# Vibrato or Straight Tone in choral singing?



## Orange Soda King

The choirs at my university sing in straight tone, because the conductor says that the pitches are much purer, the chords are much clearer, overtones "shoot out" much more, and that it's actually not uncommon practice in Europe, you just don't hear it quite as much in the United States.

Here is an example of one of our choirs (I do not sing in this one) singing in straight tone, and pay attention to the very long held chords. I don't feel they'd have NEARLY the same effect if the singers used vibrato.





I'm afraid I've been spoiled, because now whenever I hear other choirs sing with vibrato, I feel like the chords aren't very clear, and sometimes I don't even hear the third or fifth or seventh or whatever other important scale degree of the chord clearly.

Yet still, some choirs, like the Latvian youth choir Kamer sing with vibrato, but I like their sound very much. Is it in how it is used or how much of it is used, or what?

What do you guys think?


----------



## Rasa

As a listener, I definitely prefer without vibrato in most cases. The Yt you posted hear has that choral sound I do appreciate.

Also in modern works, a vibrato would ruin the effects of the dissonants. With straight singing, the dissonants can become softer or harder as required.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I prefer straight singing with more than one person, vibrato works better for solo in my opinion, though it can work as a duet. You get a group doing it, it can ruin a piece, unless everyone is vibrating together.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Especially on pre-Baroque, Baroque and Classical, I prefer pure tone at historically informed pitch practices. Can't imagine Medieval monks and chants wallowing in vibrato, and neither did Baroque church music.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Opera choruses where all the singers are using vibrato I think distorts the tone very much. I like straight choral, and vibrato solo, as Salieri said.


----------



## Krummhorn

I prefer that vibrato is reserved for solo pieces. 

I wish my choir director at church shared the same opinion - we have some elderly ladies that have a vibrato so wide that their chairs move from side to side. :lol:


----------



## World Violist

Wow, unanimous 9 votes for straight tone. Imagine that.


----------



## KJohnson

Yes. Vibrato in choral music makes an unfriendly muddy sound. Sometimes you catch one or two musicians singing vibrato in a choir when the rest are singing straight voice. It actually sounds quite funny. The voice stands out. The singer appears to want to go to the restroom. )


----------



## KJohnson

By the way, I don't remember for sure but I think that one pro-vibrato voice was given by me... I accidentally clicked on it. )))


----------



## haydnfan

Pure tone for anything pre-20th century since it wasn't a fad back then.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Definitely straight, no vibrato.


----------



## Orange Soda King

Wow! I didn't think it would be unanimous for straight tone (since the one vibrato vote was an accident). How about for orchestras? I have some recordings of a straight-tone orchestra playing Brahms' symphonies and some other works, and they are _really_ good.


----------



## KJohnson

Orange Soda King said:


> I have some recordings of a straight-tone orchestra playing Brahms' symphonies and some other works, and they are _really_ good.


Are any of them on YouTube? I'm curious to see the difference.


----------



## Orange Soda King

KJohnson said:


> Are any of them on YouTube? I'm curious to see the difference.


Yes, and here is a sample:





Compared to this:





However, the first orchestra is a bit smaller and they're also on period instruments.


----------



## KJohnson

Thank you so much! I've been listening to these back and forth for a few ours now. It's amazing to study something like this.

The one with no vibrato gives a strange metallic kind of quality. Both are enjoyable, but listening to them, I can see why vibrato has become the standard in orchestral and string music. It thickens the tone and creates a more overwhelming impact.


----------



## Yoshi

Definately straight tone. In this choir I am in, there's only one guy who is a professional singer and he insists in singing vibrato, while everyone else is singing a straight tone. It's just awkward because he stands out...


----------



## Morgana

I voted for vibrato. That being said, I think that straight tone is lovely in choral pieces. But forced straight toned singing isn't always healthy for the voice.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Especially on pre-Baroque, Baroque and Classical, I prefer pure tone at historically informed pitch practices. Can't imagine Medieval monks and chants wallowing in vibrato, and neither did Baroque church music.


My sentiments exactly. Only opera ever called for "warbling" like that, and I even feel that opera singers use too much vibrato (it obfuscates the pitch and intonation). Still, I voted for vibrato, because there is a natural vibrato in the adult voice, and the human voice doesn't seem musically appealing to me when it is as flat in timbre and tone as middle C on a spinnett.

Maybe I'm not coming to the OP on it's own terms, though. I was thinking along the lines of the Indian name for a favorite instrument of mine: the Sarangi. It's name means "100 colours" and it was made to supplement and mimic the human voice.


----------



## Lukecash12

Orange Soda King said:


> Wow! I didn't think it would be unanimous for straight tone (since the one vibrato vote was an accident). How about for orchestras? I have some recordings of a straight-tone orchestra playing Brahms' symphonies and some other works, and they are _really_ good.


Straight tone playing is a big, big reason I prefer HIP. You don't have to strain to hear all the voices over the pitched battle between strings and horns, which sounds almost like "white noise with a pitch" sometimes.


----------



## kv466

Vibrato has its place but usually it is to create annoying sounds; straight for me all the way.


----------



## Orange Soda King

Lukecash, what does HIP stand for?


----------



## Lukecash12

Orange Soda King said:


> Lukecash, what does HIP stand for?


Historically informed performance, if my memory is correct.

Edit: I guess it's on wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historically_informed_performance


----------



## Orange Soda King

Ohhh, I see. Period instruments would fall under that category, right? Like John Eliot Gardiner and the ORR?


----------



## Lukecash12

Orange Soda King said:


> Ohhh, I see. Period instruments would fall under that category, right? Like John Eliot Gardiner and the ORR?


Yes, Gardiner and the ORR would definitely fall under the category of HIP. Huelgas Ensemble is an example of a choral group that does HIP:






Certainly not flat, but there is a lot of clarity in it, which is proper and helpful for understanding composers like Cipriano. It's hard to appreciate the artistry of the polyphonic church music of composers like Cipriano, if you can't discern the diction and harmony. All you can really hear with overdone vibrato is the pitch and the voices sweeping contrapuntally around each other.


----------



## VerdiBaritone

_Just to play devil's advocate for a minute:_

If you want to give proper period performances, then I hope you also advocate the exclusion of women from performances of sacred/church music, as well as the practice of castrati (yikes!). The women who sing in the ensembles listed in the clips above need to be removed in favor of young boys, and your only altos should be falsettist-singing men.

Kinda seems a little silly, right?

Choral music has adapted to include women and vibrato in vocal tone, because these elements have become part of our tradition since the Late Romantic/Early 20th century. I firmly believe that a well-rounded ensemble should be able to jump from style to style without hesitation, and not strive to hit a "one true choral sound."

For instance, while I appreciate the first choir clip posted here, I pray to God that they would never attempt something like Britten's War Requiem, Verdi's Requiem or Carmina Burana with the same vocal approach. On the flip side, I hope that an operatic style not be applied to Palestrina. Different literature from different time periods requires a different sound.

One of the books in my library that I truly treasure is Choral Conducting:A Symposium, compiled by Harold Deck and Julius Herford. The first article, by Howard Swan, outlines the six prevalent choral "schools" at the time (1973), each of which was a compilation of the techniques by individuals who collectively we agree were master conductors.



> *School A* (_John Finley Williamson_) - A choral tone which is alive, vital, and responsive is secured by emphasizing and encouraging the physical and emotional development of each singer in the choir.
> 
> *School B* (_Fr. William J. Finn_) - A singer's tone is like the color of each orchestral instrument and should be developed accordingly.
> 
> *School C* (_F. Melius Christiansen_) - Every singer in the chorus has a primary responsibility to subordinate his own ideas concerning tone production, rhythmic stress, and pronunciation to the blended and unified sound made by the total ensemble.
> 
> *School D* (_Fred Waring_) - By following the natural laws of good speech which are related to proper pronunciation and articulation a singer and an ensemble can develop a beautiful quality of tone.
> 
> *School E* (_Joe Klein, Douglas Stanley, and John Wilcox_) - Good tone quality is induced by the physical motivation of an individual or a chorus. It is the consequence of a perfectly executed coordination of the entire vocal mechanism.
> 
> *School F* (_Robert Shaw_) - Good tone has three concomitants: a rhythmic drive subordinated to the demands of a score, a knowledge on the part of the conductor and singer of the shape of a musical phrase, and as understanding of the laws of vocal energy as they may be applied to a musical composition.


Now, I am guessing that a majority of the individuals in this thread subscribe to School C. Personally, I prefer a mixture of A, B, D, E, and F. A good choir should have internal rhythm, a physical embodiment of the text, clear pronunciation, as well as a clear definition of sound for each individual section.

I will admit that in a choral ensemble, the conductor should not be a tyrant, demanding a purely unified sound. Otherwise, I might as well just sit at home and plug choral tunes into Finale and process them through VOXOS or some other choral sampling software.

What draws me to the arts, specifically the choral side, is the individuality of expression that is afforded to members in a collective setting. There is nothing more powerful and moving than seeing someone on the brink of crying while singing something as beautiful as the text to When David Heard.

But if you put me in front of a group singing the exact same text while concentrating on the perfect mouth shape and dynamic level, holding their voice back and wincing... well, I will be asleep in about two minutes.

All that said, I believe that the individual never has to completely subjugate themselves to another, be it for reasons of blend or computerized-sounding tuning systems. Art is the expression of, and not reduction of, imagination and the sense of self. It should not be sterile, it should not be compressed into one tiny little box of "this is what a choir should sound like."

I respect your opinion to believe in the wonderment of straight tone, so please be open-minded enough to accept my belief that warm singing (aka vibrato in the tone) blends in an open room and projects in spaces that aren't acoustically perfect. Please also accept my belief that there is no one right or true path to singing, and that I do not believe that anyone should be forced into an ideal sound if they wish to make music as part of a group.

Also, just want to point out a group that I have followed for the past five years or so that just happens to be 75 miles down the road from the original ensemble. This is taken from last year's ACDA National Conference in performance at Symphony Hall in Chicago.

They all sing wide open, yet their sound blends together in the space of the hall. They don't hold back, they don't push toward a straight or purely unified tone, yet you can still hear every part. If done right, it is overwhelmingly powerful.


----------



## Lukecash12

I don't see those schools as mutually exclusive. In fact, if I were participating in a production with singing in it, I would hope for and expect that all of those schools of thought to be prevalent.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

This is about what I want in classical vocal works. 
80% straight tone, 20% vibrato


----------

