Unpopular Opinions

[bwv 1080]

Shakespeare had to compose to create any kind of story, mood, or setting. Tonalities are determined pre-compositionally, using scales. I think that tonalities contribute a lot to whatever is created compositionally. The tonality is like a harmonic template.

I suppose Shakespeare could have done the same thing pre-compositionally if he had decided to use only 15 of the 26 letters. But I think it would be much richer and interesting if he used all 26.

Find me a Beethoven sonata that does not use all 12 tones

[Ken B]

Find me a Beethoven sonata that does not use all 12 tones

Ah but did he use them all equally and all in the same order. Now that would interesting.

[Mahlerian]

Ah but did he use them all equally and all in the same order. Now that would interesting.

I'm not aware of any composer who did that.

[71 dB]

You know what's a boring set? The Cantor set.
Bonus points for explaining the joke

The Cantor set is a fractal repeating itself ad nauseum, but mathematicians find it interesting. Menger sponge is even more interesting.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I've said in quite a few threads already but classical vocal music (except from choral stuff, which is usually way denser) tends to be on my bad side. I don't find the typical "classically trained" (aka castrated) soprano, tenor, alto, bass etc to be very compelling, I tend to feel it ruins great songs/lieder.

There are exceptions (quite a few) but this is my stance. 

Perhaps this thread should be renamed the Castrated Opinions thread.

[Jo498]

I would be interested in opinions from trained singers.
But I think for performances in comparably large churches, theaters etc. something like the classically "supported" style of singing had to be developed, otherwise voices would not carry sufficiently. Another demand is reasonable precise and stable intonation for comparably complex polyphony in Western music since the high/late MA. All these demands make it plausible that the singing style has to differ from a mother softly singing a lullaby or a bunch of drunks raucously bellowing a song around a campfire. But the two latter are "natural situations", so we tend to find the classical style "unnatural". Another reason is that since the arrival of the microphone, a singer can "naturally" sing softly with an untrained voice and most people unter 70 probably grew up getting used mostly to popular singers crooning into a microphone (as well as their usually untrained mothers or other children in school singing) so they find the classical style unnatural.

[Spineur]

There is no such thing as trained classical singers vs popular ones: one can go from one to the other.  Florent Pagny a french pop singer with a beautiful and powerful voice has done opera arias.  Inversely so many opera singers have done popular music that I want to say please no more.  There are specifics to classical singing, but the one thing you absolutely need is a powerful voice because you need to fill a big opera hall or a church (Jo post).  Amplified voices in the realm of classical music gives poor to awful results.
So Celine Dion, Florent Pagny have done classical because they have the vocal means to do so.  A thin voice a la Justin Bieber would not make it.

[Mahlerian]

Why does the classical tradition seem to be opposed (with the exception of some modern composers) to the natural singing voice? Why has it retained this artificial or overtly specified singing style over the millennium?

A trained voice is necessary to project, especially in a situation where the singer is competing against a full orchestra.  Singing Wagner with amplified untrained voices would simply sound strange, although John Adams in Nixon in China and other works has the singers use amplification (though still with the traditional vocal style).

[ritter]

There is no such thing as trained classical singers vs popular ones: one can go from one to the other. 

I'm no expert in voices (I'm very much into opera, but don't see the vocal element as paramont above all others that make up this summa artis), but I tend to desagree with this. An untrained voice will not be able to produce the vocal effects that are required in many works, mainly in the bel canto repertoire, such as messa di voce, trills, correct attacks at the notes, domination of the passage, etc. . And then, of course, there's the matter of projection over the orchestra and/or in large venues (something that will apply even to the art song genre), as most posters have pointed out. And yes, amplification is not an option. 

I would add that most (if not all) examples of untrained singers tackling the classical repertoire I've encountered--"Classical Barbra [Streisand]", Andrea Bocelli, and so on--have been unsuccesful, ranging from the anecdotic to the grotesque.  I've never heard of Florent Pagny, though, and will look him up. Thanks for the tip, Spineur. 

At this stage (after more than 40 years of listening to music), I do not feel that canonic, "classical" singing is unnatural at all.

[torut]

I really want to hear songs from Classical ~ Romantic era sung by a good Medieval / Renaissance singer. I don't think the operatic screeching vocal with excessive vibrato is necessary in a setting with piano accompaniment.

[ritter]

I really want to hear songs from Classical ~ Romantic era sung by a good Medieval / Renaissance singer. I don't think the operatic screeching vocal with excessive vibrato is necessary in a setting with piano accompaniment.

Yes, the use of vibrato is a relatively recent development (early 19th century AFAIK), and can be avoided by singers as it is not essential, but still vocal training seems to me inevitable to adequately tackle most of the "classical" repertoire from the late classical period to the present day.

[North Star]

Vibrato increased as orchestras and halls grew, and singers needed a larger voice to be heard. Now we have recordings, period instruments, and musicians sometimes even performing in appropriately sized venues, so excessive vibrato should be less prominent than in the early 20th C & 19th C.

[Mahlerian]

At this stage (after more than 40 years of listening to music), I do not feel that canonic, "classical" singing is unnatural at all.

I agree with that.  To me the style heard on Pop/Rock recordings often sounds strained and nasal, not nearly as enjoyable as a good classically trained singer (though better by far than a bad one).

[Mirror Image]

Why does the classical tradition seem to be opposed (with the exception of some modern composers) to the natural singing voice? Why has it retained this artificial or overtly specified singing style over the millennium?

Classical vocals seem to be an acquired taste that I, thankfully, acquired. Too bad you don't like them, though. I couldn't imagine Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle, for example, being sung in a plain, natural singing voice. That would just be alien to me.

[Spineur]

I really want to hear songs from Classical ~ Romantic era sung by a good Medieval / Renaissance singer. I don't think the operatic screeching vocal with excessive vibrato is necessary in a setting with piano accompaniment.

Counter-tenors use much less vibrato.  Probably because the head voice cannot produce it easily.  Here is Philippe Jaroussky teaser for his Verlaine Album.  It contains popular and classical melodies, so you can see that one can slide from one to the other without even noticing.

https://www.youtube.com/v/QYvBCHTW8wg&list=RDQYvBCHTW8wg&t=45

Some popular singers have BIG vibratos.  Here is Charles Aznavour singing La Bohème, one of his big hits.

https://www.youtube.com/v/AgtZtyiipCk&list=PLLMd1OWRUE09lOvJmWFf8qr00Eumlke0P

Finally Florent Pagny, a barytone, sings Nessun Dorma from Puccini Turandot scaled lower to his voice

https://www.youtube.com/v/BniXwyy36NY

This isnt the best I have heared by far, but this is quite nice for somebody who is not quite trained for this

What North Star says is true: vibrato changed during the 20 th century.  I got the box "les introuvables du champ français" and noticed that the vibratos were tighter and faster, leaving and entirely different impression of the works.

[North Star]

Counter-tenors use much less vibrato.  Probably because the head voice cannot produce it easily.  Here is Philippe Jaroussky teaser for his Verlaine Album.  It contains popular and classical melodies, so you can see that one can slide from one to the other without even noticing

Also, counter-tenors are usually early music specialists, and a rarer and subtler vibrato is common there among all voice types. Sandrine Piau has also recorded Strauss, Debussy, etc, and Sara Mingardo has recorded Mahler and Respighi, to name a few examples off the top of my head.

[ritter]

Sandrine Piau has also recorded Strauss, Debussy, etc,

I saw Piau live as Mélisande in Brussels a couple of years ago, and she was superb! Yes, vibrato-less and very pure, but outstanding breath control and use of dynamics, elements that only a classically trained singer can dominate IMHO.

I must confess that Pagny's Nessun dorma, that Spineur was kind enough to post, doesn't make the cut for me...

[Mandryka]

Vibrato increased as orchestras and halls grew, and singers needed a larger voice to be heard. Now we have recordings, period instruments, and musicians sometimes even performing in appropriately sized venues, so excessive vibrato should be less prominent than in the early 20th C & 19th C.

I've heard an idea like this, that vibrato helps projection. Is that true?

Stand and deliver romantic singers like Pavarotti tended to use vibrato right through a note, presumably because they needed to project and anyway they were singing contrapuntally simple music, where the vibrato wasn't going to get in anyone's way.  Other singers, some enlightened singers of baroque and renaissance music like Emma Kirkby for example, tended to use vibrato only at the end of notes, producing great clarity and without compromising humanity, And a very few singers of medieval music used no vibrato at all.

[Parsifal]

I've heard an idea like this, that vibrato helps projection. Is that true?

Stand and deliver romantic singers like Pavarotti tended to use vibrato right through a note, presumably because they needed to project and anyway they were singing contrapuntally simple music, where the vibrato wasn't going to get in anyone's way.  Other singers, some enlightened singers of baroque and renaissance music like Emma Kirkby for example, tended to use vibrato only at the end of notes, producing great clarity and without compromising humanity, And a very few singers of medieval music used no vibrato at all.

I don't think vibrato helps projection, but may help the voice stand out in a dense orchestral texture.

I also find classical singing technique unattractive, and probably mostly motivated by the need to be heard over the din of a large orchestra in a large concert hall. I get a great deal more pleasure from classical vocals in small ensembles, such as Bach Cantatas.

One thing that bugs me is opera singers that sing leider or melody with their standard operatic technique, rather than adopting a more intimate style.  This shows how it should be done

[asin]B00003ZKR9[/asin]

[zamyrabyrd]

Finally Florent Pagny, a barytone, sings Nessun Dorma from Puccini Turandot scaled lower to his voice

I didn't like it at all, not for being in a lower key but Pagny sounded very stilted. There was practically no warmth or development of single tones. He could have played the notes on the piano with the same results.

Also I was not a fan of West Side Story done by opera singers when it was rerecorded by Bernstein.

ZB