# Developing Chest Voice in the Male Voice



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Might as well do the other side, because it is lacking too among today's singers. All good singers utilize a combination of chest voice muscles and head voice muscles, but females shift the balance further in favor of head voice the higher they go in their range, while males retain chest voice as the dominant mechanism from bottom to top.

As usual, we'll start with a video. Compare the light, whispery, "musical" singing with clear, full throated singing that could easily project to the back of any theatre. The modern tenor here sounds extremely hollow by comparison, as if you took a strong, hardy drink and poured in a bunch of water to dilute it. Note also that he doesn't know how to sing softly with proper technique. Dynamics are always _relative_ markings, and should not be taken to extremes at the expense of vocal production.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Now let's compare a well-trained lyric tenor with this so called "heldentenor". As you can see, the sound is bigger, no thinness, stays even and firm at the bottom.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Yes, I just Rick Roll'd you, go ahead and laugh. :lol:

....now that that's out of the way, seriously. If you ignore the Elvis-y, croon-y inflection, Rick Astley has a great chest voice. The main reason people laugh when they hear this song is because a scrawny 19-ish year old with a baby face opens his mouth and sounds way too manly for what people expect to be. Back in my high school choir days (when people are learning a lot of new musical terms and eager to throw them around incorrectly), my classmates all thought he was a "bass-baritone" when he is actually a tenor (bass-baritone doesn't sing pieces that easily go up to full voice Ab4 over a dozen times). Probably on the spinto/dramatic side, but we don't have to debate that. The point is that he is often mistaken for having a much deeper voice than his actual range because he sings with an open throat and doesn't hold back even on the highest notes. One of the reasons people come to operatic singing is because pop music wants everyone to sound like teenage boys, and when you get someone who sounds like a normal, mature man, it sounds funny and out of place. People are getting tired of that, which is a lot of people who used to use this song to prank people are turning around like "Wait...he's actually kinda good? Does he have any other work?"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Comparing other tenors with Klaus Florian "Rat Lohengrin" Vogt is child abuse. It certainly illustrates the poor fellow's lack of vocal development, but he is hardly representative of "the modern tenor."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Yes, I just Rick Roll'd you, go ahead and laugh. :lol:
> 
> ....now that that's out of the way, seriously. If you ignore the Elvis-y, croon-y inflection, Rick Astley has a great chest voice. The main reason people laugh when they hear this song is because a scrawny 19-ish year old with a baby face opens his mouth and sounds way too manly for what people expect to be. Back in my high school choir days (when people are learning a lot of new musical terms and eager to throw them around incorrectly), my classmates all thought he was a "bass-baritone" when he is actually a tenor (bass-baritone doesn't sing pieces that easily go up to full voice Ab4 over a dozen times). Probably on the spinto/dramatic side, but we don't have to debate that. The point is that he is often mistaken for having a much deeper voice than his actual range because he sings with an open throat and doesn't hold back even on the highest notes. One of the reasons people come to operatic singing is because pop music wants everyone to sound like teenage boys, and when you get someone who sounds like a normal, mature man, it sounds funny and out of place. People are getting tired of that, which is a lot of people who used to use this song to prank people are turning around like "Wait...he's actually kinda good? Does he have any other work?"


This guy is "way too manly" and "on the spinto/dramatic side"? Side of what?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Now let's move onto the lower voices. Russians have loved chest voice since basically forever, and is one of the few countries today that still produces male singers with good chest voice to this day. I will provide one

Boris Shtokolov this is a good example of how, even though chest voice is dominant, there is enough head voice release for the voice to be free and relaxed. He simultaneously sings with the resonance of a train running through a tunnel and the easy, sensitive vocal line of the soprano singing an art song. 





This guy isn't even an opera singer, but without changing anything to do with his technique, I'd happily hear him in any baritone role on the modern stage. Seriously, compare him to any of them singing today. Peter Mattei is a respectable singer, but other than him...we have no one in our corner. Seems odd right? Surely baritone isn't _that_ rare of a voice type to where we can hardly fine one. Well...it turns out we can, it's just that, for anyone of them who managed to develop even a hint of chest voice, they get pushed down a fach or two and told to sing as a bass-baritone or a bass (I've even seen _tenors_ being trained as bass-baritones. Utterly ridiculous).


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> This guy is "way too manly"


Yes, way too manly for pop music because he doesn't sing with a whiny teen kind of voice like 98% of pop singers.



> and "on the spinto/dramatic side"? Side of what?


spinto or dramatic tenor. Basically, he sits in a higher tessitura and easily pulls out a large number of high notes, but his voice has a lot more depth than a lighter tenor, so I'm pretty sure he would develop into something in that area. Anyway, I reiterate "but we don't need to debate that". Let's not get sidetracked.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Yes, I just Rick Roll'd you, go ahead and laugh. :lol:
> 
> ....now that that's out of the way, seriously. If you ignore the Elvis-y, croon-y inflection, Rick Astley has a great chest voice. The main reason people laugh when they hear this song is because a scrawny 19-ish year old with a baby face opens his mouth and sounds way too manly for what people expect to be. Back in my high school choir days (when people are learning a lot of new musical terms and eager to throw them around incorrectly), my classmates all thought he was a "bass-baritone" when he is actually a tenor (bass-baritone doesn't sing pieces that easily go up to full voice Ab4 over a dozen times). Probably on the spinto/dramatic side, but we don't have to debate that. The point is that he is often mistaken for having a much deeper voice than his actual range because he sings with an open throat and doesn't hold back even on the highest notes. One of the reasons people come to operatic singing is because pop music wants everyone to sound like teenage boys, and when you get someone who sounds like a normal, mature man, it sounds funny and out of place. People are getting tired of that, which is a lot of people who used to use this song to prank people are turning around like "Wait...he's actually kinda good? Does he have any other work?"


He had a great voice. Up till the 60's baritones were prominent in pop. They made a resurgence in 90's new wave and I loved it. It is one of the things that made Bowie stand out.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Might as well do the other side, because it is lacking too among today's singers. All good singers utilize a combination of chest voice muscles and head voice muscles, but females shift the balance further in favor of head voice the higher they go in their range, while males retain chest voice as the dominant mechanism from bottom to top.
> 
> As usual, we'll start with a video. Compare the light, whispery, "musical" singing with clear, full throated singing that could easily project to the back of any theatre. The modern tenor here sounds extremely hollow by comparison, as if you took a strong, hardy drink and poured in a bunch of water to dilute it. Note also that he doesn't know how to sing softly with proper technique. Dynamics are always _relative_ markings, and should not be taken to extremes at the expense of vocal production.


Vogt.....nothing needs be said! But I would enjoy your take if it were Kaufman singing Lohengrin. Whatever anyone's take....and they do vary....I wouldn't expect to hear "the absence of chest" showing up! How he goes about it???....


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy;2214290
This guy isn't even an opera singer said:


> that[/I] rare of a voice type to where we can hardly fine one. Well...it turns out we can, it's just that, for anyone of them who managed to develop even a hint of chest voice, they get pushed down a fach or two and told to sing as a bass-baritone or a bass (I've even seen _tenors_ being trained as bass-baritones. Utterly ridiculous).


I am surprised you're down on baritones, with the exception of Verdi baritones....that is, I'd understand your concern with Verdi baritones! I'm not one to give too much to a singer who sings to a mic four feet away until they've done it for years without the mic. The technique, as with this guy, might sound in order but the head has to deal with those large halls, without the mic, again and again and again. Milnes and Wixell and Quilico had trouble sustaining it. I've truly enjoyed, along with Mattei, Keenlyside, Finley, Hampson, Gerhaher, Goerne and now Kelsey.


----------



## OffPitchNeb (Jun 6, 2016)

Thought on this? This is worse than some mezzo and alto versions I have heard. So this tenor now wants to compete with the current batch countertenors in terms of hollow sounds.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

OffPitchNeb said:


> Thought on this? This is worse than some mezzo and alto versions I have heard. So this tenor now wants to compete with the current batch countertenors in terms of hollow sounds.


I do not think I can write down my thoughts at the moment... I would certainly regret some of my words.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

OffPitchNeb said:


> Thought on this? This is worse than some mezzo and alto versions I have heard. So this tenor now wants to compete with the current batch countertenors in terms of hollow sounds.


Not my music but I like Bostridge so...take my words with a grain of salt.

Until he altered his sound so dramatically for the melismas I wasn't bothered by the sound. I heard some darkness for such a light (and it is a resonant) voice. But I'd imagine a fan of this music objecting to that switch. I didn't like it.

What really bothers me is the sound of the whole thing, from the first note. This is a chamber orchestra. But they recorded it in such a way to create a presence for the sound that was way out of proportion to the forces assembled, presumably to be enjoyed by a bigger audience, ie....sell more records!!! I want chamber to sound chamber!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

OffPitchNeb said:


> Thought on this? This is worse than some mezzo and alto versions I have heard. So this tenor now wants to compete with the current batch countertenors in terms of hollow sounds.


I'm not bothered as much by the "heady" sound of his voice - it's a distinctive voice, and I accept that - as by his mannered expressive style, which often has him leaning heavily on individual notes instead of binding them together. That should be a device sparingly applied, not a style. Maybe it's intended to be another one of those so-called "historical" performance practices. Among other things it draws attention to the singer and away from the music.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Maybe it's intended to be another one of those so-called "historical" performance practices. Among other things it draws attention to the singer and away from the music.


People even go so far as to try to do this with works for which we _have_ recordings from around the time of the original composer, including many performed by the original singers themselves (ex: want to know what Puccini is supposed to sound like? We have plenty of recordings of Rosa Raisa and Eva Turner).


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I am surprised you're down on baritones, with the exception of Verdi baritones....that is, I'd understand your concern with Verdi baritones! I'm not one to give too much to a singer who sings to a mic four feet away until they've done it for years without the mic. The technique, as with this guy, might sound in order but the head has to deal with those large halls, without the mic, again and again and again. Milnes and Wixell and Quilico had trouble sustaining it. I've truly enjoyed, along with Mattei, Keenlyside, Finley, Hampson, Gerhaher, Goerne and now Kelsey.


To be frank, I think most of them are tenors singing lower.

compare this (fwiw, he's not a horrible singer. relatively even, has some chest voice, nothing inherently offensive. I could have cherry picked an awful example to make a point, but I don't need to. the difference is obvious)





to this





We could argue "but they're _lyric_ baritones". Mkay, but....none of the baritones from the golden age sounded like that. They all had big, dark voices with "buzz" in the timbre. Obviously, there is variation in all types of voices, but, unlike sopranos and tenors, they didn't really divide baritones up into lyric vs dramatic until recently. If you wanted to listen to something on the lighter end of baritone, you would listen to something more like this: still clearly deeper than singers like Thomas Hampson or Simon Keenlyside


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> To be frank, I think most of them are tenors singing lower.
> 
> compare this (fwiw, he's not a horrible singer. relatively even, has some chest voice, nothing inherently offensive. I could have cherry picked an awful example to make a point, but I don't need to. the difference is obvious)
> 
> ...


No you didn't have to...it is obvious. to take it further I went looking for a Keenlyside Largo and its the same.
Hampson sounded shockingly tenorish on that cut, but I never thought of voice first with him so ....that's him. 
In "The Tempest" Keenlyside definitely sang with a richer sound than I just heard but....the Largo I just listened to is, as you say, not going to be confused with Merrill.
I've always liked Nelson Eddy but he doesn't make the deeper/buzz argument that Merrill did. But thats nothing. Your point is still going strong!!!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

ScottK said:


> No you didn't have to...it is obvious. to take it further I went looking for a Keenlyside Largo and its the same.
> Hampson sounded shockingly tenorish on that cut, but I never thought of voice first with him so ....that's him.
> In "The Tempest" Keenlyside definitely sang with a richer sound than I just heard but....the Largo I just listened to is, as you say, not going to be confused with Merrill.
> I've always liked Nelson Eddy but he doesn't make the deeper/buzz argument that Merrill did. But thats nothing. Your point is still going strong!!!


It shows up more when he sings low. 





You know what? I'm gonna keep going with this, because a lot of people today...have no idea what a baritone actually sounds like. Several examples can be heard below, and also offer supreme examples of well developed male chest voice.

Mykola Kondratyuk, probably my favorite baritone voice of all time. Notice again that this is on the _higher_ end of the baritone voice and it still sounds nothing like the original singers you listed 





Peter Glossop





Joseph Shore





Nicolae Herlea


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> It shows up more when he sings low.
> 
> You know what? I'm gonna keep going with this, because a lot of people today...have no idea what a baritone actually sounds like. Several examples can be heard below, and also offer supreme examples of well developed male chest voice.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you are! Wont get to these till tomorrow but as I'm thinking through my list I am coming up with different reasons to explain my reason for liking that may be about other things than a full, opera house sized, baritonal sound.
Hampson - I truly think of him for full performance and NEVER put the screws to it analytically about his voice
Goerne - rich sound butttt.....at Tanglewood, German Requiem, the mics I pontificate about are part of that prcture
Finley - Bluebeards Castle, sitiing downstairs we all thought he sounded great, reviews called his voice small
Gerhaher - lieder recital and concert, not the opera house
Keenlyside - recital and opera. but he did sound baritonal in the house
Mattei - great Amfortas buttttttttttttttt....Vogt was Parsifal!!!! Everyone probably sounded deep that night by comparison!

And as a group they do all come in as essentially lyric baritones. Fischer-Dieskau and Prey? they may be the role models for alot of this group!!

Never thought you'd be convincing me on this point.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Fischer-Dieskau as culprit/role model may be part of why this group sounds the way they do! I don't know about Mattei but ALL of the others are serious lieder singers. No one is pinning that label on Macneil, Merrill, Bastianini, Colzani and Warren!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I'm glad you are! Wont get to these till tomorrow but as I'm thinking through my list I am coming up with different reasons to explain my reason for liking that may be about other things than a full, opera house sized, baritonal sound.
> Hampson - I truly think of him for full performance and NEVER put the screws to it analytically about his voice
> Goerne - rich sound butttt.....at Tanglewood, German Requiem, the mics I pontificate about are part of that prcture
> Finley - Bluebeards Castle, sitiing downstairs we all thought he sounded great, reviews called his voice small
> ...


Perfectly fine to like them. They just don't have "the baritone sound" if you will.



> And as a group they do all come in as essentially lyric baritones. Fischer-Dieskau and Prey? they may be the role models for alot of this group!!
> 
> Never thought you'd be convincing me on this point.


Prey would probably qualify. I've never really considered Fischer-Dieskau a real baritone. To me, baritones are all pretty much the same fach, but on the lighter side, I'd put singers like Nelson Eddy, Herman Prey, Ettore Bastianini and Sherrill Milnes (note that all of these are still fairly powerful voices. a well-developed baritone voice is always powerful).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

How do we know which singers, among all those singing baritone roles effectively, are "real" baritones? What is a real baritone, as opposed to a fake baritone? Who gets to decide this? What if others disagree? Is it something worth debating? 

Everyone can hear that some voices are deeper, richer, more resonant, more brilliant, etc., than others in the same vocal classification. This principle applies to all classifications: soprano, mezzo-soprano, bass, etc. Posting comparisons between singers for the purpose of hearing these differences is interesting and informative, but what does it prove? Should the standard vocal classifications be narrowed to exclude people with more or less of some of these characteristics? Should the excluded people be branded fakes and forbidden to take on certain operatic roles? Are audiences ignorant or insensitive because they enjoy those particular singers in those particular roles? Does everyone who takes on Iago have to be compared to Apollo Granforte?

I'll give you this: Placido Domingo is (or was; is he still around?) a fake baritone. Fakes are OK to a point, especially if we're talking about Louis Vuitton handbags. Thomas Hampson and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau are not fake baritones, but if we won't call them real baritones we have a duty to come up with a new vocal classification and to make it a household word. There's obvious precedent for mezzo-tenor, but I wouldn't put money on it.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> How do we know which singers, among all those singing baritone roles effectively, are "real" baritones? What is a real baritone, as opposed to a fake baritone? Who gets to decide this? What if others disagree? Is it something worth debating?
> 
> Everyone can hear that some voices are deeper, richer, more resonant, more brilliant, etc., than others in the same vocal classification. This principle applies to all classifications: soprano, mezzo-soprano, bass, etc. Posting comparisons between singers for the purpose of hearing these differences is interesting and informative, but what does it prove? *Should the standard vocal classifications be narrowed to exclude people with more or less of some of these characteristics?* Should the excluded people be branded fakes and forbidden to take on certain operatic roles? Are audiences ignorant or insensitive because they enjoy those particular singers in those particular roles? Does everyone who takes on Iago have to be compared to Apollo Granforte?


in a word...yes.



> I'll give you this: Placido Domingo is (or was; is he still around?) a fake baritone.


olive branch accepted.



> Fakes are OK to a point, especially if we're talking about Louis Vuitton handbags. Thomas Hampson and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau are not fake baritones, *but if we won't call them real baritones we have a duty to come up with a new vocal classification* and to make it a household word. There's obvious precedent for mezzo-tenor, but I wouldn't put money on it.


We already do...it's called a tenor. If we started training singers as such, we'd start to see a revival of the spinto/dramatic voices that seem to have mostly disappeared from the modern stage. Spinto and dramatic tenors used to be about as common as lyric tenors, but when we became afraid of big voices, we pushed them down to baritone and the lyric tenors down to what used to be their rep. Part of the reason why we have less rich voices isn't _what_ their voice is, it's _where_ the voice is singing. Most singers today sing too low to take full advantage of the true richness of their voice. I'll use an easy example:

recognize this "baritone"? 





He eventually found his true voice, moved up a 3rd and turned into *this*. 





You can tell we're listening to the same voice even without looking, but even so, the second sounds 5x richer because it's singing in a tessitura of peak intensity. Modern singers are taught to be afraid of this range, afraid of "straining" and being taught to sing in this fake, overly hooty head voice that, in its extreme, sounds like the OP video. It's one of the reasons I've made this thread.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> *What is a real baritone, as opposed to a fake baritone..... Is it something worth debating? *
> 
> The "fake" baritone sounds so pejorative. The difference between the Hampson Largo and the Merrill Largo is where this discussion, not debate, became most worthwhile for me. BalalaikaBoy is right about the change in the baritone sound and we don't have to go back to Amato and DeLuca. In the 70's at the Met Rigoletto was sung by Macneil, Merrill, Milnes, Wixell, Quilico, Manuguerra. The sound has changed and "why?" is, I think, intriguing. The lack of a true star quality Rigoletto voice gets a fair amount of ink.
> 
> ...


I thought that bari-tenor would hold a little more than it did and I still like it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> We already do...it's called a tenor. If we started training singers as such, we'd start to see a revival of the spinto/dramatic voices that seem to have mostly disappeared from the modern stage. Spinto and dramatic tenors used to be about as common as lyric tenors, but when we became afraid of big voices, we pushed them down to baritone and the lyric tenors down to what used to be their rep. Part of the reason why we have less rich voices isn't _what_ their voice is, it's _where_ the voice is singing. Most singers today sing too low to take full advantage of the true richness of their voice.


Which of our current or recent baritones do you think are actually undeveloped tenors?



> I'll use an easy example:
> 
> recognize this "baritone"?
> 
> ...


There is no way to conclude from these recordings that Melchior's voice was "5x" - five times - richer in the later, with its markedly superior, unmuffled sound. The earlier recording would squelch the timbre of any voice. Factoring this in, and based on my hearing of an immense number of his recordings made between 1913 (the year of the "il balen") and 1960, I'd say the sound of the voice changed little, whether classified as tenor or baritone.



> Modern singers are taught to be afraid of this range, afraid of "straining" and being taught to sing in this fake, overly hooty head voice that, in its extreme, sounds like the OP video. It's one of the reasons I've made this thread.


I'm willing to believe that the mistake of failing to recognize dramatic tenor material happens. Whether theorizing about this can lead to accurate diagnoses of some major singers is another matter. Again, who are the fake baritones in question, and what makes you so certain?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I thought that bari-tenor would hold a little more than it did and I still like it.


I'd forgotten about baritenor. I like it. Of course it would only give some people more irresistible opportunities to split hairs.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> I'd forgotten about baritenor. I like it. Of course it would only give some people more irresistible opportunities to split hairs.


Oh those people!!!!!......:lol:.......But durn if I dont think he may be onto something here!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I'd forgotten about baritenor. I like it. Of course it would only give some people more irresistible opportunities to split hairs.


Michael Spyre .....


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Which of our current or recent baritones do you think are actually undeveloped tenors?
> 
> There is no way to conclude from these recordings that Melchior's voice was "5x" - five times - richer in the later, with its markedly superior, unmuffled sound. The earlier recording would squelch the timbre of any voice. Factoring this in, and based on my hearing of an immense number of his recordings made between 1913 (the year of the "il balen") and 1960, I'd say the sound of the voice changed little, whether classified as tenor or baritone.
> 
> I'm willing to believe that the mistake of failing to recognize dramatic tenor material happens. Whether theorizing about this can lead to accurate diagnoses of some major singers is another matter. Again, who are the fake baritones in question, and what makes you so certain?


a few examples
- Thomas Hampson
- Bryn Terfel
- Leo Nucci 
- Simone Keenlyside

fwiw, in the last case, I like his voice, but he's still clearly a tenor. Maybe it's because he doesn't sing like a "tenor" that I like him. He does big, open-throat high notes, where most tenors think they can use "spin" to compensate for timid, nasal, constricted singing. I use him as an example because I know it's easy to fall into the "there are no good modern singers" trap, but here, I think we have some good material to work with. Compare him to Mario del Monaco singing the same aria. I think you'll see what I mean.











.....sound similar?

now, a real baritone: Apollo Granforte 





Who was a true baritone from modern times? Dimitri Hvorostovsky. I had the pleasure of hearing him during one of his final concerts at the Chicago Lyric Opera. I was sitting in one of the back balcony seats, and I could hear every...single...note. Considering many of the pieces were quite low, it's a good point of comparison. With most of the singers I listed, all their resonance is gone below middle C, while he sunk down to As and Gs like they were nothing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> a few examples
> - Thomas Hampson
> - Bryn Terfel
> - Leo Nucci
> ...


They don't sound similar to me. Keenleyside is (was at the time of this performance, anyway) a high baritone whose vocal center of gravity is a couple of notes lower than del Monaco's. Listen to the difference on "per un barbiere" which takes them down to "d." K sounds like a baritone, firm and fully resonant; dM sounds like an average tenor would be expected to sound, at the low end of his useful range. The aria lies low for a true tenor, and dM demonstrates that more or less throughout. In general, Keenleyside sounds good in this and del Monaco doesn't (although there are several reasons for it). The fact that K's voice is bright for a baritone and dM's darkish for a tenor is not dispositive in classifying them as to fach.

I would say much the same thing about the other baritones you want to reclassify.

I have three criteria for classifying singers: 1.) in what music are they effective; 2.) in what range are they physically most comfortable; and 3.) what do they want to sing and what do they want to be called. All these are naturally to be determined after an appropriate course of vocal development and practice in performance.

None of the four singers listed have huge, rich voices like Gino Bechi or Riccardo Stracciari. There's nothing in the concept of "baritone" that requires them to, and you've offered no evidence that with further, or different, training they could have been comfortable or successful singing tenor roles. I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm supposing that these gentlemen know more about the right route for their vocal careers than backseat drivers with personal definitions of vocal classifications. If they've occasionally taken on roles a bit heavy for them - though with reasonable success in most cases - that's not unusual for singers of any category.

It's passing strange to me that you've proposed so many subdivisions for sopranos but apparently none for baritones.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I have three criteria for classifying singers: 1.) in what music are they effective; 2.) in what range are they physically most comfortable; and 3.) what do they want to sing and what do they want to be called.


I would add to this "in what range does the voice peak in intensity"? A lot of modern singers don't have that extra "push" into the more intense parts of the voice and end up singing music about a voice type lower as a result.



> All these are naturally to be determined after an appropriate course of vocal development and practice in performance.


We agree that this part is important. Rushing to classify beginner (and even intermediate) singers is a huge red flag.



> It's passing strange to me that you've proposed so many subdivisions for sopranos but apparently none for baritones.


imo, that's largely because most people are sopranos and tenors.

with baritones, I do notice a strong qualitative difference between lighter baritones like Nelson Eddy and Herman Prey vs heavier baritones like Apollo Granforte and Robert Merrill, but in terms of actual repertoire, there is less of a difference.

The major question I ask is "how did we train/classify singers during the period where singers sounded the best?", and for baritones of any subdivision, having a big, rich voice was kind of a requirement. For sopranos, you need to divide them up a little more to achieve this because they're a wider range.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

No chest voice vs chest voice :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I would add to this "in what range does the voice peak in intensity"? A lot of modern singers don't have that extra "push" into the more intense parts of the voice and end up singing music about a voice type lower as a result.
> 
> We agree that this part is important. Rushing to classify beginner (and even intermediate) singers is a huge red flag.
> 
> ...


The human voice can be used in a great number of very different ways. How it's used, entailing amomg other things the kind of sound it makes, is partly a matter of the musical culture it participates in - the kinds of music it's required to sing. A voice that can render a particular kind of music effectively is, in terms of its musical culture, a good voice. Outside the context of actual music, there is no absolute standard of what a good voice sounds like, although there are common preferences. Since the musical culture here is Western classical music, and specifically opera and the vocal tradition associated with opera, it's mainly the effective presentation of opera that determines what we can consider good singing. Some opera requires voices of fairly narrowly defined characteristics. Some allows for performance by a wider range of voices. But in all cases there is great latitude for individual preference in vocal timbre.

Your arguments seem to be based on an ideal of what a voice - in this case, a baritone voice - ought to sound like. All else being equal, a "big, rich" baritone voice might be considered preferable to a smaller, more slender one, and the attainment of such a sound might be considered a useful goal of vocal training for a singer with operatic aspirations. Can all singers who will be working within the baritone range achieve such a sound? Certainly not. The enormous diversity of speaking voices should alone be enough to prove this. And if not everyone is going to sound like Apollo Bigloud, should people who will sound fine in Mozart and Handel but not so fine in Wagner and Verdi simply look for another line of work?

Lyric baritones such as Terfel, Hampson and Fischer-Dieskau are fine musicians who have done outstanding work and given great pleasure to many. The idea that they should have trained as tenors and made more noise like Mario del Monaco may be appealing to you. It isn't to me, and there are no absolute criteria by which that alternate course for their careers can be judged preferable.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I would add to this "in what range does the voice peak in intensity"? A lot of modern singers don't have that extra "push" into the more intense parts of the voice and end up singing music about a voice type lower as a result.
> 
> We agree that this part is important. Rushing to classify beginner (and even intermediate) singers is a huge red flag.
> 
> ...


All very true and good but my sister the voice teacher says most singers have medium ranges and can't do the top notes you must have to sing either soprano or mezzo on the opera stage, even if the color is bright. Same for the men.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> All very true and good but my sister the voice teacher says most singers have medium ranges and can't do the top notes you must have to sing either soprano or mezzo on the opera stage, even if the color is bright. Same for the men.


At the risk of insulting your sister....I haven't seen this even among today's pushed-into-lower-fach singers. There were plenty of singers with good high notes when I went to university.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

fwiw, I break down voices something like 

female
leggiero soprano
lyric soprano
dramatic coloratura soprano
spinto soprano
dramatic soprano
mezzo
contralto

male
leggiero tenor
lyric tenor
spinto tenor
dramatic tenor
baritone 
bass
basso profondo


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> *Your arguments seem to be based on an ideal of what a voice - in this case, a baritone voice - ought to sound like.*


Even though I will acknowledge that at times BalalaikaBoy's enthusiasm makes it sound like thats the point, I MUST step in and say that I feel there is a far more important point that he is unquestionably making. Whether or not he insists on the "should be" part??..... I do not. But I do insist that he seems to be unmistakeably correct that the state of the baritone voice has changed and...this is me...it's not all for the good!

The presence of the current crop of baritones and the way they sing???.... I would not complain about! Their voices are beautiful, they sing artistically and there is music for them to sing. But He certainly seems to be after explanations for why the Verdi baritone is gone. I know you all segued into 'the baritones are all tenors" (or not!!) but this all begins with "what happened to the hefty voiced baritones with full ranges?" They are close to gone. Kelsey gets the star assignment at the Met and you and Bonetan are not convinced. If I didn't carry the prejudice that comes with having been there my take might have been identical to yours. And he's unquestionably better than the recent guys.

The absence of chest voice in the approach sounds plausible. I'd love to hear you guys lock horns over that part of it!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Even though I will acknowledge that at times BalalaikaBoy's enthusiasm makes it sound like thats the point, I MUST step in and say that I feel there is a far more important point that he is unquestionably making. Whether or not he insists on the "should be" part??..... I do not. But I do insist that he seems to be unmistakeably correct that the state of the baritone voice has changed and...this is me...it's not all for the good!
> 
> The presence of the current crop of baritones and the way they sing???.... I would not complain about! Their voices are beautiful, they sing artistically and there is music for them to sing. But He certainly seems to be after explanations for why the Verdi baritone is gone. I know you all segued into 'the baritones are all tenors" (or not!!) but this all begins with "what happened to the hefty voiced baritones with full ranges?" They are close to gone. Kelsey gets the star assignment at the Met and you and Bonetan are not convinced. If I didn't carry the prejudice that comes with having been there my take might have been identical to yours. And he's unquestionably better than the recent guys.
> 
> The absence of chest voice in the approach sounds plausible. I'd love to hear you guys lock horns over that part of it!!!


Let me try to summarize. I'm arguing with the following allegations: 1.) that numerous accomplished and successful high and/or lyric baritones such as Fischer-Dieskau, Terfel, Keenlyside and Hampson are not really baritones, that they should have been trained to perform as tenors, and had they worked on their chest voices they would have discovered that that's what they really are; and 2.) the evidence for this is that they don't have big, roaring voices like Apollo Granforte.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence for #1, and #2, forgive my bluntness, looks rather silly.

There's general agreement that there is a dearth of well-trained dramatic-scale voices today. But there's a relative scarcity of fully trained and distinctive voices in other fachs as well. In this declining art form we love, singing just ain't what it used to be. Neglect of the chest voice in women is no doubt a piece of the puzzle. In men? Maybe, even though men sing in chest voice constantly. What, exactly, should they be doing with it that they don't do now, and if there's an answer ready to hand why is TC privileged to have the exclusive scoop?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

ScottK said:


> The absence of chest voice in the approach sounds plausible. I'd love to hear you guys lock horns over that part of it!!!


One of the reasons I chose Simon Keenlyside is because he actually _does_ use a decent bit of chest voice and has full throated high notes sung the correct way, and that _in spite_ of this, he still sounds like a tenor, albeit a fairly dramatic one.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Let me try to summarize. I'm arguing with the following allegations: 1.) that numerous accomplished and successful high and/or lyric baritones such as Fischer-Dieskau, Terfel, Keenlyside and Hampson are not really baritones, that they should have been trained to perform as tenors, and had they worked on their chest voices they would have discovered that that's what they really are; and 2.) the evidence for this is that they don't have big, roaring voices like Apollo Granforte.
> 
> I haven't seen any convincing evidence for #1, and #2, forgive my bluntness, looks rather silly.
> 
> There's general agreement that there is a dearth of well-trained dramatic-scale voices today. But there's a relative scarcity of fully trained and distinctive voices in other fachs as well. In this declining art form we love, singing just ain't what it used to be. Neglect of the chest voice in women is no doubt a piece of the puzzle. In men? Maybe, even though men sing in chest voice constantly. What, exactly, should they be doing with it that they don't do now, and if there's an answer ready to hand why is TC privileged to have the exclusive scoop?


The evidence is that you can only find like 2-3 examples of singers like DFD during the age where singers had the best technique. The rest of the baritones sounded like MacNeil, Merrill, Eddy and Granforte


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

A modern example of a baritone with some better chest voice singing (to answer *Woodduck's* contention, yes, modern male singers utilize chest voice, but that doesn't mean most of them do it right, any more than having high notes means they do them right). Since we're talking about more lyrical baritones, I think this is a good example of one. Notice how it's still relatively big, rich and dark, just not on par with a more dramatic baritone like MacNeil.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> One of the reasons I chose Simon Keenlyside is because he actually _does_ use a decent bit of chest voice and has full throated high notes sung the correct way, and that _in spite_ of this, he still sounds like a tenor, albeit a fairly dramatic one.


"Sounds like a tenor" is not as meaningful a formulation as you think it is. I do not think that Simon Keenlyside sounds like "a tenor." From the standpoint of nature, there is no such thing as "a tenor." 
Keenlyside sounds like the specific baritone who is Keenlyside. He is the perfect example of a baritone who sounds the way Simon Keenlyside sounds, and perfect proof that baritones can sound like that. There is no evidence in his sound that he should, or could, sing Manrico or Don Jose.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> The evidence is that you can only find like 2-3 examples of singers like DFD during the age where singers had the best technique. The rest of the baritones sounded like MacNeil, Merrill, Eddy and Granforte


I must suggest that none of us have heard "the rest of the baritones" during a time long before we were aware of opera, or even born. The vast majority of singers who performed during the age when vocal technique was at its best didn't even record, and a high percentage of those who did - in fact, _all_ of them before a certain date - made recordings with a technology that doesn't allow us to hear their vocal timbres accurately.

I'm not saying that there's _nothing_ to your theories. But I am questioning the extent and specificity with which you're applying them, and I'm waiting for both a specific statement of alternative vocal methodologies and some outside support for such.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I have three criteria for classifying singers: 1.) in what music are they effective; 2.) in what range are they physically most comfortable; and 3.) what do they want to sing and what do they want to be called. All these are naturally to be determined after an appropriate course of vocal development and practice in performance.


I agree strongly with this and I find it indisputable. If a "tenor" doesn't have the top to sing tenor rep, but is talented enough to have an international career as a baritone, are they not a baritone? I don't know the answer to that. Easy fix though, Woodduck's criteria. Truth is some singers have limitations and have to make business decisions.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> *If a "tenor" doesn't have the top to sing tenor rep, but is talented enough to have an international career as a baritone, are they not a baritone?*


They are! It's a strong, pragmatic, "win/win" answer. But that's one particular subset.

Woodduck's acknowledgement of the "singer-wide" malaise of the absence of dramatic voices and BalalaikaBoy's focus on the absence of big baritones calls attention to a potential systemic failing in our vocal pedagogy. Carlo Bergonzi has said that he went from being a third-rate baritone to being a good tenor....but he was a professional baritone! I'm not spending alot of time worrying about Keenlyside, Hampson and Terfel ! I am wondering if some of the countless bari-tenors who don't end up with their dreams fulfilled, might have benefitted from a different approach.

The NBA was at a low until Magic, Bird and Jordan brought a fire and a discipline that had been lacking for some time. With their example the approach changed and the result changed!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not saying that there's _nothing_ to your theories. But I am questioning the extent and specificity with which you're applying them, and I'm waiting for both a specific statement of alternative vocal methodologies and some outside support for such.


I'll take hints! The answer has to be mysterious but I'm sure we all acknowledge cause and effect and I don't believe the Verdi baritone disappeared for no reason. Awhile back the problem was big Mezzo's (at least so Bergonzi said in an interview, its not a group I think about as much) then came Zajick, Borodina, Graves, Garanca.

Will Crutchfield bemoaned the smallish, too careful approach that students are taught singing Mozart in a Bing and Dennis interview.

I will say that the contrast of Merrill and Hampson made an impact. I always thought of Merrill as a leaner version of the big baritone compared to say Warren and Macneil. The difference between him and Hampson could, of course, simply be their God-given instrument but it caught my ear big time! Hampson is a baritone star and Largo is not "heavy" for him.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> I agree strongly with this and I find it indisputable. If a "tenor" doesn't have the top to sing tenor rep, but is talented enough to have an international career as a baritone, are they not a baritone? I don't know the answer to that. Easy fix though, Woodduck's criteria. Truth is some singers have limitations and have to make business decisions.


Because whether or not you're "baritone" or a "tenor" isn't just determined by how high you can sing. The mindset of "you're tenor/soprano if you have high notes and everyone else is baritone/mezzo" is a big reason we have so few good ones in the modern era, and why they get underappreciated. Of course we have no baritones in popular music when people basically think they're no different than "tenors without high notes". Sound quality is the most important factor in singing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Because whether or not you're "baritone" or a "tenor" isn't just determined by how high you can sing.


I don't think he was claiming that. He does say "is talented enough to have an international career as a baritone." You don't earn an international career based solely on your vocal range; you have to sound effective in the vocal range and style of the music you're singing. I think we'd all agree that Domingo wouldn't have had the career he did had he not switched from baritone to tenor, and his end-of-career "success" in baritone roles was based at least as much on celebrity as on aptitude. But had he not made the switch, he could legitimately have billed himself as a baritone, even if his friends were telling him he was really a tenor.



> Sound quality is the most important factor in singing.


Maybe, but... 1. Singers differ enormously in sound. 2. Music differs enormously in its requirements for one sort of vocal sound or another. 3. Art can trump sound quality. 4. Public taste can trump everything. Each of these "buts" has to be a factor in discussing our conventional categorization of voices.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think he was claiming that. He does say "is talented enough to have an international career as a baritone." You don't earn an international career based solely on your vocal range; you have to sound effective in the vocal range and style of the music you're singing. I think we'd all agree that Domingo wouldn't have had the career he did had he not switched from baritone to tenor, and his end-of-career "success" in baritone roles was based at least as much on celebrity as on aptitude. But had he not made the switch, he could legitimately have billed himself as a baritone, even if his friends were telling him he was really a tenor.


anyone singer doing this? fine. (ex: to my ears, Fiorenza Cossotto sounds a lot more like a soprano, but I love everything she touches, so I don't really care and seldom bring it up).

that becoming the norm and people forgetting what deep voices are even supposed to sound like in the first place? not fine, definitely not fine.



> Maybe, but... 1. Singers differ enormously in sound. 2. Music differs enormously in its requirements for one sort of vocal sound or another. 3. Art can trump sound quality. 4. Public taste can trump everything. Each of these "buts" has to be a factor in discussing our conventional categorization of voices.


1) yes, but I think you'll at least agree we have to draw the line somewhere. ex: I don't care if you have the range to sing Zerlina if your vocal timbre sounds like Ewa Podles. likewise, I don't care if you have the low notes to sing Azucena if you sound like a girlish princess. 
2) fair 
3) no. categorically no. 
4) if "public tastes trump everything", the state of opera would be completely irredeemable. the entire reason we even have anything salvageable left is that most people don't think this


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Also, note the one singer from the Golden Age I listed as a mis-trained tenor (DFD) was primarily a leider singer. In leider, you don't really have the same concept of "voice types" in the first place. There's just music, and you sing it in a key which is comfortable for you. It also doesn't matter as much what your vocal timbre is, because there is no character to match. The same way that people of all voice types sing Ave Maria, Cantique de Noel or Swing Low Sweet Chariot.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Because whether or not you're "baritone" or a "tenor" isn't just determined by how high you can sing. The mindset of "you're tenor/soprano if you have high notes and everyone else is baritone/mezzo" is a big reason we have so few good ones in the modern era, and why they get underappreciated. Of course we have no baritones in popular music when people basically think they're no different than "tenors without high notes". Sound quality is the most important factor in singing.


But it is determined by one's ability to sing all of the notes. If one is determined to have a career singing opera, but can't sing the notes required of a particular voice type, then he or she would be wise to consider a different voice type, especially if they can sing all of the notes in said voice type.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I think you'll at least agree we have to draw the line somewhere. ex: I don't care if you have the range to sing Zerlina if your vocal timbre sounds like Ewa Podles. likewise, I don't care if you have the low notes to sing Azucena if you sound like a girlish princess.


Agree completely, but this doesn't support the generalization that "sound quality is the most important factor in singing."

I reiterate that art can trump vocal sound. All sorts of sound can be interesting and effective, but a boring, mannered, or unmusical performance isn't worth my time no matter what sort of sound a singer makes.



> f "public tastes trump everything", the state of opera would be completely irredeemable. the entire reason we even have anything salvageable left is that most people don't think this


It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. If no one wants what you're selling, you're out of business. That isn't meant as an argument for selling crap, but for offering a better product and creating more discriminating consumers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Also, note the one singer from the Golden Age I listed as a mis-trained tenor (DFD) was primarily a leider singer. In leider, you don't really have the same concept of "voice types" in the first place. There's just music, and you sing it in a key which is comfortable for you. It also doesn't matter as much what your vocal timbre is, because there is no character to match. The same way that people of all voice types sing Ave Maria, Cantique de Noel or Swing Low Sweet Chariot.


If it doesn't matter what voice type Fischer-Dieskau is, why label him "miscategorized"? If he's most comfortable and effective singing music labeled "baritone," then he's a baritone. IMO he did some very good work in that rep.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I'll take hints! The answer has to be mysterious


That sounds very Agatha Christie.



> but I'm sure we all acknowledge cause and effect and I don't believe the Verdi baritone disappeared for no reason.


What disappeared is the high level of vocal technique exhibited by baritones of the early- to mid-20th century, and this appears to be related to the more general disappearance of Italy's preeminence as a producer of great singers in all vocal categories. Battistini, Amato, Ancona, Ruffo, Magini-Coletti, Danise, Stracciari, Galeffi, Sammarco, de Luca, Bechi, Poli, et al... Just imagine being able to hear all these great baritones active before WW II. What technically comparable Italian baritones were still performing after about 1960? Zancanaro comes to mind. 1960 was 62 years ago. This is not a recent problem, and it's not a problem confined to baritones.



> Awhile back the problem was big Mezzo's (at least so Bergonzi said in an interview, its not a group I think about as much) then came Zajick, Borodina, Graves, Garanca.


If Graves and Garanca qualify as "big mezzos," they hardly disprove Bergonzi's notion, if it's even meaningful.



> Will Crutchfield bemoaned the smallish, too careful approach that students are taught singing Mozart in a Bing and Dennis interview.


Many have said the same. Callas said it in her master classes.



> I will say that the contrast of Merrill and Hampson made an impact. I always thought of Merrill as a leaner version of the big baritone compared to say Warren and Macneil. The difference between him and Hampson could, of course, simply be their God-given instrument but it caught my ear big time! Hampson is a baritone star and Largo is not "heavy" for him.


One of them has a louder, more ringing voice than the other. I don't think we can conclude that Hampson was poorly trained and could have sounded like Merrill, much less Mario del Monaco. Now, comparing them both to some of those Italians from the Golden Age - _that_ might actually tell us something.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

That sounds very Agatha Christie.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Okay...this one is getting a little weedy for me. You see....you are rubbing off on me! :tiphat:

(PS I will, however, acknowledge, that Garanca was clearly padding. I know I had other names but spit-the-bit when I needed them!!!)


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *Mykola Kondratyuk,** probably my favorite baritone voice of all time. Notice again that this is on the higher end of the baritone voice and it still sounds nothing like the original singers you listed *
> 
> The way you like sounds from everywhere, its fun to hear this, decidedly non-latin sound show up as a favorite.
> 
> ...


----------

