# Covering the male passaggio (Luciano Pavarotti and Joseph Shore)



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Proper release into the upper range of the male voice is required to maintain the intensity of chest voice participation without the strain of carrying it up too far. Here we have two first rate singers explaining how it is done and the importance of maintaining an elegant, dark sound up high rather than a white, "splat!" sound that gives the impression that one is being strangled.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Pavarotti had a technique that came very naturally to him and I'm not sure I would take his instruction on 'how' to sing. What does he mean by 'covering'? I've heard it used to mean darkening the sound and also to mean changing the pronunciation of the vowel so it becomes more closed. I think the key here is to undertake exercises that work both muscle groups on the high notes, but in particular the head voice ones. Once the head voice muscle group is well developed and the vowels are pure (that is they are the five Italian vowels sung in the singers natural voice) then the high notes are just there without having to think about covering.

I prefer how Shore puts it.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Pavarotti had a technique that came very naturally to him and I'm not sure I would take his instruction on 'how' to sing. What does he mean by 'covering'? I've heard it used to mean darkening the sound and also to mean changing the pronunciation of the vowel so it becomes more closed.


I never got far enough as a young tenor to worry about "covering." But in terms of sound I can hear, say, Caruso doing it and Di Stefano not doing it. I can also hear it in some baritones of the golden age, with great singers having the skill to play with covering and opening the tone.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I never got far enough as a young tenor to worry about "covering." But in terms of sound I can hear, say, Caruso doing it and Di Stefano not doing it. I can also hear it in some baritones of the golden age, with great singers having the skill to play with covering and opening the tone.


When I first heard Tito Ruffo, my first thought was "nice voice, but he sounds rough around the edges because he carries the chest voice too high without covering. Come to find out via a video from Joseph Shore (actually, it might be the one I posted) that Ruffo cited singing too many uncovered E4s as a primary reason for his vocal decline.

When I first started singing, I over-covered because I thought I was a bass and started on D4. As this resulted in a muffled, ingolata sound, I eventually moved up to covering on Eb4 or E4 and the ease and quality seemed to improve. Imo, this is generally the best place for true baritones to begin covering the vowels. Perhaps F4 for bigger tenor voices and F#4 for lighter tenor voices


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Pavarotti had a technique that came very naturally to him and I'm not sure I would take his instruction on 'how' to sing. What does he mean by 'covering'? I've heard it used to mean darkening the sound and also to mean changing the pronunciation of the vowel so it becomes more closed. I think the key here is to undertake exercises that work both muscle groups on the high notes, but in particular the head voice ones. Once the head voice muscle group is well developed and the vowels are pure (that is they are the five Italian vowels sung in the singers natural voice) then the high notes are just there without having to think about covering.
> I prefer how Shore puts it.


Pavarotti might not be the best person to teach how to cover, but at the very least, he provides an extremely good example of what it's supposed to sound like vs what most singers do. Even then, he says in another interview with Bonynge, Sutherland and Horne "it takes probably 10 years to make sound like that", so I think it's safe to say he probably didn't just wake up and pick that up without at least a little deliberate practice.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

This thread is depressing, and now I realize why I didn't get any participation at all in my thread about comparing techniques. People here don't know anything about technique. 

1. Every single male classical singer covers. There are no exceptions. Covered notes are unmissable. They involve a weakening of the fundamental frequency, an increase in CT activation, and concomitant vowel modifications necessitated by the different vocal configuration and harmonic tuning. Professionals do not do this below the secondo passaggio unless something is going seriously wrong.

2. Shore's voice declined more rapidly and brutally than Ruffo's did. Ruffo is one of the greatest baritones ever to live, and nobody today knows Shore. He had an opinion on every great baritone and why they were worse than him, but he understood little about actual technique, and he wobbled through most of his stage roles (while also occasionally producing enormous, beautiful high notes). He blamed his horrific decline and unlistenable wobble on heart/lung disease, but those simply do not cause wobbles. Tamagno and Bjorling had such bad cardiac health that they died young, but never did their voices do anything like what his did the last quarter-century of his life. Wobbling is a muscular deficiency. Airflow problems involve frequent pauses for air, not woofy, wobbly singing. He was sometimes great when younger, but overall extremely inconsistent.

3. We do not know why some voices decline more rapidly than others. Opening up high is often mentioned, but I see no reason to believe this. Did Tibbett open up high? Sometimes. Did he decline early? Yes. Ruffo? Same. Di Stefano? Same. Did Schlusnus open up high? Absolutely all the time. Did he decline early? No, the opposite. Did Battistini open up high? All the time, and up to F sometimes. Did he decline early? No, the opposite. Do all tenors who sing Italian rep occasionally open their G's? Yes, pretty much all of them. 

Is it frequency of singing? Is it smoking and drinking? Shouting in free time? We really don't know. Some decline faster than we expect. Some decline more slowly than we expect (Domingo). I do have my own theory, but I really don't know. I saw in an old TIO video that they blamed Callas's decline on piano/head-voice abuse, and it struck a chord with me. In an era where stars did not decline like nowadays, the early declines of Fleta, de Muro Lomanto, McCormack, and Lemeshev struck me as odd. What did they all have in common? Absurdly beautiful mezze voci that they used whenever they could. How about Aleksandr Pirogov and John O'Sullivan? They weren't pianissimo fiends, but they did have a ton of headvoice in their brilliant high notes...meanwhile, guys who just decided to sing loudly the second halves of their careers like Caruso and Zenatello sounded fresh till the day they died.

Now, there are definitely possible counterexamples (Battistini, Schlusnus, Villabella), but it's still the best theory I've got, and when you look at modern singers, they are distinguished by two things: early wobbles, and excessive use of head voice. So what explains Tibbett, Ruffo, and Di Stefano? Well, we don't know. Di Stefano had ******* horrible technique, so I'm fine blaming it on that. I can't listen to him at any age. Sounds like an old man shouting when he sings up high. Ruffo definitely pushed his voice, and his vibrato went haywire above the passaggio. Is that why? Could be. Tibbett...I really don't know. He didn't decline nearly as suddenly or soon as Ruffo, and he sang in a lot of big productions. Too much loudness? Pushing? Reaching for high notes? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't think, however, that someone just listening to these singers in their primes would be able to consistently guess who would decline prematurely and who wouldn't. Too many exceptions.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Melchior had the most grueling career of all by far with 1000 Wagner roles but in his 60's he sounded essentially the same as he did in those early recordings with Leider in the early 30's. His power came 100% from his focus and not from vocal heft. He also smoked cigars very heavily which should have had a negative effect but apparently didn't. It is entirely possible that part of his agelessness was that he was a freak LOL.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

PaulFranz said:


> This thread is depressing, and now I realize why I didn't get any participation at all in my thread about comparing techniques. People here don't know anything about technique.
> 
> 1. Every single male classical singer covers. There are no exceptions. Covered notes are unmissable. They involve a weakening of the fundamental frequency, an increase in CT activation, and concomitant vowel modifications necessitated by the different vocal configuration and harmonic tuning. Professionals do not do this below the secondo passaggio unless something is going seriously wrong.


I'm still none the wiser as to what you mean by covering. The key question for me is whether it is something that the singer should do conciously (and therefore is something a singer should dedicate time to explicitly learning directly how to do) or whether it is an unconscious consequence of good singing and there's no need to directly do anything to achieve it or direct action to do it actually produces defects.



PaulFranz said:


> 3. We do not know why some voices decline more rapidly than others. Opening up high is often mentioned, but I see no reason to believe this. Did Tibbett open up high? Sometimes. Did he decline early? Yes. Ruffo? Same. Di Stefano? Same. Did Schlusnus open up high? Absolutely all the time. Did he decline early? No, the opposite. Did Battistini open up high? All the time, and up to F sometimes. Did he decline early? No, the opposite. Do all tenors who sing Italian rep occasionally open their G's? Yes, pretty much all of them.
> 
> Is it frequency of singing? Is it smoking and drinking? Shouting in free time? We really don't know. Some decline faster than we expect. Some decline more slowly than we expect (Domingo). I do have my own theory, but I really don't know. I saw in an old TIO video that they blamed Callas's decline on piano/head-voice abuse, and it struck a chord with me. In an era where stars did not decline like nowadays, the early declines of Fleta, de Muro Lomanto, McCormack, and Lemeshev struck me as odd. What did they all have in common? Absurdly beautiful mezze voci that they used whenever they could. How about Aleksandr Pirogov and John O'Sullivan? They weren't pianissimo fiends, but they did have a ton of headvoice in their brilliant high notes...meanwhile, guys who just decided to sing loudly the second halves of their careers like Caruso and Zenatello sounded fresh till the day they died.
> 
> Now, there are definitely possible counterexamples (Battistini, Schlusnus, Villabella), but it's still the best theory I've got, and when you look at modern singers, they are distinguished by two things: early wobbles, and excessive use of head voice. So what explains Tibbett, Ruffo, and Di Stefano? Well, we don't know. Di Stefano had ***** horrible technique, so I'm fine blaming it on that. I can't listen to him at any age. Sounds like an old man shouting when he sings up high. Ruffo definitely pushed his voice, and his vibrato went haywire above the passaggio. Is that why? Could be. Tibbett...I really don't know. He didn't decline nearly as suddenly or soon as Ruffo, and he sang in a lot of big productions. Too much loudness? Pushing? Reaching for high notes? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't think, however, that someone just listening to these singers in their primes would be able to consistently guess who would decline prematurely and who wouldn't. Too many exceptions.


This is a fascinating topic and your theory is worth exploring. It warrants a thread in its own right.

N.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I'm still none the wiser as to what you mean by covering. The key question for me is whether it is something that the singer should do conciously (and therefore is something a singer should dedicate time to explicitly learning directly how to do) or whether it is an unconscious consequence of good singing and there's no need to directly do anything to achieve it or direct action to do it actually produces defects.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







That is what we mean when we discuss covering. For most people, it must be explicitly taught, as male classical singing is impossible without it. As with any skill, some people are just naturals, and they can just do it on their own with no instruction, but most of us need help. It's part of why the phenomenon of the truly "untrained" classical singer is nigh on nonexistent.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

PaulFranz said:


> That is what we mean when we discuss covering. For most people, it must be explicitly taught, as male classical singing is impossible without it.


I'm still the none the wiser! Just because a component is necessary in singing doesn't mean that it needs to be taught _directly._ For example, the different muscle groups need to coordinate in particular ways, but singing lessons don't normally entail directly trying to move those muscles as the vocal system doesn't work like that. Instead, indirect methods are usually used, such as different combinations of vowels, dynamics and pitch which exercise the muscle groups to work together, but very few singers (if any) are thinking of the direct movements that the muscles are doing when they sing.

In the clip is Pavarotti really consciously resting his vocal chords? How is that possible? What I hear in his example is that he has added falsetto into the mix to produce coordinated head voice. (If covering is singing with head voice as well as chest voice, then yes that would make sense.) However, it's misleading to use the term 'covering' to mean that as some use it to mean distorting the vowel (which you can't escape from happening naturally if the placement is correct) and others use it to mean trying to place the vowel or the sound in a particular position which can lead to a less natural sound. Instead of trying to 'cover' or teaching directly to 'cover', I would concentrate on being able to sing the main five of the seven Italian vowel sounds in pure head voice until the vowels are pure and then ascend the scale in full voice adding head voice into the mix.

I'm not conscious or aware of covering and I have just over two octaves, I've never been taught to consciously cover. Before singing lessons I had no more than an octave, the extension of my range came about through use and combination of the registers.

Why do none of the 17th and 18th century teachers ever mention covering if it is necessary to learn it to sing?

N.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I'm still the none the wiser! Just because a component is necessary in singing doesn't mean that it needs to be taught _directly._ For example, the different muscle groups need to coordinate in particular ways, but singing lessons don't normally entail directly trying to move those muscles as the vocal system doesn't work like that. Instead, indirect methods are usually used, such as different combinations of vowels, dynamics and pitch which exercise the muscle groups to work together, but very few singers (if any) are thinking of the direct movements that the muscles are doing when they sing.
> 
> In the clip is Pavarotti really consciously resting his vocal chords? How is that possible? What I hear in his example is that he has added falsetto into the mix to produce coordinated head voice. (If covering is singing with head voice as well as chest voice, then yes that would make sense.) However, it's misleading to use the term 'covering' to mean that as some use it to mean distorting the vowel (which you can't escape from happening naturally if the placement is correct) and others use it to mean trying to place the vowel or the sound in a particular position which can lead to a less natural sound. Instead of trying to 'cover' or teaching directly to 'cover', I would concentrate on being able to sing the main five of the seven Italian vowel sounds in pure head voice until the vowels are pure and then ascend the scale in full voice adding head voice into the mix.
> 
> ...


I can only give you information. I can't understand it for you.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Conte said:


> Why do none of the 17th and 18th century teachers ever mention covering if it is necessary to learn it to sing?
> 
> N.


In an opera news article back in the 70's, Bergonzi spoke of the way they used to sing before the advent of the more powerful operatic sound. He was not giving a history, and I wasn't trying to put together a history, but he was clearly speaking of a culture in which the voice was allowed to blend into a mix and then falsetto: pretty much what I've always assumed the sound was before the more powerful approach found popularity in the late 19th century. The absence of covering in that approach sounds reasonable. 

You can make a sung sound without covering, you just cannot make the sung sound that we want to hear on the operatic stage today, without covering.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> . I don't think, however, that someone just listening to these singers in their primes would be able to consistently guess who would decline prematurely and who wouldn't. Too many exceptions.


I agree.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

ScottK said:


> In an opera news article back in the 70's, Bergonzi spoke of the way they used to sing before the advent of the more powerful operatic sound. He was not giving a history, and I wasn't trying to put together a history, but he was clearly speaking of a culture in which the voice was allowed to blend into a mix and then falsetto: pretty much what I've always assumed the sound was before the more powerful approach found popularity in the late 19th century. The absence of covering in that approach sounds reasonable.
> 
> You can make a sung sound without covering, you just cannot make the sung sound that we want to hear on the operatic stage today, without covering.


I'm not convinced that voices weren't powerful pre 1900, say. Contemporary accounts of Farinelli praise the power of his voice, comparing it to a trumpet. That said, there was a change when it came to singing high notes for tenors in 1825-35, it appears that high notes were sung in a coordinated falsetto and that changed to singing them in coordinated head voice (that's a voice with a healthy mix of falsetto and chest voice in the top of its range). Pavarotti in the example posted above demonstrates the difference between singing with chest voice only and adding falsetto into the mix to produce a head voice sound. Therefore I'm going to understand 'covering' as being just new terminology for what the great teachers of the 17th and 18th century described as meaning singing in head voice rather than chest voice alone.

I don't understand the purpose of replacing the old terminology with new descriptions that can cause confusion.

N.
N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

PaulFranz said:


> I ca
> 
> 
> I can only give you information. I can't understand it for you.


So you continue to refuse to explain exactly what is 'covering'. If you can't explain it, then it is without meaning. Perhaps I should produce a documentary film, "What is covering?" where I talk to various proponents of the modern school of singing and expose their 'woo' by just asking them to explain their approach to technique in a coherent way.

N.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Conte said:


> I'm not convinced that voices weren't powerful pre 1900, say. Contemporary accounts of Farinelli praise the power of his voice, comparing it to a trumpet.
> 
> Pavarotti in the example posted above demonstrates the difference between singing with chest voice only and adding falsetto into the mix to produce a head voice sound. Therefore I'm going to understand 'covering' as being just new terminology for what the great teachers of the 17th and 18th century described as meaning singing in head voice rather than chest voice alone.


But choosing Farinelli calls the question of power because the combination of power and beauty was supposed to be the calling card of the castratti...the voices of non- castrated voices did not have it to the same degree. And power was, to my understanding, the principal addition from that ....subtraction!

As for the Pavarotti example, you are saying that the cover he demonstrates adds falsetto. I'm assuming you're stating that confidently from a physiological understanding? Because he mentions vocal chords but does not use words like falsetto or head voice.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

ScottK said:


> But choosing Farinelli calls the question of power because the combination of power and beauty was supposed to be the calling card of the castratti...the voices of non- castrated voices did not have it to the same degree. And power was, to my understanding, the principal addition from that ....subtraction!
> 
> As for the Pavarotti example, you are saying that the cover he demonstrates adds falsetto. I'm assuming you're stating that confidently from a physiological understanding? Because he mentions vocal chords but does not use words like falsetto or head voice.


The main muscle groups attached to the vocal chords are the arytenoids and the crico-thyroids. I believe it's not possible to make a sound without both the groups absorbing some tension (by tension I mean being engaged or doing the work, NOT having a tense rather than a relaxed larynx), but usually one group absorbs more tension than the other. When a male singer sings falsetto then the crico-thyroids are absorbing almost all the tension and the arytenoids very little. In the examples above Pav first sings with the arytenoids abosrbing the majority of the tension and so his voice gets 'stuck' at some point. In the example which he calls 'covering' and where the voice sounds much better as he sings the phrase and ascends, the crico-thyroids absorb more of the tension and the arytenoids less. It doesn't sound like falsetto because the arytenoids are engaged more than when singing in falsetto, but the diffference between the two examples is the use of more of the muscle group that is used when singing falsetto. Pav may be totally unaware of what he is doing there, but calls it 'covering', just as I would have no idea I were 'covering' if I were to be singing the same and would call it 'adding falsetto into the mix' or 'going into coordinated head voice'. I say Potayto and Pav says Potarto, but no need to call the whole thing off!

Now, _some _teachers say that covering is changing the sound of the vowel when singing in the higher region of the voice (a becomes more of an o, i and o more of an u and e morphs into euh), hence my question about what is meant by covering here. (And just for the record, I'm not a fan of vowel distortion techniques, yes, the vowel changings character in the higher parts of the voice, but this is best left to happen naturally rather than trying to influence it.)

N.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Conte said:


> (And just for the record, I'm not a fan of vowel distortion techniques, yes, the vowel changings character in the higher parts of the voice, but this is best left to happen naturally rather than trying to influence it.)
> 
> N.


Do you think a DiStefano. to choose the most famous "non-coverer" is resisitng what his voice wants to do naturally, when he goes up without the alteration? real question!

I istened to Pavarotti again and I can definitely hear increased relaxation, greater resonance and beauty when he covers. As for adding falsetto into the mix....after a few listens,if the discussion did not bring that point up I would never have thought it just by observation. But I definitely hear him consciously altering the vowel.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

ScottK said:


> Do you think a DiStefano. to choose the most famous "non-coverer" is resisitng what his voice wants to do naturally, when he goes up without the alteration? real question!


So now I'm really confused! I thought all male singers covered (or do you mean that he claimed that he didn't cover, but actually did)? I've never said that voices sing correctly naturally and that correct high notes don't need to be taught. If you can't distinguish between being _directly _and _indirectly _taught something that's ok. Some people do have a nautral ability for operatic singing and pick up the technique relatively quickly whereas others need to do more work exercising the muscle groups. Those who take longer or who give up before reaching their potential don't usually end up with professional careers. If not covering sounds like Pavarotti in his first example that doesn't really sound like Di Stefano either. However, 'covering' is something you believe in, not me so I wouldn't know where to begin with your question.



ScottK said:


> I istened to Pavarotti again and I can definitely hear increased relaxation, greater resonance and beauty when he covers. As for adding falsetto into the mix....after a few listens,if the discussion did not bring that point up I would never have thought it just by observation. But I definitely hear him consciously altering the vowel.


So, we need to distinguish vocal _mechanisms_ that singers can control and vocal _symptoms _which result from the correct mechanisms being used. Beauty is subject and depends on the singers natural voice, a well trained voice won't necessarily be beautiful, but a singer singing well will be more beautiful than one who doesn't sing well. I think that's what you are hearing here. Beauty and resonance are symptoms of correct technique, most singers don't find it helpful to directly try and achieve them. Singers in the 18th and 19th century didn't work on beauty or resonance, but purity of vowel, pitch and dynamics (intonation was mroe highly regarded than today too). I too hear greater relaxation and that may result from him adding more tension in the first example because he is trying to sing badly there to make the point of his example. As for him consciously altering the vowel, I can hear that the vowel changes, but I can't claim to 'hear' what's going on inside his head.

N.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Conte said:


> So now I'm really confused! I thought all male singers covered (or do you mean that he claimed that he didn't cover, but actually did)? I've never said that voices sing correctly naturally and that correct high notes don't need to be taught. If you can't distinguish between being _directly _and _indirectly _taught something that's ok. Some people do have a nautral ability for operatic singing and pick up the technique relatively quickly whereas others need to do more work exercising the muscle groups. Those who take longer or who give up before reaching their potential don't usually end up with professional careers. If not covering sounds like Pavarotti in his first example that doesn't really sound like Di Stefano either. However, 'covering' is something you believe in, not me so I wouldn't know where to begin with your question.
> 
> 
> So, we need to distinguish vocal _mechanisms_ that singers can control and vocal _symptoms _which result from the correct mechanisms being used. Beauty is subject and depends on the singers natural voice, a well trained voice won't necessarily be beautiful, but a singer singing well will be more beautiful than one who doesn't sing well. I think that's what you are hearing here. Beauty and resonance are symptoms of correct technique, most singers don't find it helpful to directly try and achieve them. Singers in the 18th and 19th century didn't work on beauty or resonance, but purity of vowel, pitch and dynamics (intonation was mroe highly regarded than today too). I too hear greater relaxation and that may result from him adding more tension in the first example because he is trying to sing badly there to make the point of his example. As for him consciously altering the vowel, I can hear that the vowel changes, but I can't claim to 'hear' what's going on inside his head.
> ...


So Conte.....YOU'RE CONFUSED???.....it almost sounds like I've been speaking about a process and assuming we both were talking about the same process but in truth you were thinking of something quite different.

Forgive me backing up and reducing the word to its vocal meaning for me, but it feels like we're using it differently.

Covering to me, and without question to many of the people I've talked singing with over my lifetime, is completely what Luciano illustrates when he goes up ah...ah...ahhh the first time ("suspect a strangle") and then goes up *ah...ah...uhhhhh* the next time. * That act of changing ah to uhhh IS the covering. * 

DiStefano famously refused to make an adjustment like this above the break ( notice Pavarotti asked for an Fsharp) I'm not saying he never covered but open sound, "white" as Pavarotti says, is to me his downfall often.


----------

