correctly) singing dramatically. You see it all the time on Youtube: "If so and so keeps on singing Verdi she will ruin her voice!" It's true enough that Verdi, Wagner, and Puccini are not for every singer...still, _someone_ has to sing those composers' works. Just the other day I saw a recently made internet comment that Jonas Kaufmann should "wait until he's older before singing heavy roles." Well, he's 44! How much longer is he supposed to wait? Sometimes I think this overblown fear is a reflection of our modern habit of wanting to have everything available to us at all times. And we never want to see anything come to an end, least of all a favorite singer's career.
> 
> I'm a bit puzzled by the opinions that opera singers today are not taught to project their voices. I've studied singing and have read a good deal about it, and it's my understanding that correct, classical voice training _necessarily entails projection _ -- which is not about "getting your voice out there" so much as it is about creating your own resonance (by directing the voice into the hollow cavities of the face) so that you are, in a sense, "self-amplified." In other words, much of vocal study is about creating resonance, and it is this resonance that allows a voice to be heard over long distances and over an orchestra. To paraphrase Alfredo Kraus: volume means nothing; rather, by virtue of resonance the voice must travel to the ear of every listener in an auditorium. So, to sum up, if today's singers are not being taught to project their voices, it must be that they're not being taught to create resonance -- but that doesn't seem possible, since classical voice study is largely about creating resonance.
> 
> ...


Agree with everything - particularly the "We lack great singers singers today". I think we have a lot of fantastic singers these days, and thank goodness or opera would just turn up its toes and die.

Just a couple of points - Modern orchestras are tuning higher and higher to get a brighter sound and this puts a great strain on modern singers - read more here.

Also physical demands on modern singers are infinitely greater - moving, dancing, crawling, lying, even hanging upside down. It must be so much harder to concentrate on singing technique at all times.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Natalie:* That's a good point about the modern orchestras. When you consider that, it's a wonder modern singers are heard as well as they are.

Regarding the physical positions modern singers are often asked to assume: in a way it's easier to sing lying down, because then you have the diaphragmatic muscle at its lowest point and the voice is emitted more easily. On the other hand, I think it's harder to "support the voice" while lying down.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It seems nobody is able to tell which opera houses do it and which don't. The "problem" seems to be ideological and not pragmatic.

Obviously pop music-style amplification is wrong for opera. But I do wonder what could be achieved by "tasteful" amplification using state-of-the-art technology and acoustical science.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> I'm a bit puzzled by the opinions that opera singers today are not taught to project their voices. I've studied singing and have read a good deal about it, and it's my understanding that correct, classical voice training _necessarily entails projection _ -- which is not about "getting your voice out there" so much as it is about creating your own resonance (by directing the voice into the hollow cavities of the face) so that you are, in a sense, "self-amplified."


fair enough, I defer to your knowledge, however, in my live opera experience there have been times when quite obviously some singers could be heard less than others. In fact, when I went to see Hippolyte et Aricie this August past, the only one whom I could constantly hear without any issues was Sarah Connolly. I wonder, why is that? (allowing for some staging obstacles, such as when some singers were inside a fridge). I will grant to you that I still have to adjust to the general MUCH lower decibel levels of orchestra playing and opera singing after years of rock concerts


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

This was a big incident at Teatro Real, a few years ago, during a performance of _Andrea Chenier_, when the audience stop the performance shouting "shame!", "you are killing Opera", because there was amplification of the voices.

Fiorenza Cedolins tried to save the day, and finally they started the performance again, without amplification. The official explanation was basically that there was a mistake and the microphones were connected to the house amplification system, instead of just used for recording. However, Marcelo Alvarez, that was singing Chenier with audible problems in his voice, retired at the intermission and was replaced by his cover.

I was at the theater that day, and many people were really, really angry. Personally, I do think this was a honest mistake, and nothing else, but the incident gives you an example of what some audiences think about amplification in 19th century opera performance. However, operas like _Ainadamar_ were staged at Teatro Real, with amplification, and nobody paid notice, as it was something done with the composer's agreement.






Personally, I think operatic singing is a treasure of Western Civilization, a cherished part of our musical heritage, and must be preserved at all costs. Sure, it's difficult to transmit your voice over an Straussian orchestra of 110 instruments, especially if the conductor doesn't take care of blending the right way the instruments and the vocals, but this is the singer's trade. If you are an opera singer, this is what you need to do. If you can't, it's time to look for another job. Or for another type of pieces. You can have the right voice size and projection abilities for singing Handel at Halle, but maybe not for singing Strauss at the MET.

On the other hand, I have listened to a lot of 20th and 21st century opera, and for sure some of these pieces use the amplified voice. And I'm perfectly happy with this. Just evolution of the genre: some composers will use only operatic voice, others only amplified voice, others sometimes operatic, sometimes amplified.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

deggial said:


> fair enough, I defer to your knowledge, however, in my live opera experience there have been times when quite obviously some singers could be heard less than others. In fact, when I went to see Hippolyte et Aricie this August past, the only one whom I could constantly hear without any issues was Sarah Connolly. I wonder, why is that? (allowing for some staging obstacles, such as when some singers were inside a fridge). I will grant to you that I still have to adjust to the general MUCH lower decibel levels of orchestra playing and opera singing after years of rock concerts


It would be hard for me to say, not having heard the performance. It might have been the seat you were sitting in. Or Sarah Connolly could have an unusually big voice for that repertoire (I'm not familiar with her at all). I don't deny that some singers have voices that are better heard "close to," while others have voices that seem to go right out to you. I've never heard Dmitri Hvorostovsky live, but I'd venture to say he's in the first category; it's a warm and rounded sound but not a "pointed," or "cutting" one. Theoretically, he could probably get a bigger sound by putting his voice more "forward in the mask" -- but then, there could be physiological reasons why he can't do this and why it's better for him to sing the way he does. Every singer's physical make-up is different; a vocal placement that makes sense for one singer might not be comfortable for another.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

thank you for your further explanation 

I didn't have any issues with Strauss from a similarly positioned seat (far from the best in the house) but Rameau was different. I'm using Hippolyte et Aricie as an example here because to me this was an extreme instance of straining to properly hear most of the singers. Sarah Connolly is mostly heard in Baroque (you know, she's THE Giulio Cesare) and quite possibly has a bigger voice than other Baroque singers. This was my first time hearing her live, as well as seeing Baroque opera live so there's nothing for me to compare the experience against.

btw, I will most likely hear Hvorostovsky next year in La Traviata and I will try to look for what you're saying, as far as my listening skills permit.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Sometimes singers just take on roles that are too heavy for them, Hvorostovsky is a lyric baritone, but he is now trying to sing verdi, which his voice is not suited to since the orchestra is just too loud for him to sing over, hence I suspect there are some tricks going on to help his projection; sometimes houses place mikes on the stage and various points to catch the voices from a comfortable distance.

I am leaning towards applauding singers for going out of their comfort zones, Jonas Kaufmann for example is a very clever singer, though I don't find his current 'dramatic' voice beautiful, but in some cases I think perhaps you should stick to what you're best at. Good example is Alagna getting booed off the stage when he tried to sing Radames. For this reason I think Kaufmann should at most sing the spinto roles and not go any heavier. God forbid he sing Tristan or Siegfried live, though I'm sure many would love a recording.

People are sometimes a little foggy on their understanding of what is a truly projective, dramatic voice. So I would give the example of Achille Braschi, a tremendously underrated singer:






Other obvious examples are Lauritz Melchior and Mario del Monaco.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Jobis said:


> People are sometimes a little foggy on their understanding of what is a truly projective, dramatic voice. So I would give the example of Achille Braschi, a tremendously underrated singer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, he's loud, I'll give you that - you'd certainly be able to hear him over the orchestra. But this kind of singing bores me, and the long note seems to me to be just preening. I know it's partly the aria, but I prefer something a little more nuanced.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ maybe you can hear him a little _too_ well over the orchestra, shouldn't there be more blending between the two? might be the recording, but it sounds like everybody is shouting.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

schigolch said:


> This was a big incident at Teatro Real, a few years ago, during a performance of _Andrea Chenier_, when the audience stop the performance shouting "shame!", "you are killing Opera", because there was amplification of the voices.
> 
> Fiorenza Cedolins tried to save the day, and finally they started the performance again, without amplification. The official explanation was basically that there was a mistake and the microphones were connected to the house amplification system, instead of just used for recording. However, Marcelo Alvarez, that was singing Chenier with audible problems in his voice, retired at the intermission and was replaced by his cover.
> 
> ...


That track was actually painful to listen to. What a pity. The Teatro probably tried to amplify in imitation of other opera houses, but they unsteadily overplayed their hand and made it blatantly obvious. More miking than in hip-hop recordings.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Jobis said:


> Hvorostovsky is a lyric baritone, but he is now trying to sing verdi, which his voice is not suited to since the orchestra is just too loud for him to sing over


And you really belive THAT is his problem? Sorry, there are no loud orchestral parts in _Il balen del suo sorriso_ and yet this is the aria that displays his inability to sing Verdi. Similiarly, the duet between Germont and Violetta is far from loud. Compared to Onegin - role in which he excells, there are no obstacles of this nature in none of Verdi roles he undertook. So I'd say you got this particular case all wrong.

(in what you write about Kaufmann I find things untrue as well but I'm not going to elaborate on that one)


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Revenant said:


> That track was actually painful to listen to. What a pity. The Teatro probably tried to amplify in imitation of other opera houses, but they unsteadily overplayed their hand and made it blatantly obvious. More miking than in hip-hop recordings.


Wow, yes. It sounds as though you are standing right next to the singers, with the orchestra in another room. I can see why people were upset. It's awful. It's either an honest mistake, because it's so bad, or it's some serious engineering mis-judgement.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Maybe it's a generational thing, but there are some singers from the past who obviously had huge, "truly projective, dramatic voices" that I simply can't get excited about. I don't say for a minute that these weren't great singers; I just say that their approach doesn't appeal to me. One example is Ettore Bastiannini, whose singing as Germont on the famous La Scala TRAVIATA with Callas actually hurts my ears. Now, I think this is partly due to the harsh, monaural nature of the recording; but I also feel strongly that if I'd heard his Germont live I would have found it overly loud throughout and lacking in softness and nuance. I have similar feelings about Mario del Monaco in the recordings of him I've heard. And I can't say that the "Di quella pira" recording above appealed to me, either; again it's probably a matter of personal taste, but to me it sounded closer to shouting than singing.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

De Luca and Tito Schipa had rather small voices but great projection and had full, top-tier careers. Schipa was unbelievably popular in his heyday (1918-1935 or thereabouts), and starred in many Italian films.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Bellinilover said:


> Maybe it's a generational thing, but there are some singers from the past who obviously had huge, "truly projective, dramatic voices" that I simply can't get excited about. I don't say for a minute that these weren't great singers; I just say that their approach doesn't appeal to me. One example is Ettore Bastiannini, whose singing as Germont on the famous La Scala TRAVIATA with Callas actually hurts my ears. Now, I think this is partly due to the harsh, monaural nature of the recording; but I also feel strongly that if I'd heard his Germont live I would have found it overly loud throughout and lacking in softness and nuance. I have similar feelings about Mario del Monaco in the recordings of him I've heard. And I can't say that the "Di quella pira" recording above appealed to me, either; again it's probably a matter of personal taste, but to me it sounded closer to shouting than singing.


Well, certainly it's not a generational thing. 

Some contemporary reviewers did find Mr. Bastianini's approach to Germont père as 'lacking in softness and nuance', while others were harsh on Mr. del Monaco's 'shouting' (though perhaps not exactly in the Pira, but rather in other roles).


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Aramis said:


> And you really belive THAT is his problem? Sorry, there are no loud orchestral parts in _Il balen del suo sorriso_ and yet this is the aria that displays his inability to sing Verdi. Similiarly, the duet between Germont and Violetta is far from loud. Compared to Onegin - role in which he excells, there are no obstacles of this nature in none of Verdi roles he undertook. So I'd say you got this particular case all wrong.
> 
> (in what you write about Kaufmann I find things untrue as well but I'm not going to elaborate on that one)


Please do elaborate, I'd rather not remain ignorant.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

deggial said:


> ^ maybe you can hear him a little _too_ well over the orchestra, shouldn't there be more blending between the two? might be the recording, but it sounds like everybody is shouting.


I wanted an obvious example of the dramatic, projective voice, whether it is 'beautiful' is another question entirely!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

it's a good example! I guess I'm so up in lyric opera that dramatic voices tend to startle me


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Well, certainly it's not a generational thing.
> 
> Some contemporary reviewers did find Mr. Bastianini's approach to Germont père as 'lacking in softness and nuance', while others were harsh on Mr. del Monaco's 'shouting' (though perhaps not exactly in the Pira, but rather in other roles).


Yes, I remember now that in his 1970 book THE GRAND TRADITION, J.B. Steane was rather hard on what he felt to be del Monaco's lack of modulation. Not having the book in front of me, I'm going to try to quote his exact words: "We felt that if this was the indispensable dramatic tenor of our times, then our times had better learn a little stoicism or keep our hands on the volume control." Witty statements like that are among the reasons I love Mr. Steane's writing.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Jobis said:


> Please do elaborate, I'd rather not remain ignorant.


IS THAT IRONY


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> I have similar feelings about Mario del Monaco in the recordings of him I've heard.


Have you heard many? There are some unfortunate ones where the impression is plain right (like his _Rigoletto_). But MdM can sometimes surprise you, he can be nuanced and subtle. Though not in a "shy, sensitivie boy" kind of way.

Tell me if this is "shouting":


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

I could only find selections of a Forza recording with del Monaco (I've been trying to get the complete version on cd for years) and it's one of the best Forza numbers I've heard. I also like his Otello and Andrea Chenier. In some opera roles, well, his interpretation simply "worked", at least for me.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Revenant said:


> (I've been trying to get the complete version on cd for years)


And how on Earth is that possible if even typing it now out of curiosity on Amazon, I have found some available: http://www.amazon.com/Forza-Del-Des...81274237&sr=1-1&keywords=tebaldi+monaco+forza


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Aramis said:


> And how on Earth is that possible if even typing it now out of curiosity on Amazon, I have found some available: http://www.amazon.com/Forza-Del-Des...81274237&sr=1-1&keywords=tebaldi+monaco+forza


It's possible because after several years of searching for it, I stopped looking before this cd version was issued in 2007. Now, with age I've become a bit lazy and such exertions tend to tire me. So I just posted that provocative disclosure here to elicit just such a post as yours. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now I can finally order the complete version. I am elated.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Aramis said:


> IS THAT IRONY


No I was being sincere, just because its the internet doesn't mean everyone is a sarcastic dick-head.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Revenant said:


> I could only find selections of a Forza recording with del Monaco (I've been trying to get the complete version on cd for years) and it's one of the best Forza numbers I've heard. I also like his Otello and Andrea Chenier. In some opera roles, well, his interpretation simply "worked", at least for me.


I remember J.B. Steane in _The Grand Tradition_ (sorry to keep bringing it up, but I love that book!) praised Del Monaco's nuanced version of "O tu che in seno" from _Forza del Destino_. He wrote that if all that was left of Del Monaco was that recording and reports of his triumphs in the world's opera houses, his would be a "name to reckon with" (or something like that).


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Aramis said:


> Have you heard many? There are some unfortunate ones where the impression is plain right (like his _Rigoletto_). But MdM can sometimes surprise you, he can be nuanced and subtle. Though not in a "shy, sensitivie boy" kind of way.
> 
> Tell me if this is "shouting":


That was quite charming, actually. Thanks.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> That was quite charming, actually. Thanks.







del Monaco could be very beautiful and charming when he wanted to


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

At this point it seems a bit OP to return to the original question, but what the heck ... :lol:

I probably differ from most people here, I don't think whether it's miked or not has diddley squat to do with whether it's opera. Traviata is Traviata whether it's miked or not; it will always be opera. Fiddler on the Roof is Fiddler on the Roof whether it's miked or not; it will always be a musical. If the Met wants to mike its singers to create a better impression overall, go for it. I'm not going to complain; I want the best impression I can get. That's what I'm there for.

Now, defining opera is as far beyond me as it is beyond anyone else; you can tell from the way people struggle with it that it's an impossible task. But I don't think microphones have anything to do with it. I think maybe if you start from the idea that you're unifying a musical tradition that used to be pop but is so no longer, with dance and drama in a single theatrical experience, to try to achieve the best possible theatrical experience; I think you're probably headed in the right direction there.

Well, shoot. That wasn't really the original question either, was it! Ah well... do we need a thread on defining opera?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

but it's the voice. I want operatic singing to stay operatic singing, which includes being an acoustic experience. It's one thing to use mics for recording a performance and another thing to use mics to help a singer out, so to speak. A singer should be able to sing to standards without technological help.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

deggial said:


> but it's the voice. I want operatic singing to stay operatic singing, which includes being an acoustic experience. It's one thing to use mics for recording a performance and another thing to use mics to help a singer out, so to speak. A singer should be able to sing to standards without technological help.


This is really the problem.

I don't know if anyone wants opera to turn into Broadway, the art of opera singing has been refined for over a hundred years, introducing microphones into the equation seems rather like a cop-out, real projective voices will go unnoticed whilst small beautiful voices take over. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but opera will no longer be an acoustic art form.

Maybe some conductors should arrange stripped down orchestrations of the grand operas, allowing the smaller voices to be unmiked and still heard. Perhaps that is more of an insult to the composer than using mikes, but at least its a real live sound.

Or get the orchestra to play from the back room? :lol:


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

I still think different size auditoriums is the way to go. Handel or Monteverdi in a 3000+ seater is weird anyway.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

deggial said:


> but it's the voice. I want operatic singing to stay operatic singing, which includes being an acoustic experience. It's one thing to use mics for recording a performance and another thing to use mics to help a singer out, so to speak. A singer should be able to sing to standards without technological help.


Ideally, sure. But I can't help recalling a performance in which the guy with the smallest voice on stage was also the best singer by quite a ways. I think it was Andreas Scholl. He had made an artistic choice that he was not going to try to fill the hall; he was going to sing his best. I loved it. If he had been miked I think I would have loved it more, because I would have heard him better.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Jobis said:


> Or get the orchestra to play from the back room? :lol:


Or cover the pit, like Wagner did.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

I know, no one's arguing with me, but overnight I discovered I have more to say! woohoo. Champagne for everyone.

I've been reading Fortissimo, by William Murray (and enjoying it greatly), and on p. 17 there are a couple quotes by Gianna Rolandi, who when she said it was teaching voice to singers in the Lyric Opera of Chicago's student program. She said most pop singers never get out of their throats, and so their voice doesn't carry. 

I'm going to take that as gospel until I hear differently. And then a little later on on the same page, she says "All these mezzos fall in love with that darker sound" - meaning the one in the throat.

Now if you compare two versions of "Je crois entendre encore", the one by Gedda and the one by Alison Moyet (both are on Youtube; I always seem to screw up the links, so I'll just give references, sorry), I think the difference is clear. Gedda's is thrilling; Moyet's is gorgeous. Which ever you choose, you're losing something. I think an overproduced, all-mike opera could be an amazing experience, though, because it could put you inside the singer's voice and show you so much more of what's going on with it.

And I'm sure there are singers you wouldn't want that with, because inside their voices isn't such a pretty place; but wow, if they could all be like Moyet. Hampson, for one, would I think benefit greatly from such a scheme.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

guythegreg said:


> Hampson, for one, would I think benefit greatly from such a scheme.


If there's something that we can learn from opera, it's that baritones rarely benefit from their schemes.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> I think an overproduced, all-mike opera could be an amazing experience, though, because it could put you inside the singer's voice and show you so much more of what's going on with it.


but isn't that why we have studio recordings? you can hear the singers at their most polished. Any live performance, even by miked pop singers, will sound rougher (and livelier - I'm definitely for this more exciting sound. Pretty much all of my favourite singers sound more fun live - both pop and operatic. Although I concede that often times you have to sacrifice some of the beauty of the sound for this.)


----------



## badRomance (Nov 22, 2011)

deggial said:


> I still think different size auditoriums is the way to go. Handel or Monteverdi in a 3000+ seater is weird anyway.


I heard a Bach cantata in a giant auditorium with 3 singers per part. Awful. I thought it was just to milk as much ticket money as possible.


----------



## badRomance (Nov 22, 2011)

deggial said:


> Any live performance, even by miked pop singers, will sound rougher (and livelier - I'm definitely for this more exciting sound. Pretty much all of my favourite singers sound more fun live - both pop and operatic.


Definitely. Some of Dionne Warwick's live performances on youtube are better than her recordings. Better as in livelier and more distinctive and not homogenized by some control-freak sound editor. Same with Michael Jackson when he was a kid singing for the Jackson 5.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

badRomance said:


> I heard a Bach cantata in a giant auditorium with 3 singers per part. Awful. I thought it was just to milk as much ticket money as possible.


I'm sure it was! If I were filthy rich I'd just invite my favourite operatic teams to record live in my nicely sized but by no means huge (100 seats max) lounge.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

deggial said:


> but isn't that why we have studio recordings? you can hear the singers at their most polished. Any live performance, even by miked pop singers, will sound rougher (and livelier - I'm definitely for this more exciting sound. Pretty much all of my favourite singers sound more fun live - both pop and operatic. Although I concede that often times you have to sacrifice some of the beauty of the sound for this.)


Honestly, I don't know. It's a bit scary to me to think a studio engineer couldn't have got more beauty out of Cappuccilli's voice than he displayed in his recordings. I wouldn't call them ugly recordings - but they don't have anywhere near the character of Moyet. I suspect that if he had not felt he had to project his voice wouldn't have been nearly so generic. Same for Gedda. Well, I'm not going to accuse Gedda of sounding generic! But if he had not been projecting his voice would have sounded different, I think, and would have had much more character.

Secondly, hasn't the quality of studio recordings in general decreased greatly since the seventies and eighties? Record companies used to be able to make money on those recordings, and that money all seems to have gone away. Classic recordings seem to no longer be being made. Or is that more old fogeyism? I really don't know.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

guythegreg said:


> Classic recordings seem to no longer be being made. Or is that more old fogeyism? I really don't know.


Well there is this. Classic.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> Honestly, I don't know. It's a bit scary to me to think a studio engineer couldn't have got more beauty out of Cappuccilli's voice than he displayed in his recordings. I wouldn't call them ugly recordings - but they don't have anywhere near the character of Moyet. I suspect that if he had not felt he had to project his voice wouldn't have been nearly so generic. Same for Gedda. Well, I'm not going to accuse Gedda of sounding generic! But if he had not been projecting his voice would have sounded different, I think, and would have had much more character.


there are many issues with a singer's sound on a CD which are not always the fault of the engineer, such as some voices not lending themselves well to being recorded, some singers feeling weird about singing without a physical audience or a voice not being fit for a particular role, for whatever reason. I don't know enough about singing to go on more but you see where I am getting.



guythegreg said:


> Secondly, hasn't the quality of studio recordings in general decreased greatly since the seventies and eighties? Record companies used to be able to make money on those recordings, and that money all seems to have gone away. Classic recordings seem to no longer be being made. Or is that more old fogeyism? I really don't know.


studio recordings - there's definitely less of them being made, although I can't say they're of less quality. I think there is a link here with the rise of the opera DVD. There's no point in having a good looking star who can act as well as sing if you don't put him or her in a wacky or sumptuous video production. So companies kill two birds with one stone: put out a recording of a video performance and save on money and logistics of getting together an orchestra and a team of singers, plus studio time and recording engineers specifically for a CD that might sell a lot less.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

deggial said:


> there are many issues with a singer's sound on a CD which are not always the fault of the engineer, such as some voices not lending themselves well to being recorded, some singers feeling weird about singing without a physical audience or a voice not being fit for a particular role, for whatever reason. I don't know enough about singing to go on more but you see where I am getting.


forgot to say that in the studio a singer will do a few out-takes. If he or she is the kind who thrives on the thrill of the moment, the more out-takes, the less excitement in the singing, even if technically the third or fourth take might be better.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Well there is this. Classic.


Not having heard that one, I'll have to defer to your judgment, for now!


----------



## Rackon (Apr 9, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> Not having heard that one, I'll have to defer to your judgment, for now!


I' m with Mama on this one. A truly superb recording, featuring most of the finest forces that can be gathered today in this repertoire. Stemme is excellent. Kaufmann is not just the best tenor now singing Florestan, his performance is one for the ages. Highly recommended.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Is it just me or are the performers getting smaller?

Where are the Joan Sutherland's with the big head and hungry-hungry-hippo jawlines? I thought that was necessary to get the job done. 
...sopranos seem to be getting smaller/prettier. I had just assumed that it was a marketing decision by opera companies (hence the weaker voices these days - or I'm imagining it).
Are they compensating with mics now?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ haha, there are still tall singers and/or with big chomps. Check out this *D'Oreste* and laugh at how Anja Harteros' Elettrazilla is about to gulp up Kozena's Idamante and pretty much everybody else in her wake.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

deggial said:


> ^ haha, there are still tall singers and/or with big chomps. Check out this *D'Oreste* and laugh at how Anja Harteros' Elettrazilla is about to gulp up Kozena's Idamante and pretty much everybody else in her wake.


Thanks for that. Too bad that I was distracted by the 'Lampshade Superfriends' standing at the back.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> Well there is this. Classic.


Respectfully disagree. This does not, imho, compare to Klemperer, Karajan, Furtwangler or Knappertsbusch.
Its a good, light version.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> Thanks for that. Too bad that I was distracted by the 'Lampshade Superfriends' standing at the back.


haha, indeed. That entire production is amusing/unnerving. I keep expecting somebody to fall into the orchestra pit. If I were the director I'd have had her throw herself in instead of threatening to use that knife to off herself.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> Is it just me or are the performers getting smaller?
> 
> Where are the Joan Sutherland's with the big head and hungry-hungry-hippo jawlines? I thought that was necessary to get the job done.
> ...sopranos seem to be getting smaller/prettier. I had just assumed that it was a marketing decision by opera companies (hence the weaker voices these days - or I'm imagining it).
> Are they compensating with mics now?


I have done a visual study of the great dramatic sopranos and they ALL have strong jawlines and faces that are wide in the mask area. Just to name a few, Nilsson, Sutherland, Tebaldi, W. Meier, G.Jones, E. Marton, D. Voigt, A. Varnay, J. Norman, L. Rysanek, Callas, Ponselle, E. Turner, Dimitrova, Flagstad, H. Behrens, L. Price, Traubel, A. Marc, Milanov, M. Zschau, Bumbry, Verrett, V. Urmana.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I have done a visual study of the great dramatic sopranos and they ALL have strong jawlines and faces that are wide in the mask area. Just to name a few, Nilsson, Sutherland, Tebaldi, W. Meier, G.Jones, E. Marton, D. Voigt, A. Varnay, J. Norman, L. Rysanek, Callas, Ponselle, E. Turner, Dimitrova, Flagstad, H. Behrens, L. Price, Traubel, A. Marc, Milanov, M. Zschau, Bumbry, Verrett, V. Urmana.


Also some mezzos and contraltos, like Sarah Connolly and Kathleen Ferrier.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Revenant said:


> Also some mezzos and contraltos, like Sarah Connolly and Kathleen Ferrier.


ssssss
And Ridge Forrester


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

guythegreg said:


> At this point it seems a bit OP to return to the original question, but what the heck ... :lol:
> 
> I probably differ from most people here, I don't think whether it's miked or not has diddley squat to do with whether it's opera. Traviata is Traviata whether it's miked or not; it will always be opera. Fiddler on the Roof is Fiddler on the Roof whether it's miked or not; it will always be a musical. If the Met wants to mike its singers to create a better impression overall, go for it. I'm not going to complain; I want the best impression I can get. That's what I'm there for.
> 
> ...


This makes me a little bit sad. A few years later, is opera singers using mics happening more, less, or not at all? & how does the opera going public feel about it?


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

In our local performance hall mics are used to help carry the voices from the heavily acoustic deadened (curtains, drapes, etc) stage area into the auditorium. More of a 'presence' projection to help the voice reach the back row seats as opposed to out and out loud and unnecessary amplification.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Krummhorn said:


> In our local performance hall mics are used to help carry the voices from the heavily acoustic deadened (curtains, drapes, etc) stage area into the auditorium. More of a 'presence' projection to help the voice reach the back row seats as opposed to out and out loud and unnecessary amplification.


Interesting! Is it noticeable? Is the audience aware?


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

I really don't think microphones are widespread. I go to at least 30 different venues in many countries every year and I don't get the feeling of amplification, i.e. Royal Opera House, La Scala etc. It's about time someone provided proof.

Let's be careful not to confuse miking for recording (famously the Met's Lepage Ring with its excellent voice quality) plus speakers being used for sound effects and offstage instruments.

I want to (and feel I do) hear the actual voices in any opera house, as it isn't an opera house if the voices can't project.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

I would go so far as to say it isn't Opera if its miked.

By contrast you have to get down to te smallest theatres in London to day, to hear muscials where they don't use microphones. I've seen professional productins an auditorium of 200 people where they used head mikes. The smaller the theatre the more obvious they are.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Bonetan said:


> Interesting! Is it noticeable? Is the audience aware?


When properly mixed by a competent audio engineer, it is not noticeable at all. The object is to enhance the sound into the auditorium, not amplify it per se.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The big inroad into the opera world of this phenomenon were the Three Tenors Concerts, which were held at sporting arenas. That to me is not opera. Popera.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

deggial said:


> I'm uncomfortable with miking because I wouldn't want amplification to become the norm with operatic singing - although I like small but very beautiful voices. Projection is a skill that should be learned, it adds to the performance but if you've got a small voice there might be only so much you can do. On the other hand, opera houses have become larger over time and that's not necessary a good thing either. Maybe Mozart and Baroque should be performed in different (smaller) venues than Verdi, Wagner and so on.* It is weird/confusing to notice that some singers perform miked whilst others in the same production don't.*


While watching the Met HD broadcast of _Nabucco_ last season one can easily notice that _Placido Domingo_ was clearly unamplified unlike the rest of the cast (Monastyrska, Barton etc). His voice varied depending on where he was standing on that huge set and still sounded enormous like the real Dramatic Tenor he is (now "baritone" though). The others were heard a lot more clearly and "closely" because they were all obviously miked. That's an amazing witness to the difference between great singing/voices from the past, and today's mediocrity.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> While watching the Met HD broadcast of _Nabucco_ last season one can easily notice that _Placido Domingo_ was clearly unamplified unlike the rest of the cast (Monastyrska, Barton etc). His voice varied depending on where he was standing on that huge set and still sounded enormous like the real Dramatic Tenor he is (now "baritone" though). The others were heard a lot more clearly and "closely" because they were all obviously miked. That's an amazing witness to the difference between great singing/voices from the past, and today's mediocrity.


Nothing beats the " good old days" hey.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I don't think this is a microphone and nobody else in this performance has a microphone, but what is it?










It looks like it is woven through his skin and his ear. Some kind of medical device?

BTW, that is Massimo la Guardia playing Nick in La Fanciulla del West on this DVD (a good one too!).


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I don't think this is a microphone and nobody else in this performance has a microphone, but what is it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is a microphone and they are used frequently in musical theatre.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Well there is this. Classic.


I have this recording and certainly wouldn't call it 'classic'


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> Is it just me or are the performers getting smaller?
> 
> Where are the Joan Sutherland's with the big head and hungry-hungry-hippo jawlines? I thought that was necessary to get the job done.
> ...sopranos seem to be getting smaller/prettier. I had just assumed that it was a marketing decision by opera companies (hence the weaker voices these days - or I'm imagining it).
> Are they compensating with mics now?


One of the problems opera companies face is the advent of HD broadcasting. Whereas at one time it was possible to hide a singer's age / size somewhat in the theatre, that is impossible with HD close-ups. So the whole thing becomes somewhat ridiculous. I was a Trovatore from ROH where the Manrico (admittedly a substitute) looked older than me! So in addition to a beautiful voice we now have the problem that the singer has to look the part far more than at one time.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> It is a microphone and they are used frequently in musical theatre.


Indeed and in talk shows also


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Post under discussion.



Barbebleu said:


> It is a microphone and they are used frequently in musical theatre.


Well that is a weak point to an otherwise great opera production. So they wanted this guy that badly that they let him use a microphone? Couldn't they find someone else to do this part? And why does it look like it is going through his skin?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Jobis said:


> You may or may not know it, but a large number of opera houses world-wide have been catering to smaller voiced singers with sophisticated microphones and sound systems. I wonder what other opera fans think of this?
> 
> Personally even though I love the sound of peter mattei, for example, I wouldn't consider him a true opera singer since he lacks the projection needed to be heard in a big house.
> 
> ...


What you seem to be suggesting is that these (and perhaps even other) singers are surreptitiously using mics. That would be cheating and I could almost guarantee that it would be forbidden at the Metropolitan Opera (unless it had to do with the HD performances and even then it isn't body mics.). They'd never sing there again if they were caught doing such a sneaky thing.
Not at the MET!!!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Nobody would be surreptitiously using a mic in the theatre. It would be done with the co-operation of the the producer, the costume designer, the dresser, the conductor and the sound engineer at the very least!:lol:

Do most theatres not use overhead omnidirectional microphone systems nowadays?


----------



## Annied (Apr 27, 2017)

Bellinilover said:


> It would be hard for me to say, not having heard the performance. *It might have been the seat you were sitting in.* Or Sarah Connolly could have an unusually big voice for that repertoire (I'm not familiar with her at all). I don't deny that some singers have voices that are better heard "close to," while others have voices that seem to go right out to you. I've never heard Dmitri Hvorostovsky live, but I'd venture to say he's in the first category; it's a warm and rounded sound but not a "pointed," or "cutting" one. Theoretically, he could probably get a bigger sound by putting his voice more "forward in the mask" -- but then, there could be physiological reasons why he can't do this and why it's better for him to sing the way he does. Every singer's physical make-up is different; a vocal placement that makes sense for one singer might not be comfortable for another.


I think this can make a big difference. I saw "Madama Butterfly" at Munich from the front stalls and there was clearly no amplification. Last autumn I was at the Munich "Tosca", almost up in oxygen mask country. When the singers were at full throttle, it really sounded as though they were being amplified, once or twice overamplified as the sound really seemed to swell as it travelled, but during the quieter moments it was very clear that that it was all natural. It was just the acoustic effect of where I was sitting. (For the first and last time!)


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Last month we attended a Royal Opera co production of Ulysses at the Roundhouse. Afterwards I read that amplification had been used to overcome some difficulties with the venue. I hadn't noticed it either audibly or visually. I'd seen and admired one of the singer's in a small hall only the month before and was equally impressed. Also I'm very familiar with milking in Musical Theatre. Small voices being boosted is apparent and I would go as far as saying they tend to have a similar familiar sound.

Overall I don't know quite what to think but I the discovery left me feeling that a line had been crossed.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> Is it just me or are the performers getting smaller?
> 
> Where are the Joan Sutherland's with the big head and hungry-hungry-hippo jawlines? I thought that was necessary to get the job done.
> ...sopranos seem to be getting smaller/prettier. I had just assumed that it was a marketing decision by opera companies (hence the weaker voices these days - or I'm imagining it).
> Are they compensating with mics now?


Well, clearly the Sutherlands of the world have always been exceptions; _most_ women are not that tall and big boned.

It's not necessarily the biggest voices that come from the biggest individuals. Susan Graham is 6'0"; I've heard her live, and her voice is penetrating but not huge. By contrast, Renata Scotto and Mirella Freni both sang heavy Italian roles, and neither are tall (5'4", I believe). Robert Merrill seems to have had a big middle register, but he was not a big man. Samuel Ramey is tall yet lean. So, no, a Sutherland or Terfel-like physical stature wouldn't seem to be a requirement.


----------

