# Singing Technique: Is there is a right way to everything, or is it all subjective?



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

What do you think? Feel free to elaborate as much as needed.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

I do think there is a correct way, but certain aspects of that will differ from singer to singer based on their individual physiology. I think there are many highly successful singers from all genres who deliberately sing with a faulty technique because of the effect it has on their sound, but this doesn't make their technique any less questionable imo. I think the current state of opera shows that there is definitely a right way and that modern singers are not using it.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

It has been discussed on this forum before, and I will give the same answer here as I gave before. There is, in my opinion, a right way for everything. The voice, like all instruments, works following physical and physiological laws which are shared by everyone (except those who have a disability or a vocal organ which is unlike others). These laws can be easily understood. For example, the voice's main resonating space is the pharyngeal area, because it can modulate its shape, which is not the case with the sinus cavities. Also, to have as much resonance as possible, it is important to have next to no tension in the vocal apparatus. We also know that vowels are the most important sounds (we say that a singer sings on the vowels), for they are open-throated sounds, and that consonants are the links between vowels and are important for diction and legato. For example, here's Flagsatd singing _When I am laid in earth_ form Purcell's _Dido_. Listen to how she sings on the _a,e, i_ and _o_ vowels. All the consonants link them together. As a non-native speaker, her English diction is great.






It is also important for the registers to be coordinated, which means that the qualities of chest voice - clarity, power, squillo, resonance, access to the lower notes - and the qualities of falsetto - the oooh sounds which makes the voice bloom, the effect of cushion, access to the higher notes - must be present throughout all of the range. There are vocal exercices which sole purpose is to coordinate the registers together. Cornelius Reid presents some in his book. The excerpt of Flagstad is also a great example of a singer who has mastered the coordination of the registers. The voice is seamless from top to bottom. There is a reason why Flagstad was and is still considered vocal royality and why she could sing well in her sixties. She could still sing like this at the age of 56:






We also know of reasons why voices may falter or start to present deficiencies. More often than not, tension and uncoordinated registers are at play. It is no mystery.

The only reason why technique is often seen as subjective is because we have no direct control over most of what happens in our throath. I cannot directly control what my thyroarytenoid and cricothyroid muscles do. I can only think of a sound and hope that my voice will do what I want. This is why the old pedagogues cared so much about specific sounds. They knew that certain sounds, like a clear and open-throated _a_ vowel, has qualities which, when understood and mastered, can be extrapolated to the entire range. For example, here is Giuseppe Danise giving vocal lessons to Giuseppe Valdengo. Danise is teaching Valdengo how to make the proper sounds. He will often sing somtething and ask Valdengo to imitate him.






Here is something that I wrote a while back which summarizes well what I mean:

_All voices technically work the same way. It is basically air flowing through the vocal folds and making them vibrate. It is the perception of one's voice which differs from one person to the next. For example, we sometimes hear the terms head resonance and chest resonance and then think the voice resonates in the head or the chest, which is impossible. The vibrations one may feel in such places are only sympathetic, for the voice vibrates in the pharyngeal space. But these perceptions are important when building one's voice, and people do not all perceive their voice in the same way. This is why we consider that there are many ways of approaching things, but all teaching should aim towards the same result: BEL CANTO. We have many aural and written examples on how to achieve that. The operatic voice is not some sort of postmodern-social-construct-thingy. There should be one technical approach, and many ways of perceiving, referring to or illustrating it._


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Nilsson studied at the royal school and felt all the teachers were wrong. Nowadays students come out of conservatories and have a generic sound with no chest voice. I think this is wrong. I think that the right technique depends on what you sing. Mozart specialists have a different sound than Verdi specialists. To me it appears that the classic Italian bel canto technique taught 100 years ago has somewhat been lost, to our misfortune.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

I'm guessing there'd be a lot of consensus here about many ingredients in the right way to do it.....(NOT the same thing as being able to do it.) The OP makes me think...can you deviate and still be right? I think the basic answer is yes. That strikes me as the way everything goes. There are always exceptions to "the right way" that work. It might not be to your tastes but if they make a career on the operatic stage out of it, it worked.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

ScottK said:


> I'm guessing there'd be a lot of consensus here about many ingredients in the right way to do it.....(NOT the same thing as being able to do it.) The OP makes me think...can you deviate and still be right? I think the basic answer is yes. That strikes me as the way everything goes. There are always exceptions to "the right way" that work. It might not be to your tastes but if they make a career on the operatic stage out of it, it worked.


I could go many directions with the question you've posed, but I think if the answer was truly yes then we wouldn't have seen such a noticeable decline in operatic singing over the years. With operatic singing deviation often leads to danger and such techniques should not be taught, making them inherently wrong imo, with or without career success.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> I could go many directions with the question you've posed, but I think if the answer was truly yes then we wouldn't have seen such a noticeable decline in operatic singing over the years. With operatic singing deviation often leads to danger and *such techniques should not be taught*, making them inherently wrong imo, with or without career success.


I agree completely should not be taught. But once you're in the game, if you're good enough to get the job, you go with what you've got. I feel my answer is practical. I live near New York and I need opera singers. I'm going to the opera one way or the other and if Beczala isn't Pavarotti or Caruso it does me little good to bemoan that fact. Now this Forum???... this is a great place for that and I LOVE the debate! I LOVE everyone weighing in. But my opinion is that there is great enjoyment to be had out there.

I hear the way you and Woodduck and BalalaikaBoy revere older singers and I love it, I genuinely do...I hope you've never heard a word out of me to the contrary. But I don't share it. Lise Davidsen dropped my jaw the other night and I enjoyed just about everyone in the cast. Boris had a fine Varlaam and a good Pimen. Take Kelsey out of the discussion and the singing in Rigoletto was terrific. I want Verdi Baritones but the lighter baritones ( BalalaikaBoy warning!!!) are in good supply. Tenors?...Grigolo, Kaufman, Calleja, Florez, Bezcala, Camarena...I've seen worse periods. Once Carreras wore out and Pavarotti got Lazy and Domingo got obsessed with being Pavarotti tenor singing got very dry for some time.

I want them to train well. But my idea of being a purist is give me something in that opera house to make it worth the trip!


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

I don't think technique can be said to be subjective. The mechanism functions a certain way, and one's feelings about the results don't change that. I think that technique can be divided into modern school and old school, and that old school is decidedly superior in every meaningful way. All of the vocal virtues (chiaroscuro, clarity, projection, legato, proper vibrato etc.), which are often referenced and claimed by adherents and practitioners of both schools, are, in my opinion, found on careful study to be present much more frequently and to a much greater degree in recordings of old school singers and modern school singers. I think that modern school singers and pedagogues claim to cherish old school virtues when they in fact produce mediocre or antithetical results. Modern school and old school singing techniques are different: they use different methods and achieve different results. There are many modern singers whose playing of the instrument I respect, but whose instrument I cannot abide. Listening to them is nothing but a continuous revelation of what they could have done if they had been taught to build an old school voice.

So my position is this: old school technique and modern technique are different things, and so strictly speaking its a little unfair to call modern signers bad with respect to older singers. But, the instrument they have been built and taught to play is aesthetically inferior, and limits their expressive opportunities. I do not think that this inferiority is subjective. Even modern pedagogues pay lip service to chiaroscuro. Many modern singers throw their hands up listening to older recordings. The problem is not that they don't recognize the virtues of old school technique in decently record (though there are people in the opera world who don't like opera very much and want to turn it into something else), it's that they don't know how to recreate it. (I don't either, so it's not a judgment on them.) I believe that Flagstad's singing reaches the heights it does interpretively speaking because the voice is free. I think the old school operatic voice is the most beautiful instrument ever created, and that its expressive potential is the most profound. That expressive potential is predicated, however, on the presence of the vocal virtues.

The only reason I shy away from saying plainly "the aesthetics of opera singing is objective" or whatever is that what is important is not being able to check off a list and say, "This singing is better than that singing". I don't really care about that. What's important to me are the experiences that great singing can create. Learning to recognize the qualities of great singing is a training of the ear that unlocks deeper experience and enriches and ennobles one's perceptions, and therefore one's knowledge, of the world. Ranking singers and performances is a game. It's often a fun one, I admit, but it's not the most important or interesting thing, and if we are going to take objective standards as being important so that we can do that, then I don't really see too much point. If knowing what's good gets us something, namely, if "good" means something greater than "enjoyable", then I will argue the importance of objective aesthetics. Still, it's important to maintain a frame of mind of "getting what one can" out of any experience. That doesn't mean giving false praise or refusing to critique. Rather, one shouldn't throw away all of something flawed because of the flaw, rather one should find what can be found or move on to a more substantial experience. I think there are lots of interesting and worthwhile things that are not Great that should not be dismissed because they are not, even as I respect and adore those that are Great.

Speaking of opera technique as being about the functioning of the mechanism, let me take this opportunity to point out something that's been bothering me for a while now. A _lot_ of voice teachers nowadays advise against retracting the tongue when singing. In fact, if you look up tongue retraction on YouTube, most of the hits are about how to solve the "problem" of tongue retraction. Now, there may be bad ways to retract the tongue, since there are bad ways to do almost anything in singing. But retraction of the tongue in and of itself does not "block the sound" or constrict the throat as these teachers claim. This can be easily proven:





















Two things are clear. First, these singers possess huge, free voices that are obviously technically optimal and show no evidence of constriction or of the sound be held back or diminished by improper technique. Second, every single one of these singers practices tongue retraction. The tongue is clearly retracted and the base arched. The idea that tongue retraction blocks or constricts the sound is just not tenable, at least not if the technique is practiced correctly. That kind of statement, whatever one's philosophical or personal positions about the subjectivity of vocal aesthetics are, seems entirely empirical and objective to me. It's a physical phenomenon of the mechanism, and on that type of question we should be able to establish agreement.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^Singing like that needs a moment of silence. Lisitsian in particular blew me away.

When I studied singing in college, my first teacher told me to keep the tip of my tongue against my lower teeth. I may have tried to do this for a while, but my body's own wisdom soon brought me back to reality.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

To me Del Monaco's voice is splendid but has all the subtlety of a pile driver. Whatever his technique subtlety was not a feature of it. Must confess I do prefer the Paggliacci aria sung with a little more variation a la Bergonzi






Come in 46:40


----------



## gsdkfasdf (11 mo ago)

I think there's a degree of objectivity at lower levels, and the goals are generally a) relaxed, stable, low larynx b) good breath support c) squillo for efficiency

Beyond that it might be a lot more subjective. I think that for different singers with different physiologies, how you get there might be different, but the core of the technique should be similar and the goal is to maximise your natural sound and sing without a microphone (opera with mikes ewwww).


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^Singing like that needs a moment of silence. Lisitsian in particular blew me away.
> 
> When I studied singing in college, my first teacher told me to keep the tip of my tongue against my lower teeth. I may have tried to do this for a while, but my body's own wisdom soon brought me back to reality.


To which I answer, *no* there is no "right way to everything" as is simply indicated in the above post. Someone obviously thought that "the right way" was to keep the tip of the tongue against the lower teeth. Looks like in this case, it was not the "right way".

An example of a change from the original natural sound exhibited by Jonas Kaufmann was soon changed by a baritone who taught him how he *should *be singing and Jonas was so pleased with the change that he never looked back. So which was really "right" for his voice? 
To me, his original sound was more beautiful but if he felt it uncomfortable for him and required a change then bully for him that he accepted the new "right way" of singing (that is until perhaps something *new* comes along!)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> To which I answer, *no* there is no "right way to everything" as is simply indicated in the above post. Someone obviously thought that "the right way" was to keep the tip of the tongue against the lower teeth. Looks like in this case, it was not the "right way".
> 
> An example of a change from the original natural sound exhibited by Jonas Kaufmann was soon changed by a baritone who taught him how he *should *be singing and Jonas was so pleased with the change that he never looked back. So which was really "right" for his voice?
> To me, his original sound was more beautiful but if he felt it uncomfortable for him and required a change then bully for him that he accepted the new "right way" of singing (that is until perhaps something *new* comes along!)


Kaufmann is an interesting case. Most agree that his technique is imperfect, and many point to his early, lighter and brighter sound as superior, but we have to believe him when he says that what he's doing now works better for him physically than what he was doing before. I tend to agree with Bonetan, who says above "I do think there is a correct way, but certain aspects of that will differ from singer to singer based on their individual physiology." Kaufmann has continued to sing taxing roles wobble-free for many years now. For operatic singing, I think it makes sense to say that there is one basic technique that's correct, but that some incorrect techniques are more correct, and more successful, than others.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

nina foresti said:


> To which I answer, *no* there is no "right way to everything" as is simply indicated in the above post. Someone obviously thought that "the right way" was to keep the tip of the tongue against the lower teeth. Looks like in this case, it was not the "right way".
> 
> An example of a change from the original natural sound exhibited by Jonas Kaufmann was soon changed by a baritone who taught him how he *should *be singing and Jonas was so pleased with the change that he never looked back. So which was really "right" for his voice?
> To me, his original sound was more beautiful but if he felt it uncomfortable for him and required a change then bully for him that he accepted the new "right way" of singing (that is until perhaps something *new* comes along!)


This sounds like whatever leads to career success is the "right way" but I don't agree with that. Leonard Warren had massive success singing in his way, covering from top to bottom, darkening his voice in a way that only he could due to his physiology (ginormous barrel chest). Much of the next generation of baritones was ruined trying to sound like him. Some may say this was the right way, a way not dissimilar to Kaufmann, but I believe that Warren's technique was absolutely not the right way to sing and the baritones who came after him proved this to be true. I put Kaufmann in the same category. I highly successful singer despite a faulty technique.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> This sounds like whatever leads to career success is the "right way" but I don't agree with that. Leonard Warren had massive success singing in his way, covering from top to bottom, darkening his voice in a way that only he could due to his physiology (ginormous barrel chest). Much of the next generation of baritones was ruined trying to sound like him. Some may say this was the right way, a way not dissimilar to Kaufmann, but I believe that Warren's technique was absolutely not the right way to sing and the baritones who came after him proved this to be true. I put Kaufmann in the same category. I highly successful singer despite a faulty technique.


B-b-but the bottom line is that it seemed to work for them!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

nina foresti said:


> B-b-but the bottom line is that it seemed to work for them!


There's no debating that! Then again the way Tiny Tim sang worked for him but I don't care what anyone says, it still ain't right lol


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

In cricket there is a correct way of batting but there are players who get stacks of runs with an unorthodox technique. The same applies in all fields including music. You wouldn’t recommend Horowitz’s technique to anyone but look at the results. I dare say it is the same with singing. People like Warren and Kaufman have got on pretty well with being unorthodox.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> This sounds like whatever leads to career success is the "right way" but I don't agree with that. Leonard Warren had massive success singing in his way, covering from top to bottom, darkening his voice in a way that only he could due to his physiology (ginormous barrel chest). Much of the next generation of baritones was ruined trying to sound like him. Some may say this was the right way, a way not dissimilar to Kaufmann, but I believe that Warren's technique was absolutely not the right way to sing and the baritones who came after him proved this to be true. I put Kaufmann in the same category. I highly successful singer despite a faulty technique.


Warren was followed by Macneil, Milnes, Wixell, Quilico, Manuguerra, Sereni, Capucilli. You may not like their technique but I had very satisfying singing from all of them. My dad adored listening to Leonard Warren, one of his beloved singers. Was he wrong?
....And that last bit doesn't have any sentimental element so don't hold back because its "Dad":lol:!

If the others cant make Warrens approach work for them, that's not Warrens fault!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

ScottK said:


> Warren was followed by Macneil, Milnes, Wixell, Quilico, Manuguerra, Sereni, Capucilli. You may not like their technique but I had very satisfying singing from all of them. My dad adored listening to Leonard Warren, one of his beloved singers. Was he wrong?
> ....And that last bit doesn't have any sentimental element so don't hold back because its "Dad":lol:!
> 
> If the others cant make Warrens approach work for them, that's not Warrens fault!


All fine singers! But are any of them on the level of the top pre-Warren baritones? What about the baritones we never heard of because they fell into this trap (I had a conversation with Dolora Z about this just days ago)? If 99 out of 100 singers are ruined by a technique, but one succeeds, is the technique 'right' because it works for that person? In my opinion if a technique is wrong for the vast majority of singers then it's wrong in general.

I'll piggyback off the sports analogy. If a basketball player has horrible form on his jumper, but he makes millions playing basketball, is the form no longer horrible?


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

> Warren was followed by Macneil, Milnes, Wixell, Quilico, Manuguerra, Sereni, Capucilli.


I don't think that all of these singers adopted Warren's technique. MacNeil in particular had a much clearer, less "covered" sound, at least early on. I agree with Bonetan though that none of them measure up to a De Luca or a Ruffo.



> My dad adored listening to Leonard Warren, one of his beloved singers. Was he wrong?


No. "Without merit" and "not as great as it could have been with a technique generally damaging to vocal health" are distinct. I readily acknowledge that Daniele Barioni, for example, has technical and stylistic deficiencies that I wouldn't reproduce in my students if I were a voice teacher. That doesn't make me not absolutely adore a lot of his singing.



> If the others cant make Warrens approach work for them, that's not Warrens fault!


Again, I think that "having a successful career" and "achieving artistic excellence" are different. When I talk about there being objectively correct technical elements, I am talking about the latter. The former is possible with or without the latter.

I'm glad Kaufmann feels comfortable with his technique, but I can't help but suspect that a Cotogni or even a Melocchi could have helped him achieve a comfortable technique that did not impart the strange, strained, overly dark quality to his voice that his current technique does. Of course, that's totally unprovable, but it's my suspicion nonetheless. I can listen to and enjoy both Warren and (less so) Kaufmann myself, but they are not on my list of greatest singers of their vocal types.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> All fine singers! But are any of them on the level of the top pre-Warren baritones? What about the baritones we never heard of because they fell into this trap (I had a conversation with Dolora Z about this just days ago)? If 99 out of 100 singers are ruined by a technique, but one succeeds, is the technique 'right' because it works for that person? In my opinion if a technique is wrong for the vast majority of singers then it's wrong in general.
> 
> I'll piggyback off the sports analogy. If a basketball player has horrible form on his jumper, but he makes millions playing basketball, is the form no longer horrible?


. 
The quality of those singers isn't really the point, it's how much they tried to emulate Warren. Except for Milnes I don't think there SoundS say that they tried to that much. Certainly not Sereni or Capucilli or Wixell . If they are inferior to the singers before Warren I don't think Warren is culpable. For Warren himself...You wrapped up the analogy with making money not scoring scoring points. Anyone who gets the job done in sports in a big way will be a star regardless of their form. One English commentator said Lee Trevino swung a golf club like a farmer… He's still an all-time great! And as for the singers who never achieved a professional career, there were more Verdi baritones in the 30 years after Warren came than today by a long shot. I can understand Your sensitivity to young singers who go down an unprofitable path because of a role model who is succeeding more on pure talent than on technique. But I think Leonard Warren was a Sincere singer and when it's his turn he's gotta get it done the way it works best for him.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

ScottK said:


> .
> The quality of those singers isn't really the point, it's how much they tried to emulate Warren. Except for Milnes I don't think there SoundS say that they tried to that much. Certainly not Sereni or Capucilli or Wixell . If they are inferior to the singers before Warren I don't think Warren is culpable. For Warren himself...You wrapped up the analogy with making money not scoring scoring points. Anyone who gets the job done in sports in a big way will be a star regardless of their form. One English commentator said Lee Trevino swung a golf club like a farmer… He's still an all-time great! And as for the singers who never achieved a professional career, there were more Verdi baritones in the 30 years after Warren came than today by a long shot. I can understand Your sensitivity to young singers who go down an unprofitable path because of a role model who is succeeding more on pure talent than on technique. But I think Leonard Warren was a Sincere singer and when it's his turn he's gotta get it done the way it works best for him.


I didn't mean to imply that any of them attempted to emulate Warren, although like you I believe Milnes did, likely contributing to his premature decline. I don't know the singing of most of them well enough to comment on their technique. Rather I believe that when Warren's sound/technique came into vogue the quality of baritone singing declined.

I agree with you regarding athletes. The form doesn't matter, results do. But that doesn't mean a highly successful athlete can't have bad form, and we wouldn't be wrong to call their form bad regardless of their success and our relative lack thereof.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I don't think that all of these singers adopted Warren's technique. MacNeil in particular had a much clearer, less "covered" sound, at least early on. I agree with Bonetan though that none of them measure up to a De Luca or a Ruffo.
> 
> No. "Without merit" and "not as great as it could have been with a technique generally damaging to vocal health" are distinct. I readily acknowledge that Daniele Barioni, for example, has technical and stylistic deficiencies that I wouldn't reproduce in my students if I were a voice teacher. That doesn't make me not absolutely adore a lot of his singing.
> 
> ...


I think that as provocative and enjoyable as Balalaikaboys post has been, in terms of answering questions the only thing to do is return to the question. Maybe the word choice is a little too extreme on both sides of the question:

Is there a *right way to everything* or is it *all subjective*?

I think there is a right way....just not to everything! SOMETIMES subjective can work but not ALL the time.

I loved Woodduck's line...*I think it makes sense to say that there is one basic technique that's correct, but that some incorrect techniques are more correct, and more successful, than others.*


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I think that as provocative and enjoyable as Balalaikaboys post has been, in terms of answering questions the only thing to do is return to the question. Maybe the word choice is a little too extreme on both sides of the question:
> 
> Is there a *right way to everything* or is it *all subjective*?
> 
> ...


And _I_ love Woodduck's line ....*"I think there is a right way....just not to everything! SOMETIMES subjective can work but not ALL the time."*:tiphat:


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Bonetan said:


> I didn't mean to imply that any of them attempted to emulate Warren, although like you I believe Milnes did, likely contributing to his premature decline. I don't know the singing of most of them well enough to comment on their technique. Rather I believe that when Warren's sound/technique came into vogue the quality of baritone singing declined.
> 
> I agree with you regarding athletes. The form doesn't matter, results do. But that doesn't mean a highly successful athlete can't have bad form, and we wouldn't be wrong to call their form bad regardless of their success and our relative lack thereof.


Milnes' vocal problems were due to a vocal injury in the 1980s nearly derailed his career. In his book, American Aria, he called the period a "decade of panic." It started in 1981, when Milnes awoke after a grueling dress rehearsal and concert the day before, unable to speak. Doctors diagnosed a burst capillary in one vocal cord. The problem recurred, even after surgery. Another surgery fixed it. In between, he sang more carefully and sparingly, reluctantly giving up some of the Verdi roles that demanded he sing for more than an hour. Still, he performed at the Metropolitan Opera until 1997.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> And _I_ love Woodduck's line ....*"I think there is a right way....just not to everything! SOMETIMES subjective can work but not ALL the time."*:tiphat:


You mean "ScottK's line," not "Woodduck's line."


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You mean "ScottK's line," not "Woodduck's line."


Oops! Mea culpa. These things get so convoluted sometimes.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

One thing to keep in mind is that a teacher may know the correct technique but not be skilled at communicating it. Supposedly much of voice teaching is about how something feels or how to think about something. These are often no easily communicated in language. At least this is what my sister says about teaching.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

There’s definitely a “correct” way but I agree that some aspects of technique will vary from person to person. However, I can enjoy singers without ‘perfect’ technique. In fact I’d say there are very few singers, if any, with perfect technique. The basic qualities I’d look for are: reasonable size for the repertoire they are singing, natural or unobtrusive vibrato, free of unnecessary constriction, proper engagement of chest voice, reasonably clear diction and a certain level of squillo. After this point I can be satisfied by anyone with sufficient artistry to bring their singing to life, whether their technique is faulty in other places, if it doesn’t last for a long career etc. I am less bothered but it must satisfy those, or at very least the majority of those conditions for me to find the singer satisfactory.


----------

