|
|
Post by stuartj on Sept 26, 2008 13:44:46 GMT
Hi Folks. We have a lot to be grateful for since the invention of the microphone and the ability to record or amplify sounds. here is a little piece prom Wiki / Crooners Crooning is a style that has its roots in the Bel Canto of Italian opera, but with the emphasis on subtle vocal nuances and phrasing found in jazz as opposed to elaborate ornamentation or sheer acoustic volume found in opera houses. Before the advent of the microphone, popular singers, like Al Jolson, had to project to the rear seats of a theater, which made for a very loud vocal style. The microphone made possible the more personal style. Crooning is not so much a style of music as it is a technique in which to sing. Interesting, comet, because I was reading something very similar elsewhere. I also have a vague memory that may tie in with something you were saying earlier that the microphone allowed the singers to sing some lower notes that weren't possible otherwise. It is the convention in opera to not use microphones, but that is in a full-scale opera production anyway, where the singers carting mics around would pose problems. Outside of that there is no reason for it. Those who criticize the likes of Hayley for using mics are those who will savage her on principle. I think she was correct when she said one shouldn't let one's life be governed by such. I'm saddened that Dame Malvina did what she did and don't think it helps Hayley at all. The purists won't be placated so there is no sense in attempting it. I don't know what their response to this is and I'm not sure I want to, but I guarantee it won't be pleasant. It seems that there are a lot of fakes out there -- more all the time: www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/30/features/loud.php?page=2I don't agree with everything in this article, but it might be interesting to people here. Opera is at a technological crossroadsNEW YORK: When "Doctor Atomic," the opera about J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project by the dynamic American composer John Adams, had its premiere in October at the San Francisco Opera, the reaction was all over the place. But whatever one's take on the opera (I found it, overall, a courageous and haunting work), surprisingly little was made of one of the production's most unorthodox attributes: The sizable orchestra had 30 microphones positioned among the players, and the singers wore body mikes.Not that long ago, the use of microphones in a major opera house would have provoked critics and buffs to denounce the perpetrators with blood-chilling Verdian curses of "Muori! Muori!" |
|
|
|
Post by loveyou on Sept 26, 2008 15:59:25 GMT
Thank for the details of these arguments.
In every kind of so-called genres, there were some people who liked to unrepentantly boast themselves as purist and aggressively provoke conflicts. It¡¯s boring.
That¡¯s why whenever we increase crossaboveall, the arguments & conflicts will be decreased and more energy could be saved to produce good positive music to praise the Lord and help people receive more light from heart. It¡¯s interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Sept 26, 2008 18:35:43 GMT
Interesting discussion. I'd like to add a few lighter points:
1. Maybe megaphones should make a comeback. They're 100 percent natural, they look funky and no electronic signals are involved to distort things.
2. Some venues are acoustically amazing, like the Mormon Tabernacle where a dropped pin will deafen anyone in the first 100 rows. Such a concert hall should be designed around Hayley's voice to bring out the best in her with no need for electronic amping.
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Sept 26, 2008 20:10:03 GMT
Hi Steve, You probably already know this ! but on Sissel's site there are some gorgeous recordings of herself and the Tabernacle choir, Judge for yourselves  LINKS make people lazy.. |
|
|
|
Post by pjrcorreia on Sept 26, 2008 21:33:41 GMT
Hi Steve, You probably already know this ! but on Sissel's site there are some gorgeous recordings of herself and the Tabernacle choir, Judge for yourselves LINKS make people lazy.. Hi Comet, Thank you so much for the link! |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Sept 27, 2008 1:08:46 GMT
Hello Stuart and all, It is good to see some other input into this rather dry topic.... Here is a link to an interview Rene Fleming did a few years back. There are a few statements there which may (or of course may not  ) be relevant to this discussion. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n14646908Specifically I would like to call attention to this: Fleming struggled to find a voice for pop in her recitals. When she tried some standards during encores, they tended to be oversung.
Then in December 2003, she used a microphone at Carnegie Hall and was much more relaxed. The mike enabled her to escape her training as an opera singer and avoid overenunciating.
"It takes away the need to sing athletically," Fleming said. "It's an enormous difference for us between using amplification or not. I love Marilyn Horne's statement that we're rocket launchers. It's a lot of thrust." First, note the reference to opera singers being "rocket launchers". This is the sort of quote which makes me suspect both that the sheer production of volume may be the single most important aspect of being an opera singer and that the use of frequency alone doesnt entirely explain the difference. Why in the world would anyone wish to become a "rocket launcher" using "thrust" unless this was the goal? Note also that she had difficulty switching from opera to another softer form unless she used a microphone - if your assertion is that this technique has no bearing on the type of music sung, how can this be true?. I think that the article Comet quoted above regarding crooning suggests the same thing - in the opinion of the author, it would seem to only be possible using the microphone. (Note also the use of the phrase "sheer acoustic volume) Hayley is not a crooner per se of course, but I think this is much closer than saying she is an opera singer - somewhere in the transition between this and singing over an orchestra doesnt it stop being "crooning"? Putting this another way, can you sing softly over an orchestra, even using this technique? This is why I was asking about decibel levels and the like earlier. Even if this theory has some merit, doesnt there have to be some minimum threshold for it to take effect? Granted that it might allow a singer at 60 decibels to be heard over an orchestra playing at 90, would the same thing be true if the singer wanted to whisper? I wasnt saying exactly that a relative lack of volume was the reason Hayley's voice was "pure" - in fact "loud" wasnt one of the adjectives you used in the quote I cited. One that you did use was "delicate" - which I think comes closer to the mark. If someone is physically described as delicate - I would not tend to think of them as heavy. If an object is described as delicate, I would think of something fragile. No one ever described a chisel as delicate. I couldnt agree more that Hayley's voice was delicate - but I simply dont associate that word with "loud". Once again, granting for argument that the theory has merit, would a listener still perceive the louder sound to be "delicate" even though there might be no other objective change in the sound itself? The point here of course is that Rene apparantly doesnt see the issue the same way you do Stuart. She happens to be one of the biggest stars of the genre, and also has no ax to grind towards non-opera singers that I know of. She may of course be totally wrong - but somewhere in here is the gist of my problem. I agree that we are actually not that far apart - actually I think you are merely overstating the case somewhat. As I said to Martin above (and I am at something of a disadavantage because Jekyll is not one of the recordings of Hayley that I own) such an effect produced in the studio might actually give some substance to this theory. I mistrust "one size fits all" arguments because they are almost never universally true. Jon |
|
|
|
Post by stuartj on Sept 27, 2008 9:43:45 GMT
I recall saying that I agreed with the critics who were describing Hayley's voice as powerful -- as immensely powerful -- and who described her as "clarion voiced". I have no memory of calling her voice "delicate" and can't really be bothered going back through the posts to see how and where I have been taken out of context and misrepresented this time. I suspect it is something to do with the way it has been said the mike allows a more intimate relationship with the audience, or that the style of opera singing before that now in vogue was more muted, etc -- more like the crossover singers. The theory I have mentioned is not "Stuart's" theory. It is the generally accepted one. There is no argument about it. I haven't overstated it. I have stated it clearly and accurately. The theory explains how and why opera (and other singers) can be heard over an orchestra. I believe (although it is completely irrelevant to the projecting over an orchestra business) that Hayley's voice is strong and loud. It's also pure and linear, but there is no reason why a voice can't be both. Examination: Please listen to the following clips and give an opinion about which female voice is the strongest and loudest. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r6j16vdzAAHayley Matakana Pokare Kare Ana nz.youtube.com/watch?v=qPvyZfH8OZMTe Kanawa Pokare Kare Ana www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXyeSXhfX8Hayley Matakana May it Be www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMKGhaZcDl8Te Kanawa May It Be www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaMIly5G6xcHayley Shenandoah www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVMhqDd7nZMFleming Summer Time The consensus is that Fleming is useless at pop whether she has microphone or not.  www.youtube.com/watch?v=iORjhWyRDuYFleming Terfel More evidence! Terfel is ok, Fleming wreaks it. nz.youtube.com/watch?v=VU4SACzg4hQHayley Last Rose of Summer More evidence -- watch the whole thing -- of how Hayley has to struggle and force herself to get much volume while Fleming seems to be scarcely cruising... or did I get that the wrong way round... Oh no, Fleming is an opera singer so must be much stronger! nz.youtube.com/watch?v=LRB8LbKxLYAKathy Jenkins A couple by way of contrast: www.youtube.com/watch?v=__8ctUsx5DQSissel Shenandoah www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWHo7syTQOoSinead O'Connor Amazing Grace nz.youtube.com/watch?v=6rfkXbVcudcCharlie Church nz.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7MEYY-HoNana Mouskouri nz.youtube.com/watch?v=g26pkRuq1k0Hayley -- An excellent example of how Hayley's duet partner has to lower her volume and soften her tone to adapt to Hayley. And don't take the duet partner's size as an indication of her power either. Hayley and Joathan vs Sarah and Jose uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yM2-L5MUEkUAmigos Para Siempre Brightman and Careeras www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd9OTgGjDvUAmigos Para Siempre Westenra and Ansell All the evidence you'll ever need that the mighty operatic voice of Careeras can be heard all of three feet away, if you have your hearing aid on. And here is the alternative way, as it were, that opera singers get heard over an orchestra. Here are two great rockert-lauchers demonstrating it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kkdrhd1fWEBartoli Terfel What sheer unbridled power! Every instrument in the orchestra at full blast and the conductor going like a madman to keep them going... wait a moment, that's on my notes to Hayley and Jonathan's duet... but they were miked anyway. Oh, well. Make up your own minds... What I have discovered is that if you give a sample like those above to "uneducated" people who have no knowledge or interest in opera or the ideas surrounding it, they will quickly decide that Hayley's voice is easily the strongest and loudest. Give the same test to those who "know" more about the obvious superiority of opera and they will rate Te Kanawa and Fleming louder. I tend to go with the uneducated these days, although a few years ago I certainly wouldn't have. I'm not so insecure these days that I have to prove myself a member of the intelligensia by siding with the classical purists all the time. But what I'd really like to see is all these singers under the same circumstances, with the Mythbusters sound meters under their noses. But I don't think that is going to happen. i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifStuart (Just kiddin' I swear!) |
|
|
|
Post by comet on Sept 27, 2008 13:53:10 GMT
Well I'm glad someone put up so many voices for comparison.
Hayley sounds like a natural human being and so do some of the others , Her voice does not sound forced or unnatural, just naturally beautiful.
Now ! some of the others singing in that forced style, they may be technically brilliant, but it is still ugly, It just makes me shudder in revulsion........
Do they tighten their knickers with a ratchet or a torque wrench before they go on stage, they sound most unnatural,
like animals in pain.... Ugggggggg.
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Sept 27, 2008 17:30:47 GMT
I am one of the few lucky enough to have heard Hayley's first album,
I would then have described Hayley's voice as having a "Delicate Beauty" not delicate as in fragile,
but delicate as in a spiders web is delicate to view, but stronger than most man made products of an equal thickness.
The beauty of sound was there from the start, I would imagine as a baby Hayley cried in tune, though I doubt she cried much,
Hayley was probably listening before she was even born.
Hayley's conveyance of emotion in her singing is very special, unpretentious, Just a treat to watch and hear.
I know much of her movement is stagecraft and rehearsed,
but the magic and originality is in the voice, It is such a privilege to be alive to watch it develop and grow, Long may it last...........
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Sept 27, 2008 17:59:36 GMT
Heh A couple of quibbles.... Hayley performed The Last Rose of Summer with Méav Ní Mhaolchatha not Rene Fleming - Meav is not an opera singer. My impression is actually that in terms of power they are more or less a match. Meav may have slightly more - she is older and has been doing this a bit longer - but Hayley more than compensates for this with other characteristics of her voice Summertime is a piece from the opera Porgy and Bess. As Gershwin used motifs from American Jazz in that production it happens that the song translates better into pop than some other classical works might, but that has nothing to do with the way Fleming performed it here. It is not an example of Rene singing "pop" I have no idea why she chose to massacre the duet with Terfel - but I have heard her jazz album. I didnt find it particularly impressive, but she did remove some of the opera from her voice. --------------------------- I also confess I am a little confused Stuart You made the following statement above. If I took this out of context, then what did you mean by this? As far as it goes these two statements are consistant - and I agree with both premises. But you are also saying that Hayley could learn this technique with no perceptable change in her vocal quality. All I want to know is how can one scream delicately? Here is another case which confuses me. But later you say I will admit that there are two ways to take that latter statement but in context I thought you really meant "done by" If I have mispresented you I apologise, but I really dont think any of these things are taken out of context...... ------------- One problem here which I freely admit is partly my fault is that I am trying to take something theoretical and test its practical applications. In other words, if the theory is true, then one would expect other things to be true as well. For example, can you whisper using this technique - can you sing at 20 decibels -Where is the minimum? Earlier when this was brought up, Stuart dismissed it as an irrelvant "mike vs non mike" issue. I thought that the ability to sing unmiked in a specific condition was at the very heart of the technique itself. Also, the difference between operatic and non-operatic singers is often expressed in terms of their ability to sing above an orchestra. My contention however is that opera is merely one art form among others - and that the reality is that the things which are learned are quite different in many different respects. Even though this one issue seems to get more attention it is difficult to keep it separate from the other things which all opera singers also do and most non opera singers do not. There are therefore two very separate issues here - first does the technique have validity, and second, would the achievment of this ability make Hayley or any other singer an "opera singer" on that basis alone. I am unsure of the former, because I have not yet achieved a good resolution of the ancillary issues associated with it. However, asssuming that it is true, I dont think that the aquisition of this technique would make Hayley a "good" opera singer in and of itself. The case of the purists against Hayley would likely be better served if they actually focused on the other aspects of the art form. Jon ps Kiri's version of "May It Be" may possibly be the worst version of the song that it is possible to record.  |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Sept 27, 2008 22:20:46 GMT
I don't think you can tell anything about relative volumes from amplified recordings. Especially after they have been mangled by youtube!
Having worked through all of sturts examples though I am convinced of one thing, - that I would rather listen to Hayley than any of those other singers. Hayley has better control of her voice than most of then too, and Hayley's pitch is always spot on, unlike some of the others who hit the notes more approximately. It's only when yuo hear Hayley against other "world class" singers like that that you realise just how good she really is!
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by graemek on Sept 27, 2008 23:29:06 GMT
........but it is still ugly, It just makes me shudder in revulsion........ Do they tighten their knickers with a ratchet or a torque wrench before they go on stage, they sound most unnatural, like animals in pain.... Ugggggggg. Hi Comet, love the natural way you express yourself.....no misunderstandings here at all......  Graeme  |
|
|
|
Post by stuartj on Sept 28, 2008 0:26:16 GMT
I don't think you can tell anything about relative volumes from amplified recordings. Especially after they have been mangled by youtube! Martin That certainly makes sense, but still we do make judgements of singers voice strength via them, and I do think (edit) we can get some idea. |
|
|
|
Post by stuartj on Sept 28, 2008 1:45:58 GMT
Heh A couple of quibbles.... Hayley performed The Last Rose of Summer with Méav Ní Mhaolchatha not Rene Fleming - Meav is not an opera singer. My impression is actually that in terms of power they are more or less a match. Meav may have slightly more - she is older and has been doing this a bit longer - but Hayley more than compensates for this with other characteristics of her voice Summertime is a piece from the opera Porgy and Bess. As Gershwin used motifs from American Jazz in that production it happens that the song translates better into pop than some other classical works might, but that has nothing to do with the way Fleming performed it here. It is not an example of Rene singing "pop" I have no idea why she chose to massacre the duet with Terfel - but I have heard her jazz album. I didnt find it particularly impressive, but she did remove some of the opera from her voice. --------------------------- I also confess I am a little confused Stuart You made the following statement above. If I took this out of context, then what did you mean by this? As far as it goes these two statements are consistant - and I agree with both premises. But you are also saying that Hayley could learn this technique with no perceptable change in her vocal quality. All I want to know is how can one scream delicately? Here is another case which confuses me. But later you say I will admit that there are two ways to take that latter statement but in context I thought you really meant "https://i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifone by" If I have mispresented you I apologise, but I really dont think any of these things are taken out of context...... ------------- One problem here which I freely admit is partly my fault is that I am trying to take something theoretical and test its practical applications. In other words, if the theory is true, then one would expect other things to be true as well. For example, can you whisper using this technique - can you sing at 20 decibels -Where is the minimum? Earlier when this was brought up, Stuart dismissed it as an irrelvant "mike vs non mike" issue. I thought that the ability to sing unmiked in a specific condition was at the very heart of the technique itself. Also, the difference between operatic and non-operatic singers is often expressed in terms of their ability to sing above an orchestra. My contention however is that opera is merely one art form among others - and that the reality is that the things which are learned are quite different in many different respects. Even though this one issue seems to get more attention it is difficult to keep it separate from the other things which all opera singers also do and most non opera singers do not. There are therefore two very separate issues here - first does the technique have validity, and second, would the achievment of this ability make Hayley or any other singer an "opera singer" on that basis alone. I am unsure of the former, because I have not yet achieved a good resolution of the ancillary issues associated with it. However, asssuming that it is true, I dont think that the aquisition of this technique would make Hayley a "good" opera singer in and of itself. The case of the purists against Hayley would likely be better served if they actually focused on the other aspects of the art form. Jon ps Kiri's version of "May It Be" may possibly be the worst version of the song that it is possible to record. Yes, I am saying that Hayley could learn the technique with no change to the essential nature of her vocal characteristics -- the pure linear nature of her voice. You began by saying that if Hayley tried to be Fleming she would have to lose the "pure" nature of her voice and if Fleming tried to be like Hayley she would have to lose volume. I just don't accept this for a moment. I have already dealt with this. I said that there may be a misunderstanding of what is meant by vocal qualities or vocal characteristics. Let me put it this way, Kathy Jenkins has a typical operatic voice. Hayley has a more linear, pure voice. The adoption of this technique will not make Hayley's voice anymore "operatic". It will remain pure and linear. Kathy's adopting it or no longer using it won't make her markedly different either. The singers are not screaming. They are producing formant frequencies in the same pitch range as the human scream. What I object to is the degree of vocal change that I believed you were suggesting would occur. What I said was that some people find operatic singing unpleasant, and cite that the singers sound like they are "screaming" but others do not get that impression at all. Did I really say that the technique would make "no perceptible change"? I said it makes a singer seem louder, and makes their voice carry. I reject the notion that it would make Hayley sound less linear and pure. But I'm not even sure what you mean exactly by change in vocal qualities. And I have no way of knowing whether Hayley uses it or not. One feature of it, according to Huron, is that it tends to produce a physiological reaction in some people that includes goosebumps, but people say the get goosebumps listening to non-operatic singers too. Whether other factors produce them as well I don't know. There was a typo, of course, in the comment I made about any song being done using the technique. If you are able to volutarily roll up the ventricular folds I don't see why you can't do any song using it. Opera singers can raise and lower their volume levels, you know, when using the technique. What limits the number of songs you can do and the way you can do them is not using a mike. If you think I am splitting hairs I simply answered your questions literally. You can use this technique and use a mike as will if you want to. Why you'd want to I don't know. I agree absolutely that the aquisition of this technique would not make anyone an opera singer. Of course the aquisition of this technique in itself would not make someone a "good" opera singer. Yes the purists should focus on other aspects of the art. But you see some friends and former neigbours of mine and a couple of other characters used to buy into the whole art music myth. I call it a myth deliberately. All three or four of us have changed our opinions and the attitude of the purists on their fora and places like YouTube is what made us question it. In particular, this business of opera singers being superior because of there ability to project over an orchestra led to my questioning the whole business. The fact that it can be learnt so easily, and the fact that loudness/decibels surely doesn't make one artistically superior quickly sprang to mind. BTW The fruity blasting style of singing that often features in modern opera is not a result of this technique but of other conventions. My conclusion is simple. The purists go on about the popsters using mikes, only lasting 2-3 years, and having tiny squeaky voices etc, because they are devoid of any real argument. Dame Kiri simply parroted the same list that has been used against pop singers for generation after generation. Although there may be a difference here that I might come back to in another post. What makes this strange form of Italian vocalism the pinnicle of vocal perfection? I don't understand your comment about Meav. I simply put those there to illustrate my point about the strength of voices. I nearly put one of Meave whose voice is much much weaker than Hayley's is now. I have no doubt about that. I like her singing but her voice is not strong. Lisa Kelly is stronger than Meave. You seem to misunderstand my reasons for posting these. I don't understand your comment about Fleming's Summertime either. I posted them so people could compare voice strengths (as well as can be via mangled YouTube Vids). It's of no consequence whether she is singing pop or opera. The theory is very simple. No human can produce the same decibel level of an orchestra at full blast, so to be heard they must produce frequencies the orchestra doesn't. Fortunately the human voice can do this, and there is a technique that enables these frequencies to be produced that involves controlling the throat muscles in a particular way. It is a technique that most normal people, with practice and vocal training, can master. Some singers achieve it without training although this is rare these days because most classical singers do have formal training, and most pop singers have no need to use it. If there was any evidence that it altered a person's essential vocal characteristics then the literature would mention it. It doesn't. Thousands of people learn this technique every year, so if it caused any such marked alterations, it would be obvious. www.ncvs.org/ncvs/tutorials/voiceprod/tutorial/singer.htmlVocal Ring, or The Singer's Formant
One seemingly mysterious property of the singing voice is its ability to be heard even over a very loud orchestra. At first glance, this is counter-intuitive, since the orchestra is perceived by us to be so much louder than a single singer. The answer to this mystery lies in the way the sound energy of the operatic voice is distributed across various frequencies.Actually it may make more perceptible difference than I had been led to believe by others I have spoken to and what I've read in the past. www.ncvs.org/ncvs/tutorials/voiceprod/movies/ringfrm.movThis, the link above, may answer some questions. Wiki Singers' formantStudies of the frequency spectrum of trained singers, especially male singers, indicate a clear formant around 3000 Hz (between 2800 and 3400) that is absent in speech or in the spectra of untrained singers. It is increase in energy at 3000Hz which allows singers to be heard and understood over an orchestra, which peak at much lower frequencies of around 500 Hz. This formant is actively developed through vocal training, for instance through so-called "voce di strega" or witch's voice[6] exercises and is caused by a part of the vocal tract acting as a resonator.[7][8]There are a couple of other things I was going to mention, but I will leave them for now. To me the discussion seems to be going around in circles and you could go on picking at various points forever. I don't mean to be rude, this is just how it seems to me. There are discussions that are exchanges of information and then there are those in which people are simply trying to score points, and trip the other person up. It really does seem to me at times that you are doing the second. |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Sept 28, 2008 2:01:06 GMT
Hi Stuart,
The only reason i mentioned Meav is that you credited that duet with Hayley to Fleming - and then went on to mock Fleming....
I agree that future debate is likely pointless.
Jon
|
|
) be relevant to this discussion. 
