@@RadamesAida2Operalovers yes. I'm sure. I saw a lot of your videos and i say that this is you subjective opinion.😆 The resonant must be CLOSED to be amplified. The pharingeal space goes to the mouth, that is always open Nobody found the real resonant point of classical singing and proved it mathematically, physically, etc. there are only subjective sensations of every singer. That's why they write books.
@@santisramos5832 you are right, but I would recommend you not to lose time with these trolls that believe that there is only one valid and correct way of singing and it is the one they preach.
I am so glad that this channel exists! Ever since This is Opera channel had the internal conflicts on their channel, I was so worried thinking their channel getting shut down forever..... Luckily, their channel is back but I think they still have internal matters they have to resolve. Please keep posting these types of educational videos. Thank you General Radames!
Of the singers I heard live, the one I liked the most was Cornell MacNeil. His voice was very rich. I heard Joan Sutherland at the Met in 1970. Her voice filled Lincoln Center.
Totally agree . “Mask” method has a lot of immediate results but never teaches true connection with the body and the voice or for that matter, never reveals the owners own personal sound which is what every singer should strive for. That comes from the manner of speech and breath, Development of core strength and flexibility. (Lots of other things too) Mask technique has nothing to do with the true BelCanto method. In the music of Caccini one understands through the melody and text the proper technique. Allowing the vowel to create its own space through very specific support , space and resonance. A submission to nature, not a defiance of it.. Hope that makes sense. Thank you so much for posting these videos. It clarifies a lot of things for me. .
The mask method narrows the voice yet works for some people I think because they are built with natural physical attributes which somehow over come the limitations of the method Domingo is a great example of this so is the quote nasal but great Alfredo Kraus.
To be honest, most of these examples sounded more like they just used more scuro and had a lower larynx...also, actually I've heard more uniqueness in the mask singers (except one where his voice sounded muffled indeed)
I've never noticed how indistinct Joan Sutherland's diction could be 'til this vlog. Pavarotti can be clearly understood while all I hear from Sutherland is a sort of 'mwa, mwa, wwa' vocalisation.
Two comments. The young Joan Sutherland had amazing accuracy of pitch as well as a beautiful, natural sound. At some point in her career she switched to the loud hooting which so many people adore. My second point is that just because someone was taught to sing in the mask, it doesn't mean their singing is incorrect. An incorrect concept can work for some singers.
The "mask" is one component of good singing. It's also called nasal resonance or head voice. If you use only nasal resonance it's as incorrect as using only mouth (or throat) resonance. You use both and focus them precisely where? Very few people know that part.@@Daniel-gl3vk
One is easy and open, warm, nce chest mix, Look at the relaxed look on the faces of a non mask singers, then look at the struggle of the mask singers faces, mask singing makes me feel tense when I listen to the singer, pitch probems for mask singing, and tendency to striaght tone, no connection to the chest voice, which is the power, so the tone is not warm. Thanks for the video, please make more , I Love these
Maestro, I need help. I'm a young voice teacher with a studio of about 30-40 voice students. All younger voices (all varying styles). I know instinctively that what you are saying is correct. One need only listen to your examples. I've studied a lot of Caruso's writings and my students seem to be doing well. I never talk about "forward placement", "placing in the mask" or "singing behind the top teeth." However, it is really frustrating because I always feel like I'm in "defense mode". So many teachers and singers working today use this MASK dominant technique. I follow your teachings closely and try to echo that in my lessons. I believe that the only way that we will bring back this beautiful way of singing, that is slowly becoming extinct, is by training singers that can sing in that hair-raising old school way. So much so that I have a created scholarship where I teach an hour lesson every week to a rising sophomore for free. Just to begin that process of getting them ready for college auditions. I guess what I'm asking for is help refining my teaching to emulate this old school way of singing. Many thanks! (Also, I would love to know your thoughts concerning use of a Straw for training the voice.)
Thank you for the kind words. I only made these videos because there wasn't anything out there for people to use as a guide. Books only give a limited description of things. And they can mean all sorts of things to all sorts of people. Even though my videos provide both an aural and written description of certain points. They are still going to be misunderstood by many. However. the whole idea of being a good teacher and singers is to know the right sound. If you know the right sound you can at least have a right target or goal. So my videos are overall giving people the idea of the right sound. Which is foundational. That is why I also post videos of good and great singers. I suppose one thing you would know being a teacher, is how much you need to know, and how much you learn from the teaching process. I am looking for people who want to teach more than sing. Teachers are the foundation of our art form. No teachers no singers. There is no proper institution that does this. This is one of the big problems for Opera. Opera is a tradition, passed on from person to person. The tradition and the systems that went with it have collapsed. We only have universities and degrees. Why don't you organise Skype lessons with me? And I can show you what I know. Email me. radamesaida2@gmail.com
Thank you for this wonderful opportunity, Maestro. I will be writing very soon. I also agree that there is a great absence of opportunities to study with great masters. Thank you again!
You might want to bother paying attention to what he's saying. As he makes clear, nasal singing and mask singing are not the same thing: th-cam.com/video/AjG1QrlWnac/w-d-xo.html
@@twlewis01 Exactly! The problem is most people, when you tell them to sing in the mask, they end up putting the sound in their nose. Trimble is absolutely for mask resonance, he just uses the real mask which is above the nose, from the bottom of the eyes up.
Amazing video.i have watch all your videos.i am a professional tenor and i almost lost my voice and give up singing until i found by a.friend a teacher and i relearn singing but in this way that you saying.core squillo and no mask.chest voice all tge way and proper breathing with specific exersice.so.after 8months very hard training now i see the results.singing from another planet.my teacher is from nino picaluga school.very few in the world teaches.this schooling...and it is a shame that most of the singers afraid or not trust this way of training .
opera singer rother, in the line of Tettrazinni school and squill IS mask, but chest support open throat throughout the voice. I think I understand what you are saying. Apogio
I am a young soprano, and i've recently had to overcome some things and it had me thinking of transforming my voice. Trusting the pharengeally school can you tell me more? It would be an honour for me to talk to you on this subject.
Sutherland is a tough case for this study because a surgery early in her career removed so much that, according to her, she had to create a " false resonance". What she did with it was incredible for her specialty. Singer's sing with different gifts and deficits to varying degrees of success, but I think most honestly try to do their best...
I heard her live in 1960 and was not greatly impressed. I think she was a soprano who decided to move up. She had a bright and beautiful voice in 1960 that she did lose but most women are about through in their 50's for their best singing.
@@ariassongs I am sure a very few singers sound good at age 70 but not many. One of the greatest singers was Flagstad and in an interview with a record producer, he said he had to shape the arias to her lack of the very highest notes as she was in her 60's. Many of these modern singers have no real low or high notes in their 30's!! And when they get into the 40's sound very bad to me. They should try to sing on key at least? We have the current Met operas on youtube and can easily compare!
@@rothvinbosley1335 FLAGSTAD DAMAGED HER VOICE BY SINGING TOO MANY WAGNERIAN ROLES PROBABLY WITHOUT REST IN BETWEEN, AS THEY WERE DEMANDED OF HER. MANY OTHER SINGERS CAN SING BEYOND 60 & 70 IF THEY TOOK GOOD CARE OF THEIR VOICE, AND KEPT IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION.
I have NEVER heard Sutherland's approach equated with 'masque' singing! Mushy vowels, but never 'stick it in the mask, honey' (as one teacher I knew told her students). Laser beam high notes- at 20- but pretty? Hardly.
Bit hard on Sutherland , in the House her voice was Three times bigger than Pavarotti's she is reigned back here, I heard them together many many times, I first heard Sutherland in the early fifties, she was incredible I can tell you that, she sang from the Chest ut de Poitrine in the true sense like all great singers.
Other people commenting have probably already stated this, but both videos featuring Sutherland are pretty amazing considering her age at that time. She still maintained youthful quality that had both depth and shimmer.
There is only one method to sing: From the vocal cords into the face. In this ca. 20 cm is the sound built. When the throat and the nose is free and well perfused everything sounds right.
You’re delusional. I also saw your comments about Callas on another video that have shown how arrogant and vile you are. Besides your comment here is absolutely delusional, there are a TON of different singing methods as evidenced by countless teachers and singers (Like Melocchi and Del Monaco).
I wish all tghe best to your teaching to keep the great singing alive.its not an easy way...but someone that stays.in this path he will make a beautifull and longlasting instrument
Sutherland could be heard with her enormous voice sounding as if it came from everywhere in the house and was singing incredible high notes above C until her early 60's, so she must have been doing something right. Just my opinion.
You are a vocal specialist so I don't presume to argue with you. She is my favorite singer so I am speaking from likes and not technique. I enjoy hearing what you have to say, though.
Marco Tariello can you hear the difference in vocal freedom and efficiency in these two examples? th-cam.com/video/PXiawmR-OB0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/sq3H42NjmIU/w-d-xo.html The singer with the better vocal production can even play more with the dynamics, because her voice will project and with clarity even when singing very soft. The other singer can’t play with the dynamics as much because her sound is bottled up, which forces her to sing more in the same loudness to be heard well
Earlier she had a brighter placement. Bonynge wanted her to have a more covered placement for longevity and it must have worked as she was singing better than anyone else up until her 6o's. I prefer the covered tone, although I would have loved to have heard her early Alcina and Lucia performances. Sutherland said her notes en alt were all sung not in the mask but shot out of the top of her big head.
John Roberts the “covered” (muffled” tone has nothing to do with longevity. You wouldn’t speak muffled why would you sing like that? Women also do not “cover” their voices. The vocal cover is a muscular switch that occurs in the male passagio to balance the up and forward pull of the larynx so they can stay in chest voice at the break. Women don’t cover. And the cover has nothing to do with making a hooty muffled sound and not anything remotely to do with vocal longevity. The “brighter” sound is actually just more clarity to the voice by lack of constriction and nasality. There’s actual more darkness to the sound in a non nasal voice because you can’t sing nasal and have depth to the sound. But when properly produced you have depth and piercing brightness. That’s chiaroscuro. Her chiaroscuro is weakened in this muffled sound. There have been countless singers to sing far better far longer than Sutherland so I’m not really sure you get this notion from that it increases longevity. Can you explain why constricting your voice and lowering the soft palate to resonate more in the nose would contribute to vocal longevity? There’s no scientific explanation for such an idea It’s also interesting to note how singers feel when singing but it must be said the voice can’t shoot out anywhere but the mouth or nose. And preferably not the nose lol
I am using the terminology that Maestro Bonynge used. If you want to call him ignorant then go ahead. I am just quoting him and the sound does have a covered sound so the term is useful in describing what you hear. I know he knows more than me and understands his wife's voice. I am a HUGE fan of Sutherland and have two lectures about her on TH-cam. I don't think we will ever agree about this.
Great point about the pharyngeal sound! Not the best example in my humble opinion regarding Pav/ Sutherland. They both were pharyngeal singers. Sutherland had blocked sinuses most of her career. Excerpt from a great book: Joan Sutherland seems destined to defy all followers of nasal and sinus resonance, emitting her most beautiful and ravishing sounds with these resources completely blocked, and she can certainly set us thinking about their value for singing. If we look at her generous lower jaw and long solid neck, we realize she must have had great pharynx-resonance at all times. When she sings we see that her head is thrown back, showing us her wonderful neck surrounding her spacious throat, which is wide open with this head position. Singers who rely mostly on forward production and projection of the sound tend to throw their heads forward, thereby contracting the throat. Her recordings from 1955 have the same qualities as those after the operation in 1959; the Joan Sutherland sound is present and unaltered. Daniela Bloem-Hubatka (2012). The Old Italian School of Singing: A Theoretical and Practical Guide. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-8895-7.
Everyone sings pharyngeally. It is how the singer manipulates their pharynx and mechanism that reflects how the sound is emitted. Sinuses and pharynx are two different places. Sinuses have nothing to do with singing. When people make a mask sound they are manipulating the larynx and vocal tract to emit a masky sound. See my playlist on the mask. The standing of Joan Sutherland as a singer or the other qualities of her sound are not in dispute. I am demonstrating the possibilities of a better quality production that is not marred by a covered masky sound. Her earlier singing was a lot clearer. Sutherland sang with more space on the higher notes and collapsed the sound as she hit her middle and lower notes. Thanks for the comment.:D
Joan Sutherland was a gift from God. She is defined by Peters and Pavarotti as the greatest voice of all time.. She had a phenomenal instrument and worked hard (over 5 years with her husband) to obtain such an amazing technique so as to whiz through the demanding coloratura, high and held notes with the greatest of ease, never ever pushing and utilizing the greatest array of dynamics and messe di voce , her filati were unbeatable.. This total relaxation of the vocal tract enhancing the open throat coupled with such amazing breath control allowed her to sing well into her 60s and beyond. She was also human so like everyone else she had defects...so yes, she had sloppy pronunciation but if you hear her early recordings her dicition was very audible. Later she decided to favour line over diction. I disagree with this , I think there is a happy compromise which enhances both. Yes she was not a great actress but she really shined in comic roles and above all in Lucia, which was staged by Zefferelli who was stunned by the quality of her vocal instrument, she is unsurpassed. It remains the greatest mad scene of Lucia of all time... she even sang it at the Met in 1985 when she was over 50 and while the first part before the mad scene was sang well, albeit already a bit funnelled, the mad scene was emotionally charged. Suddenly you heard every word. While she ran all over the stage and up and down the stairs in a deluded state she never missed a note and still hit an E flat in the finale of the aria that practically never ended..(on youtube) I also believe Haendel was perfect for her voice and was always spot on. Her Turandot, albeit only in recording, was one of the most refined and musically faithful versions I've ever heard. Roughly At the same age, Leontyne Price gave her final performance in Aida and while her voice was a glorious instrument the strain to support it was evident with notable problems in pitch and sustained notes espescially via ungraceful portamentos. I don't say this to criticise or compare Price with Sutherland, I say it to highlight that no one is perfect especially when aging. Moreover we should cherish each singer's unique positive qualities and accept inevitable negative traits unless you don't like almost all of what the singer does. No matter how you might hate that muffled sound especially in the middle range of Joan's voice you can't deny the greatness of her instrument and technique which cements her status as one of the greatest of all time.. P:S don't forget at her London debut in Lucia, Both Schwarzkopff and Callas were in the audience, haven been tipped off by the conductor, Serafin that she was a phenomenon.
Vocal technique is a highly subjective matter and there seem to be so few genuine pedagogues and so many self-inflated critics! It’s highly unlikely that any of you could make sounds or express this great music on a level anywhere near these fine artists. Try just surrendering to the experience and ENJOYING!
So, it is not my ears and my opinion only. I always thought Joan Sutherland vocalize the music, it did not matter what language she sang in, she never really sang the words.
I am not sure you have made your point clear enough. The Amore Grillo example was very much to the point. The argument you present, however, is worth exploring. Much thanks.
This one vs other is very funny, and makes no sense to oppose the two (you need both). It suffices to hear Pavarotti (and Sutherland) at the end 9:13 and especially the high C# (where is that one projected?) to know that beautiful, forward singing, with high frequencies in the forehead above the eyes level (proper mask) can only be achieved with proper support (there's a great amount of working that "fiato" to get there, trust me) - the mouth is also wide open horizontally and vertically (which gives both higher frequencies and low larynx, huge pharyngeal space). If you lack the right support, the sound will resonate lower in the mask (as if it came through the mouth) or even worst from the throat ( ingolato, etc), or a bit better and upper in the mask (between mouth and nose level), etc. and many places in between. The best resonance in the mask up there is only achievable with the right workout and support - the feeling is one of freedom, flying over the breath, and a sensation that you can keep the sound going forwards (you loose very little air) - at the same time, there is loads of pressure in the abdomen to maintain the columns of air (like a spring well extended, which can keep throwing projectiles up up up up). Mind you, there's a huge difference between nasal singing and mask singing. Italian singing is this: fiato and search la altezza del suono - proper mask. See all the great ones (Del Monaco, Gigli, Pavarotti, Volpi, Zeani, Caballe, etc. etc.) There is a lot of confusion coming from terminology, but always search what the great ones are doing, and not necessarily what they are saying. When you discover the sweet spot in your singing, you'll know :-)
There are always people out there who claim, with absolute confidence, that their particular technique is the only correct one. They are almost never people who have the kind of career that Sutherland had, and one would think they would learn a bit of humility before criticizing the technique of someone who had such an amazing, long international career as she did! The truth of the matter, despite what anyone says, is that voices are all very unique, and there is no absolute right or wrong technique for singing. The trick is finding the technique works best for a particular individual, and places the least strain on that individual's voice. I have seen more damage done to voices by trying to force them into a particular technique for which their voice is ill[ suited than I can say. And look, all this talk of masque versus pharyngeal singing is, in reality, so much nonsense. Because we can't see what we are doing when we sing (unlike, say, playing a violin), we wind up teaching by using metaphors, visualizations, and descriptions for the sensations people experience when they sing, sensations that can vary enormously from one swinger to the next.
How do you think about Franco Tenelli? He talks about support and chiaroscuro alot, but what he had post is quiet different from those great tenor's voice.
I do not think much about him. He seems to make up terms never conceived by anyone else. His ideas make no sense and are purely subjective, based on nothing i know. He talks about these known concepts in weird ways. I couldn't make sense on anything he says. His teaching and students demonstrate he knows very little. His voice is very thick and constricted. You can hear a lot of squeeze when he sings. His voice also lacks the proper muscular development. He has no chest function. With the constriction, there is no vocal clarity.
GeneralRadames Thank you for the comment, I think I'll skip his video from now on. BTW I love your channel, it makes me stay away from wrong teaching. It really helps a lot.
That was my aim. Teachers give us information and tools to sing. We in the end decide what we do. Listen to your instinct, to good singers, and keep watching. :D
GeneralRadames his videos seem ridiculously convoluted, but I saw his video on types of appoggio and though he explains really poorly I think there’s some scientific basis hidden in the mess. Like he talks of dynamic appoggio and static. What he seems to be describing is a static antagonism of diaphragm to exhale muscles versus a more dynamically controlled opposition. Things like this. He makes things incredibly confusing and you’re right his sound is meh
Have you got that video on static and dynamic? I have never heard these terms used before. He makes them up. I can watch it if you provide the link? I can try to work out what he means. In essence when singing, we have to maintain the diaphragmatic action, keeping the expansion going. Otherwise the throat could close.
Nonsense in your Pavarotti/Sutherland duett. He himself said that he learned to sing by listening to and singing along her to her, he greatly admired her. And rightfully so. Her sound is wide and focused at the same time.
A professor told me that I sang in the mask and that it was very good. I'm so confused Because some people say that sing in mask is the correct form and others say that is wrong. I can't understand. how can I sing in the correct way?
It’s fine to sing in the mask and there are nasal resonators there. They have a different sound but as long as you are using a healthy technique sing what feels right for you.
Same here The problem My teacher told me is when we lost Quality in low notes so the idea is to alternate chest voice and mask voice to finally develop chiaroscuro
@@reanna269 but sometimes we need to learn the correct way like this Italian or bel canto,, i mean their quality of sound is super rich and not having antension
Casimir Alexander I think perhaps you should review your statement. Perhaps they were speaking of good masque resonance, which is a result of what the General is teaching us here😐.
@@femistokll_Moskalkov He also said to always keep the sound behind the eyes, even on the lowest notes. That is the true mask. The problem is the term "Mask" is not something these old singers used, especially in Italy and the term has come to mean singing in the nose pretty much, it's just been bastardised, mainly because of Alfredo Kraus i believe. But, that isn't even the mask, it's the space from the bottom of the eyes up, as pavarotti described, he just didn't call it the mask. Even Lauri Volpi would talk about the third eye. My teacher who studied with both Pavarotti and Corelli always tells me never to sing in the mask, but then he always talks about certain areas of resonance in the face for certain vowels. He doesn't refer to it as the mask, but it is the mask, it's just the true mask, not the nose.
Il confronto tra casi estremi di canto con una predominanza alla maschera e risonanza faringea non è valido. Per anatomia e spazi in cui l'aria si espande, in ogni cantante l'aria si espande nella faringe, in misura maggiore o minore, e solo abbassando la laringe. E anche l'emissione di aria è inevitabile che sia diretta (in misura maggiore o minore) verso i risonatori della maschera e persino quelli cranici. Ciò può essere dimostrato in un'autopsia osservando l'anatomia. Pertanto, l'emissione è misto, sebbene in alcuni cantanti predomina una tecnica o un'altra. Inoltre, per dire senza mezzi termini che il canto alla maschera è sbagliata e alla faringe è la cosa giusta ... questo non è un assioma. Qui entra in gioco 1) il risultato del suono, 2) il gusto personale dell'ascoltatore. Per fare un esempio: Kraus canta con una predominanza della maschera, se questo è vero il risultato del suo canto è molto buono, modula il canto, la voce viene ascoltata in tutto il teatro e attraversa l'orchestra come una spada. E se mi piace il colore della tua voce, cosa mi importa della sua modalità di emissione? Ergo gli assiomi teorici non possono condizionare la valutazione di una voce; e ci sono anche voci buone e cattive emesse con una tecnica o con un'altra.
The mask and cranial areas do not contribute to the amplification of sound. Resonance i.e amplification of sound occurs at the larynx and pharynx. The spaces of these areas. You need to watch my other videos. th-cam.com/video/2N5q85G3ydk/w-d-xo.html
I enjoyed this video - but Joan Sutherland had a voice that by the 1980's she was using to show off "size" not crystalline purity. Her voice was being produced to show off it's "thickness" and "big round heft" which is ,unfortunately , very rare and almost extinct nowadays. Hers was a voice that astonished people when heard live. I DID hear her in the 80's in Norma and other operas.
Your use of the word "thickness" makes me think of others, whose "thinner" sound was more brilliant -- Kathleen Battle comes to mind. But whether the voice is "thick" or "thin", and whether you like one over the other I think is a personal preference. Personally, I love them both depending on the role. To my ears Sutherland's "big round heft" as you put it (and I agree) is a more luscious sound and is capable of more nuances of expression than singing Handel for example. My opinion is that Handel (as in the case of Kathleen Battle) is more about the purity and clarity of sound rather than any underlying deep emotions. That being said, I must add that the beauty of the singing in a performance of Handel's Messiah brought me to tears. th-cam.com/video/SUOTq_xGWpE/w-d-xo.html
I think one could lose one's voice earlier too. To hear Bartoli try to sing Casta Diva is just nuts! A singer needs to know what material to sing. I know some of the all-time greats seemed able to sing anything but most have to stick to what they can sing well and often. In a book by Domingo, he said he had one performance of a Wagner and he said never again! But some in the 1880's sang a lot of that and went into belcanto as well. Lehmann was one for sure.
I actually didn't get it. Well... for example in the comments below people write that Luciano's voice is smaller than Joan's... khm... why then everybody can hear every word coming out of Luciano's mouth and barely catch what Joan's singing? I mean uh... my Italian isn't great but I really understand Luciano's every word. Even those which are, you know, like a short vowels 'tween the notes. Sound of her voice is heard probably as a deeper voice, but I dare to conclude you cannot hear the text clearly. What's the sense to sing if no one can hear your text? My teacher doesn't teach me to sing "in the mask" but the articulation alongside with proper pharynx tuneup and diaphragm work gives a stable and flying voice. But to make one's articulation work you have to make him/her send their voice forward, to be clearly heard in a last theatre row. Otherwise voice remains in the pharynx and voila... A little bit messy but I hope you'll understand my idea.
@@mickey1849 what I mean is that "in the mask" method can give strength and depth to one's voice but it doesn't give proper articulation. My teacher says that when you first learn to articulate properly, your voice will find "the mask", or as some Russian vocal theoreticians say, "the little box". And this video proves that, doesn't it? 🤔
Leo Ants Well anytime I hear "mask" red flags go up everywhere. The vast majority of clear intonation is going to happen in the back of the throat, where the soft palate is. Combine that with a completely open pharyngeal space and there is your clear intonation and articulation. Whatever it sounds like buzzing out of the middle of your face is simply a result of that, not the cause of that. "Little box..." I might be willing to go with that terminology. But not "mask/masque." I could imagine a "little box" in the back of my throat🎁, where all kinds of good things come out of it. Corelli says the voice is here, a "ball of energy" in the back of the throat. I am in lockstep with his conclusion.
He was a fine singer. His sound is a bit wooden, His singing is not so spontaneous. I prefer others of his generation. De Luca, Battistini, Ancona,Ruffo, etc. Go to my Baritones Playlist. I have some up. And I will post more as time goes by.
You can hear that singers like Caruso and Pavarotti aren’t merely singing a concert to themselves in their heads. The mask singers are pointing all of the sound into their own skulls and not sending the sound outwards into the audience. The mask singers lack chest voice from the bottom to the top of their voices.
Rex Wee Peerce was a cravat tenor. Some people are just not going to like that style. He was Lanza's favorite singer. Lanza also occasionally sang with a cravat. It was not his best sound.
I've never been a fan of soprani voices (exceptions being Anna Moffo and Christina Deutekom) so I've wondered if my prejudice was in the way of my appreciating Joan Sutherland...which I have never done, but she was so much celebrated by the self-acclaimed cogniscenti, I've wondered that I might how my ears might have been missing what others embraced. My hearing discerned only a melange of vowels lacking any denotation of "words" achieved by the occasional presence of a consonant. Anyone else share my confusion or able to direct me to a recording where "La Stupenda" earns her nickname? Pip pip
I am sure she earned her fame. There were just things she could of improved on. When there are no words, no clear enunciated vowels, we lose a sense of emotional, meaningful connection. It just becomes pretty noise.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers It was some of the most beautiful and fearlessly consistent, and strong "noises" I have ever heard. People bought tickets to hear her sing, knowing that they would hear those "noises" that were more beautiful than language ever can be. One would think that people who claim to love music don't actually believe that musical sound also has emotional content through sound. No one ever expected Sutherland or her voice to reveal deep human mysteries. She revealed angelic and archangelic mysteries instead.
It is interesting to me that you include Jan Peerce with Robert Merrill. Peerce was I believe Toscanini's favorite tenor. I'm inclined personally to prefer what you call pharyngeal production, but people whose taste can hardly be dismissed have at times embraced the particular express qualities of a more nasal production, which can be more speech-like or yell-like, which is perhaps desirable for its verismo qualities. Perhaps you could call it the New York sound? The sound of Peerce or Tucker or, later, (non-New Yorker) Sherrill Milnes. And lumping the classic "mask" singing of Sutherland with this nasal sound doesn't seem right to me. At its best, the nasal placement can create an exciting intensity of diction, while the "great" mask singers do quite the opposite.
I I've been taught not to sing in the mask and I'm confident that it is the correct way to achieve perfect singing in Opera however what I'm puzzled by is the success of some tenors and baritones are here who appeared to be singing in the mask yet who can produce a very good sound in fact an excellent sound I wonder if it's just a matter of chance are people using a mixture of techniques and are able to do so because their physique is different from other people's. I wonder whether for instance my favourite tenor de Stefano sang into the mask as sometimes I hear a nasal sound the same with other tenants such as even bergonzi It's well known that de Stefano technique was not correct but in spite of that he was a wonderful artist & singer and had a long career at the top.
@@chicagolc7022 in the technique I have learned we sing as if the breath and voice is going in to the hard palate, I'm pretty sure Corelli ,Pavarotti etc sang this way, You can hear my singing teacher the tenor Jeffrey Talbot and my fellow pupil Colin Lee who had a big career singing Bel canto roles
His singing became more and more wooden the more he tried to place the sound. There is a stark difference between his earliest recordings and his later ones.
I'd rather study in person. I wouldn't trust the sound quality on a computer. I'm not sure I can even afford lessons 😪. I need 3 a week minimum. To bad you're not in southern California
Scott Foreman hi Scott, a great money saving tip for you may be to have a lesson once a week and record it. then listen to it to practice. it helps you solidify the corrections you were given and techniques you worked on more accurately than just relying on your memory of the lesson or notes in the sheet music. it is a very effective cost reduced alternative to 2 or more lesson per week, which many singers feel like they need to take to improve.
Until I knew what the teacher wanted of me and I was secure with that, I'd quite honestly be reluctant to sing in between lessons. In my humble opinion, singers should be having 3+ lessons a week and should be able to afford it rather than paying teachers an hour what many singers make a week! The voice is a muscle and once a week isn't enough! This is just my opinion. Caruso Tetrazzini Muzio, Price, Peters, Sills didn't study once a week!!!! Most if not all were mentored or sponsored to study. What's happened to this? Are we seeing bad singing today because of it? Is it just the technique or singers rushing to be famous? I was actually told by a famous teach who at the time charged $90 in the 80s, if I couldn't afford I shouldn't come back or choose another career path!!!! However she was extremely impressed with the raw talent I had. I walked away and looked elsewhere.
Scott Foreman I do agree that lessons would ideally be more affordable but we have to accept the business nature here- better lessons cost more. as long as there is a variation in lesson quality, and a sufficient demand for good lessons, the prices will always vary accordingly. I believe everyone should practice at home. it’s the in between spaces and processes that bring progress. a teacher should be teaching in a manner appropriate for the students level so that they can and should safely and effectively practice outside of lessons. otherwise, the lessons are not fit for the student.
Scott Foreman I understand ethos comment is months old... but it sounds like a lot of roadblocks as to why you "can't" do something. That's the number one cause of failure for voice students is the negative self talk. Mental toughness goes hand in hand with proper vocals technique, and I'd recommend starting with your mindset toward singing first, in my humble opinion.
A question: the singers in the trovatore excerpt are good examples of pharyngeal singing, right? I was confused about it, because of the text. And Rosa Ponselle, who is not included but I want to mention her, sounds tot my ears in the midrange rather nasal. Is IT true that she uses mask resonance? And who is singing as Amneris? Edit: oh, one of the two sings in the mask, my error.
Essentially there is no mask. It is a term used in pedagogy. The "masky" sounds or sounds that are not clear and purer are alterations of the larynx pharynx. Very simple. Adding constrictions will add noise or bi noise in singing. Ponselle added a little growl to the sound. So did Titto Ruffo. But they had better function and actions going on. It is all relative. We can all strive for better production. There is no perfect in singing. However, it is good to strive for perfection.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers yes, i know there is no mask in singing, though Carlo Bergonzi and Pertile talked about the mask. But thanks for the information regarding Ponselle.
PAVAROTTI IS A NATURAL PROTEGE, WHERE SHE IS NOT!!!! SHE IS VERY MECHANICAL!!! AWFUL SINGING!!! COULD NEVER UNDERSTAND A WORD SHE IS SAYING!!! I AM SO GLAD I HAVE OTHER SINGERS TO LISTEN TO BESIDES HER!!!
Antoine Garnier There's a much more simple explanation. It's the sound difference between proper pharyngeal singing and a lack of proper pharyngeal singing, which the General is trying to teach us🥳 /// But, after sleeping on it for a night I decided to come back and further comment on what you said about Pavarotti singing "for real." Yes, I believe you are right. Pav is doing his best to support her and make her look good in every way, with no regard for himself. It's no secret "Why" either. When she invited Pav to tour Australia with her in Summer 1965 it was a big break for him of sorts. Moreover, his American debut in Miami was directly a result of her recommendation when the principal bailed and there was no understudy. I feel the same as you: it's marvelous to see him "real" here, and supporting his sponsor in every way, with no thought for his own ego whatsoever☺️. Whatever faults Pavarotti can be accused of, I don't think ingratitude is one of them👏. Watching him with the Three Tenors, I would never get the same feeling about him I get here.😙
So if mask singing is bad, why is it then modern teachers teach mask singing? Is there downside with chest singing, for example, a chest singer wears out faster than a nasal forward placement singer? Or is placement singing more pleasant to listeners than chest singing?
I think people have a perception of sensations when they sing. When they have to teach someone to sing they try to get people to repeat a sensation or things they have heard from others. Unfortunately, there is a danger in placement. Sound is the result of function it is not a cause of it.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers Exactly, thank you! It isn't like, say, playing a violin, where a teacher can observe every nuance of finger position in the left hand, and the complete movements of the shoulder, elbow and hand of the right arm, the bowing arm. And since we can't actually see what is going on internally we wind up using all sorts of visualizations and descriptions of sensations (sensations that can be highly variable from one singer to the next), etc. to try to get at the production we are looking for.
Sutherland is one of the very greatest opera singers ever. I’m not buying the criticism, though I will admit her diction was atrocious until late in her career. I’m not a Jan Peerce fan, but since you included him, I’ll just say that at a master class I viewed in Phoenix a few years ago, Sherrill Milnes praised him highly. BTW, you weren’t saying Robert Merrill used bad technique, are you? Other baritones would come into the Met on their off days just to hear him sing.
Nevermind that Sutherland actually had a solid middle and top and sang larger than Pavarotti. This is observation made by someone who has not listened to these singers live. Sutherland towered over Pavarotti by all accounts and her voice had one of the richest tones. Other than her muffled diction which was intentional (she didn't want to mess with the legato), it didn't matter live. Her ticket sales and record sales outstripped everyone's including Callas when they were still alive.
Yes, Sutherland did have a large voice (I heard her live) which combined with her fluency in coloratura produced a riveting effect. Also, I'm not the only one to notice that on recordings conducted by someone other than her husband, Richard Bonynge, her diction was often clearer than usual. This was true both early and late, f.i. both in Handel's Acis & Galatea conducted by Adrian Boult and in Handel's Athalia conducted by Christopher Hogwood her words are really much easier to understand. Likewise as Puccini's Turandot (Zubin Mehta).
Catrina It's useless to get in power struggles with infants who want their way. Let them think what they think. Who cares? Hopefully, one day they'll just go away and annoy somebody else.
I think Sutherland is perhaps the greatest opera singer I ever heard, but she did not “tower” over Pavarotti. He was a fabulous tenor with a finely focused voice that included a notable ping. He could be heard clearly, even in duets with her. I know that because I heard them live in La Fille du Regiment back in 1972 when the Met still toured.
Sutherland was not a "mask" singer. The throat was as wide-open as a parachute on a racecar after the finish line; the voice ended up being flung Through the mask but as a by-product of super-precise use of the pharyngeal space (plus unparalleled breath support). Also: this is mixed to make the voices sound the same size, which was not the case. Stai Attenti!
Explain the aural difference in the examples I provided then? Because you clearly ignore these example differences to push your opinion. Explain why Sutherlands voice in the middle and lower parts of her voice becomes mushy and the enunciation lost? An open throat does not have distortion of production but clarity of enunciation due to the unimpeded flow of function and sound. Mushy diction is a distortion of sound. Due to a distortion of function or the physicality of the vocal tract. Mushy sound is not pure. Most of great singers had purity of enunciation and pronunciation. You could write down the words that they sang.
Cantando en la máscara la voz puede sonar un poco engolada y nasal, pero con menos esfuerzo se consigue más. Generalmente los cantantes que recurren al aperto ma coperto tienen carreras más largas. Algunos son de técnica mixta, y otros claramente van al aperto, pero siempre al emitir la voz, sea cual sea la forma de la impostación, el sonido cae en los resonadores, solo que en el aperto se oye más la voz pura, más clara y voluminosa, sin enriquecerse tanto con los armónicos que le dan los resonadores nasales, pero a la vez, paradójicamente, cuando el cantante no está al cien por cien, la voz se destimbra y muchas veces el vibratto se descontrola; tal vez porque generalmente esta técnica la usan los cantantes que tienen voces más grandes. Los comentarios sobre el fraseo que hay por ahi no son correctos, Kraus es el ejemplo de impostación en la máscara y de fraseo claro y elegante. Cantantes como Corelli que decían no enmascarar la voz, al subir al agudo con la forma del bostezo en vez de la sonrisa del tonto, conseguían una resonancia más craneal y una voz más imponente, pero con entubamientos, estrechamientos al pronunciar las vocales palatales, y un canto más valiente, pero menos seguro. ¿Qué decir de Sutherland, la cantante de la técnica perfecta? Claro que a medida que avanzaban los años la voz se endureció y el enmascaramiento, que era más que correcto hasta bien entrados los años 70, llegó a ser excesivo, pero cuántas cantantes desearían tener su mi bemol a los sesenta con treinta años, por no hablar de la consistencia, afinación y coloratura de su voz. Sin aprovechar de alguna manera la resonancia no hay sonido que pueda con una orquesta muy densa: se dice que la Callas utilizaba el teatro como caja de resonancia, y que por eso ensayaba tan obsesivamente...
Coño, un comentario en español bien escrito, con conocimiento y sentido. Con alguna cosa no estoy de acuerdo, pero se agradece, que hay de cada cursimastuerzo por ahí...
Gran comentario. Creo que lo importante es distinguir entre la emisión de la voz y la amplificación de la misma. La máscara puede usarse como resonador igual que el pecho y la cabeza. Otra cosa es no dominar la técnica y acabar cantando con la nariz como les pasa a muchos cantantes actuales que suenan gangosos.
Dios pero que comentario tan bueno! Tanto por los argumentos que ofrece en su opinión, como por la forma amena en que estructura el contenido para hacerlo ameno y verdaderamente disfrutable.
I made no reference to the size of voice. Or did I speak badly about her or her singing. I am just demonstrating the differences when people make masky sounds and clearer sounds. It is an educational video that seems to have gone over your head. It is a comprehension issue on your part.
GeneralRadames Sutherland was horrible except in her first years. People just don’t want to learn or reconsider their old canarybird favourites... (Yes a big bird I know that)
@@johnhoie1 he changes his vocal technic and after few years, he's begun ta have any problem ! He underwent several operations to treat his vocal problems, but they were not always successful. In 1920, he underwent surgery to remove a polyp from his vocal cords.
@@es9882 I’m pretty sure that’s not true. Caruso did not have surgery until he became ill in late 1920. He never sang publicly after that. And the surgeries he underwent were not on his throat.
@@johnhoie1 OK YOU'RE THINKING THAT YOU'RE A GENUIS BUT he LOOSE His VOICE. He changes his technic with and like TITA Ruffo . and few year later the problem's beginning
@@es9882 Way to go personal and antagonistic. If reading a book makes me a genius, I plead guilty. Dorothy Caruso wrote a book about her husband’s final years (she married him in 1918), and I read that. There is no mention of any surgeries before his final illness. As for him losing his voice, listen to Ombra Mai Fu and Rachel, Quand du Seigneuer, recorded in September 1920. He was magnificent.
Im confused.. Sutherland sing mask.. which according to you is wrong... but she was titled as the La Stupenda... maybe your painting a black and white picture on singing but there maybe more nuances on singing technique... mmm... are your videos your opinions and based on your preferences and not the consensus of the opera word? just verifying
yes, indeed i do hear the lack of clarity of the singing of Joan Sutherland. Indeed I can here the difference... there are a wide variety of voices in the opera world which we can classify on how we as audience hear them... Im still confused... but as DNA goes.. not one DNA is the same... so are the singers from every different background.. some are popular, some are underrated, and some are overrated... Maybe the distinction of mask and pharyngeal singing doesn't really matter as long as the singer can keep his/her voice in a long run.. which may require specific technique unique to a singer... this is an opinion by the way... I'm not an expert..
also.. audiences are different... some do not like mask and some dont mind... however its another business if one claims that one is correct and the other is incorrect... what were the basis of GeneralRamades to say that one singer has the correct technique or the other was not... so far as I know there were multiple ways of teaching voice technique which may one contradicts the other.. for example breathing technique.
People adore kraus and he sings strained masky and nasal too. Sometimes all it takes is a few critics to say one singer is amazing then a whole crowd of sheep is parroting how amazing they are without objectively listening to how the singer actually sings. Ignore the stupid nicknames like “la stupenda” and just listen to the video. The difference is crystal clear if you listen objectively. Sometimes the popular opinion is not right and sometimes it’s not even an opinion at all. There are factual means to judge faults in singing based on our biology and the production of sound. When you try to place your voice in the face (which has been proved to be impossible to actual resonate in anywhere but in the throat and nose, but the nose muffled the sound because it’s a poor resonator and why nasality is an objective fault and in voice pathology is actually characterized as a resonance disorder) you can run into many issues. The larynx is pulled out of its proper position, the throat can tighten and constrict, and you’re forced to do unnatural things to try and balance out such faults which just make things worse. You can get a noisy unclear whiny bottled strangled muffled sound. The correctly produced voice is clear, efficient and resonant and isn’t clouded by such faults that remove efficiency and clarity and real power from the voice. Just listen to the video. You wouldn’t speak like this so why would you sing like this? th-cam.com/video/BljEQFD594s/w-d-xo.html The speaking and singing voice are one and the same. The operatic singing voice is just the normal voice but with the throat big and widely expanded and holding that expansion. Among a few other things.
Tuve la suerte de ver a Kraus varias veces. La voz relativamente pequeña se oía perfectamente y por igual en todo el teatro, y se distinguía claramente en los números de conjunto, por encima de colegas con voces mucho más grandes. En cambio, también he visto a muchos cantantes heroicos con emisiones abiertas, y su sonido se iba debilitando a partir de la fila diez y ascendía a la galería con mucha más dificultad. Voces tonantes en la fila cinco no se oyen en el cuarto piso, eso no me parece que sea cantar bien.
If Carreras is singing the correct way, how come his voice developed a wobble? Also, Jan Peerce continued singing even at his 70s, even the freshness was still there. I guess whatever works for each singer...
You can’t look at vocal issues long term in such simple ways. Sometimes people with bad technique preserve well and sometimes better singers don’t preserve as well. There are too many factors. There is personal health, the nature of the actual persons voice, lifestyle, adequate and or lack of rest, eventual muscular decline and imbalance, disease, continuous training or neglecting of that, incorrect training or training too much of one muscle over time, gender, diet, vocal hygiene etc etc etc. the voice is a human instrument and subject to human mortality and fragility. Often what happens when one develops a wobble is over time one muscle group of the voice gets too strong over the other, and the vibrato action, which consists of an alternation of muscles, becomes unbalanced hence the wobble. I’m old age the cords become less flexible and sometimes you will just develop a wobble regardless of how good you are. With training it’s possible to recorrect in lots of cases or at least lessen. Even gigli who had near perfect technique and never really strayed developed a bit of “wobble” in old age as his lyric voice became heavier. Carreras from what I understood eventually pushed his voice too much. But you have to judge the technical aspects in a specific point in time. A wobble is not always indicative of bad technique. You can have relatively great technique and free vocal production and still develop a wobble due to many things. Tito Schipa has a slower vibrato in certain areas of his voice probably just due to the nature of his very small instrument and the nature of his cord dimensions made him naturally have more variation in vibrato despite his great technique. And you can have a relatively normal vibrato with poor technique. But really knowledgeable ears can still pick up on faults. And a knowledgeable ear can pick up on changes in vibrato speed in a good singer like Schipa and realize they aren’t necessarily faults, even if with some training could be more fixed into a more standardized or equalized vibrato production. Knowledgeable ears can tell when the voice is or isn’t in such good control. A wobble and caprino imply the voice is to an extent not well controlled. A slower vibrato is not always a wobble
He had cancer, and it is miraculous he could still sing after cancer, due to his correct tecnique.After recovering from severe cancer, the muscles were weak to support the once good voice...
The truth is there is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to singing, despite the fact that there are many out there who will insist that their method is the only correct way to sing. Voices are all very unique, and the trick is to find a technique that is best suited to one's individual voice and places the least strain on it. Took me years to figure this out!
Not to be a stickler for grammar, but I believe you meant both "affects' and "pharyngeal." Secondly, I thought you didn't believe in placement. Because singing in the mask, versus the pharynx, is a placement choice, no?
I didn't notice the Misspelling of pharyngeal. I am aware of the incorrect use of effect. However, I cannot change it once published. Thanks anyway. Placement is a common term used to achieve certain sounds. It is a standard Nomenclature for vocal pedagogy. The sounds of mask singing are the results of attempting to place the voice. All singing is pharyngeal. When people attempt to go for certain sounds and actions they manipulate the throat to do so. So placement is in essence a pharyngeal and mechanism manipulation. As explained in one of my videos. You can watch my Placement playlist. th-cam.com/video/2N5q85G3ydk/w-d-xo.html I understand that people try to place their voice for a number of reasons. 1. For resonance. 2. For ring and squillo. 3. So the sound is "forward" and not throaty. There may be other reasons. These seem to be the main reasons why. 1. I have shown that these areas are not resonators. They do not amplify sound. I have provided scientific information on that. 2. Ring and squillo come from a muscular function not position. The Chest voice function Thyro arytenoids.. If you sing in chest voice you will natural produce the right type of squillo. Squillo can be manipulated and encouraged more. Generally at the loss of scuro. It is about balance. I think it is better to just sing with the function. If a singer reduces chest function in their singing and sings headier they will have less squillo. If they maintain a full chest participation they will optimise squillo. 3. Throaty singing is not throaty because it is in the throat. As all singing is in the throat. It is due to constriction and unbalance. It sounds throaty because of wrong actions. Many throaty singers are throaty because they are trying to sing more forward. Their tongue then goes back into the throat and even depresses onto the mechanism. Everyone is different with their own unique issues. So it is hard to generalise. I try not to dismiss what people say. I think everything will have an element of truth to it. I try to objectively find reasons why things are. And question why so many people do it. It is logical to say if so many advocate something it must be right? It is hard to stick to certain belief at times when the tendency is the other way. I question my thoughts constantly. I think reason removes many doubts. If the pharynx produces 90 plus percent of resonance and the larynx is the mechanism of function or initial vibration. I am going to give this area more focus. I want to keep this area as free and open as possible. Everything happens in the throat. Vowels(shaped tone),vibration(function), resonance(amplification). If I chopped off the top part of my head the sound would not change. This is the point of my videos on mask. In the end it is about going for the right sound. The sound should be clear, vowels clear. Dark and bright. Full and rich. Expansive and resonant. Not marred by bad vibrato or constrictive noises. Etc. Thanks for your comment.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers how can I find someone who can teach me the correct way to sing. I'm not an opera singer and I don't want to be, but I don't want to sing like a little kid and "belting" F5s like musical theatre tenors seam to try to do. My teacher is supposedly an opera singer, she she can't sing in chest voice she is all headvoice (or even falseto-like) with twang. And always makes me lighten my voice. But i don't want to sing light.
GeneralRadames Wow! I didn't know you can't go in and change things on the video once it's published. What a bummer!😞 I'll be more understanding in the future😉.
How can I develop a pharyngeal technique? My teacher always makes me sing with a "high placement" and a smile and a very light coordination. I don't want to sound like a kid when singing I want to sound like a man. But when I try it on my own I get to push or have an engolata sound. Anyone could help me?
Always be yourself!!! Never imitate anyone.. your voice will develop and darken naturally. when you have acquired enough technique and confidence.. in all these cases the correct clear phonation doesn't come from singing in the pharanx. It comes from an open relaxed throat, placing your voice forward on a speech based position ( just think it, don't form it ) and sustaining the focus of an un pushed vocal line as small as a hum 'mm' with the support of your body...to get a darker sound without constricting your vocal tract, just relax and let all the tension release downwards while maintaining the focus of the vowel forward and small (so it doesn't slip backwards into the throat) in a legato line with your appoggio (body support mainly abdominal muscles doing all the work )
Mai sentite tante scemenze sul canto e con la pretesa di pontificare, dall’ alto di cosa poi? Quindi appoggiare in maschera sarebbe meno funzionale che appoggiare sulla laringe?!? Quindi A. Kraus non ci aveva capito niente, J. Bjiorling, A. Pertile ecc. peccato non abbiano trovato un maestro come lei sulla loro strada, avrebbe potuto dare loro qualche consiglio su come cantare in gola!!! Pazzesca la spocchia di alcuni che non hanno mai cantato in vita loro su un palcoscenico... lasci stare il canto lirico e si dedichi a qualcos’altro
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers You teach on Skype only? And you think over an internet connection that you are able to sufficiently hear what someone is doing when they sing? You are a fraud!
@@Ettoredipugnar Domingo is so nasal.But he is the only one can sing Otello among the THREE TENORES.If he wasn't nasal,his voice sounds like Franco Corelli.
@@Ettoredipugnar Basically there were a lot of operas where he worked with Sherrill Milnes, and when Sherrill start singing, you couldn't hear what Domingo was singing.
Is this pharyngeal singing the same as the lowered larynx singing championed by Corelli and del Monaco? They were enormous talents, but their careers were not as long as Sutherland’s. Not sure if that was technique or simply singing very loudly too often.
MDM had a terrible car wreck that effected his career; he was a master technician. Corelli had good technique; his biggest flaw was scooping up to higher notes, and this means you’re not already filled up with air and open enough. Over time, that small flaw harms the voice. Neither sang with nasality. They sang open, covered chest voice in their entire range unless a very high, pianissimo note was required. Then they allowed the larynx to shift and add a little head voice.
They had long careers, Del Monaco retired at the age of 60, and Corelli give his last concert at the age of 60. What more do you want then that? You do not need to sing until you are 80. Tenor roles are meant for young men and characters. No one in their 50's sounds as good as they did in their 30's, you cannot avoid aging no matter what vocal coaches are trying to sell you.
A false distinction. And actually Pavarotti is the one with with the more forward sound, more buzz in the mask. In any case, I think it’s arrogant to line up all these great singers, who have all had great careers, and pick and choose which one has the “right” way of singing.
David Perkins completely agree! Some methods suite other singers better. It’s all about anatomy. There’s no need to bash other singers technique, especially when it clearly works for them. He put this video out but I couldn’t separate the good technique from the bad, because it was all good.
I think it is arrogant on your part to not make an effort and understand the video and to add things that I never said. The video is about mask sound. "Not forward sound". I compared singers singing together to clearly demonstrate vocal difference that mar the voice and not enhance it. It is quite clear a covered masky sound inhibits vocal clarity and vowel enunciation. There are better ways to sing. I didn't say anything about a "right" way. Singing is based on anatomy, function and resonance. It is clear that those that do not sing with a masky wolf tone sound far better. As evident in this video. How do you know if Pavarotti felt a buzz in the mask? In great singing, sound is disembodied. One indication of poorer singing is a buzz in the mask. A Buzz due to constrictive bynoise. Anatomy dictates that the function for all singers are the same. Unfortunately, the vocal instrument is very flexible and can make all sorts of sounds. This doesn't mean, like all other musical instruments there are not ideals. Based on reason and common sense. Well enunciated vowels and clear sounds are a basic reasonable ideal. You have not backed up your statement of a "false distinction'. Everything you wrote is based on saying things I never said and making statements with no explanation or back up.
David Perkins I think you're full of it. The only way we improve is by listening and making careful and measured analysis. Keep your head in the sand. You're doing fine.🦩
David Perkins Well so did I. The first thing Zubi says is there is no such thing as "singing in the mask." I immediately agreed with that, and still do. However, he makes a claim that if one is singing properly he will feel the sound "hit" the mask. The General then replies that is not necessarily true. You cannot apply that as a rule for every singer. Up to now, Zubi has still not disagreed with him. I agree with the General. Proper pharyngeal singing will produce a disembodied sound. Don't look for it to "hit" the mask. Zubi says a lot of cool stuff. But it's a lot. I suppose it's important to be clear on where one agrees with Zubi and where one doesn't. Again, Zubi doesn't disagree with the General--up to now. Do you? At any rate, we're all talking and thinking. This is a wonderful way to move forward😁. The General has a logical mind and a logical and rational approach to how he approaches the analysis at hand and peoples' comments too. I wonder if perhaps he has been legally trained? At any rate, it's a pleasure to explore voice this way! /// My apologies David, if the "I think you're full of it" line came on a bit too strong😐.
Again, as with other posts: if the referenced singer(s) was not heard live in order to have generated the opinion, then this is all moot. Principally so because recordings lie for almost all singers. Unlike today's standards, the majority fo the singers displayed in this video sounded significantly better in person. Richard Tucker was a massive star in his day, for every good reason. Sometimes, strong voices record abysmally, sometimes not. Del Monaco and Nilsson could never be captured accurately, for instance
I do not think that Pavarotti was a pharyngeal singer. Kind of confused by this video. I’ve studied voice most of my adult life and have only ever heard that mask singing is correct and allows for the most longevity. Only after really learning to relax my jaw and singing from the corners of my mouth up did my top really and I mean really begin to open up. At the end of the day, though, every voice is different. Also, there’s a difference between in the nose and through the nose. No doubt, in days gone by singers probably were chestier and “pharyngeal”, as you say. A lot of them also probably smoked three packs a day. As time goes on, we like to think that we learn better ways to do things. Mask singing, for me, anyway, is far superior.
Just because time moves on it does not mean that there is automatic improvement. This is especially true in the arts. Take popular music as an example, are popular singers better today than in the 60's and 70's? Has technology and knowledge improved popular music? The answer is, no. Technology has just made it easier for less talented people to succeed. An example of this is autotune, everything today is autotuned, earlier singers could easily sing without autotune. Longevity is a fake measurement invented by lazy managers. It so much easier to promote aging artist than to invest effort into new artists. This really took off in the Pavarotti and Domingo era, after the 80's they were past their prime but it was easier to promote them, then to start trying to create the same popularity for a new artist. Pavarotti did sing with the older method he just had a small voice. How exactly has the singing improved today, from the 50's and 60's? There are no dramatic singers, today's technique seemingly cannot create Verdi and wagnerian singers. The popular singers today go through a huge vocal crises every few years. There is no prove that the new technique of singing actually gives the voice longevity. All people age, you cannot get away from aging, no one sounds as good in their 50's as they did in their 30's.
You are just not a fan of La Stupenda, considered one of the great voices of the century by many, many, many opera fans the world over. There is no law that you have to be a fan. It is a free country.. I worship her. I don't care if she sings " incorrectly" I love her more than anyone else. Peace.
John Roberts the whole point of the video is to point out a vocal flaw.... it has nothing to do with being a fan or not of Sutherland. It also does not matter what many think in relation to the video. The video is an objective demonstration of a vocal fault. Almost every singer; even the best has some thing one can point out that could be fixed to improve the efficiency, power, clarity, function etc of the voice. In Sutherland’s case, it is quite obvious as has been pointed out several times, that constricting the voice and putting it in the nose detracts from the voice’s optimal functioning and resonance. The video even points out that in the higher point of her range she sometimes actually does not have these faults and you hear that’s where the sound opens up with clarity and efficiency. You are overcomplicating the matter and relying too much on subjective taste, when the video is not concerned in the least with a subjective opinion. Again, it is an objective video that points out an unarguable flaw in her voice that detracts from the voice’s optimal functioning. In speech pathology, doing what she does in singing is considered a resonance disorder. Objectively, it serves to hinder the voice’s resonance efficiency and clarity. It is also related to why her diction is not clear. The video is not hating Sutherland nor her fans and anyone is free to like who they like.
It doesn't hurt to objectively analyse singers. We can enjoy their singing, but we can also appreciate better singing by understanding why. Some people are quite emotional when it comes to their favourite singers. Giacomini fans, and Horne fans have indicated this very well.
Not really, Nothing is that black and white. This is not Hollywood with their Good and evil polars. There is a scale. Horne and Sutherland did good things. But they also did wrong things. Or, they could have done things differently So you can see the point I was making. Yet your reasoning could not allow you to accept these facts? Success is not always due to rationale reasons. Paul Potts is somewhat successful. Andréa Boccelli is very successful. Does it suggest they are great singers? Sutherland's singing was at a higher level than most. She did things wrong and she could have been better than what she was. It really doesn't mean she didn't have that fault. Sometimes people sound good despite their faults. Or, maybe, the hearing of the listener is not as developed as their writing skills. This is the point of these videos. To educate the ear.
Pavarotti sang in masks ... singing in masks is the correct way .... it is absurd that even today there is this great confusion about singing. The older ones sang with masked sounds: Lauri Volpi, Gigli, Pertile, Pavarotti, Loforese etc.
Pav’s voice wasnt “forward” in the sense of forward Mask singing that is popularly taught today. That “paint peeling” quality is a result of proper chest coordination or also know as “Squillo” or “squillante”. Squillo is what helps penetrate the orchesstra and carry you to the back of the house.
Só no seu mundo que o Pavarotti cantava na faringe, amor, é possível ter espaço e cantar na máscara, e é possível cantar na faringe e estar sem espaço, então simplesmente você está errado, parece um dentista falando de cirurgia cardíaca, que é algo que definitivamente ele não sabe como fazer
Sempre se canta na faringe. É onde estão presentes os formantes que irão amplificar a voz. Não importa se você sente a voz vibrando no zigomático, na testa, na cabeça, no peito ou no pé. A faringe é o principal ressonador da voz. A questão é o quão optimizado está o espaço para que a voz possa ser amplificada de forma eficiente. Quando se manipula os músculos da laringe para sentir aquele "ardor" nos seios da face você termina acionando os músculos constritores (que deveriam estar isolados para uma voz livre de tensão) e a laringe acaba sendo elevada estreitando assim o trato vocal. As ondas sonoras não vão para lugar algum que não seja o aparato vocal . É contra as leis da física. Som precisa de um contentor de ar(faringe) com abertura(boca) para ressoar. Os espaços do crânio nem contém ar nem possuem abertura. Empurrar o som na máscara não acrescenta nem contribui em nada para o canto.
@@tecnicoconcursado os sons mais agudos ressoam(da pra perceber)dos seios da face e mais acima,na parte de cima do cranio. Da pra perceber Lauri Volpi com um som de tinido metalico, enquanto Di Stefano têm um som mais aberto e na garganta.
Having worked very closely with someone who collaborated with Pavarotti, I can assure you that he would have thought you are totally full of crap with these stupid comparisons.
It is correct in relation to purity of sound. Nasal tones, Masky tones, Throaty tones are distortion of the resonation process due to constriction of the function or distortion of the vocal tract. Historically, these "wolf tones" as describe in the scientific literature are not desirable. You can watch my other videos on the topic. All put together in my playlist section under mask singing. I provide evidence supported by reference materials. As an ignorant person that is the best I can do. It is ignorant to say something and not support it with reasons why.
She actually did. Both of them had excellent lower registers. What they meant as "voce di petto" in that video you're referring to was something else - an improper throaty technique. You just have to listen to their singing to know neither of them were against chest voice as we understand it.
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
Absurdo.El.sonido se produce al.alcanzar los resonadores. Obvio , sale de las cuerdas vocales pero, debe llegar a los resonadores óseos , a la máscara
Watch this. th-cam.com/video/UU2hdYRhSno/w-d-xo.html
@@RadamesAida2Operaloversnot proved. Today no one proved where is true resonance. Your videos are for school children
@@santisramos5832 Are you sure? Did you go to the other link i provided? Or the other videos on my Playlist under "Nasal Mask Singing"?
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers yes. I'm sure. I saw a lot of your videos and i say that this is you subjective opinion.😆 The resonant must be CLOSED to be amplified. The pharingeal space goes to the mouth, that is always open Nobody found the real resonant point of classical singing and proved it mathematically, physically, etc. there are only subjective sensations of every singer. That's why they write books.
@@santisramos5832 you are right, but I would recommend you not to lose time with these trolls that believe that there is only one valid and correct way of singing and it is the one they preach.
I am so glad that this channel exists! Ever since This is Opera channel had the internal conflicts on their channel, I was so worried thinking their channel getting shut down forever..... Luckily, their channel is back but I think they still have internal matters they have to resolve. Please keep posting these types of educational videos. Thank you General Radames!
I feel the same way!
NotSoAnonymous There are many of us waiting for TiO to come back😐.
@@mickey1849cierto, yo me incluyo. Saludos cordiales ❤❤❤❤
Of the singers I heard live, the one I liked the most was Cornell MacNeil. His voice was very rich. I heard Joan Sutherland at the Met in 1970. Her voice filled Lincoln Center.
Yes, she filled the house. With an ugly sound. When I was young I coulf not understand why she was famous.
Totally agree . “Mask” method has a lot of immediate results but never teaches true connection with the body and the voice or for that matter, never reveals the owners own personal sound which is what every singer should strive for. That comes from the manner of speech and breath, Development of core strength and flexibility. (Lots of other things too) Mask technique has nothing to do with the true BelCanto method. In the music of Caccini one understands through the melody and text the proper technique. Allowing the vowel to create its own space through very specific support , space and resonance. A submission to nature, not a defiance of it.. Hope that makes sense. Thank you so much for posting these videos. It clarifies a lot of things for me. .
The perfect summary of masksl singing... Quick results...
There is no such thing as "the Belcanto method"
The mask method narrows the voice yet works for some people I think because they are built with natural physical attributes which somehow over come the limitations of the method
Domingo is a great example of this so is the quote nasal but great Alfredo Kraus.
To be honest, most of these examples sounded more like they just used more scuro and had a lower larynx...also, actually I've heard more uniqueness in the mask singers (except one where his voice sounded muffled indeed)
@@meyerbeer13 Bel canto just means beautiful singing.
I've never noticed how indistinct Joan Sutherland's diction could be 'til this vlog. Pavarotti can be clearly understood while all I hear from Sutherland is a sort of 'mwa, mwa, wwa' vocalisation.
Indeed, Sutherland was regularly referred to as "mush mouth", but the notion that her pitch was off is absurd.
la soprano lirico ligera tiende a ser hueca en el registro central tal como pueden oir aqui
@@MarioJimenez-hk5sy era soprano dramatica de coloratura, no lirico ligera.
@@Ignasimp callas claro fue una soprano dramatico a quien me referia comomlirico ligera es a sutherland disculpa si lo confundí.
@@MarioJimenez-hk5sy no, no lo confundiste. Callas era una assoluta. Sutherland era una soprano dramatica de coloratura.
Two comments. The young Joan Sutherland had amazing accuracy of pitch as well as a beautiful, natural sound. At some point in her career she switched to the loud hooting which so many people adore.
My second point is that just because someone was taught to sing in the mask, it doesn't mean their singing is incorrect. An incorrect concept can work for some singers.
"taught to sing in the mask" what precisely does that mean?
@@meyerbeer13 the person was instructed to sing in an improper manner.
The "mask" is one component of good singing. It's also called nasal resonance or head voice. If you use only nasal resonance it's as incorrect as using only mouth (or throat) resonance. You use both and focus them precisely where? Very few people know that part.@@Daniel-gl3vk
@@meyerbeer13Hm, I see. Thank you.
One is easy and open, warm, nce chest mix, Look at the relaxed look on the faces of a non mask singers, then look at the struggle of the mask singers faces, mask singing makes me feel tense when I listen to the singer, pitch probems for mask singing, and tendency to striaght tone, no connection to the chest voice, which is the power, so the tone is not warm. Thanks for the video, please make more , I Love these
The first thing I notice is very clean diction and vowels from pharygeal singing
Maestro, I need help. I'm a young voice teacher with a studio of about 30-40 voice students. All younger voices (all varying styles). I know instinctively that what you are saying is correct. One need only listen to your examples. I've studied a lot of Caruso's writings and my students seem to be doing well. I never talk about "forward placement", "placing in the mask" or "singing behind the top teeth." However, it is really frustrating because I always feel like I'm in "defense mode". So many teachers and singers working today use this MASK dominant technique. I follow your teachings closely and try to echo that in my lessons. I believe that the only way that we will bring back this beautiful way of singing, that is slowly becoming extinct, is by training singers that can sing in that hair-raising old school way. So much so that I have a created scholarship where I teach an hour lesson every week to a rising sophomore for free. Just to begin that process of getting them ready for college auditions. I guess what I'm asking for is help refining my teaching to emulate this old school way of singing. Many thanks! (Also, I would love to know your thoughts concerning use of a Straw for training the voice.)
Thank you for the kind words.
I only made these videos because there wasn't anything out there for people to use as a guide. Books only give a limited description of things. And they can mean all sorts of things to all sorts of people. Even though my videos provide both an aural and written description of certain points. They are still going to be misunderstood by many.
However. the whole idea of being a good teacher and singers is to know the right sound. If you know the right sound you can at least have a right target or goal. So my videos are overall giving people the idea of the right sound. Which is foundational. That is why I also post videos of good and great singers.
I suppose one thing you would know being a teacher, is how much you need to know, and how much you learn from the teaching process. I am looking for people who want to teach more than sing. Teachers are the foundation of our art form. No teachers no singers.
There is no proper institution that does this. This is one of the big problems for Opera. Opera is a tradition, passed on from person to person. The tradition and the systems that went with it have collapsed. We only have universities and degrees.
Why don't you organise Skype lessons with me? And I can show you what I know.
Email me. radamesaida2@gmail.com
Thank you for this wonderful opportunity, Maestro. I will be writing very soon. I also agree that there is a great absence of opportunities to study with great masters. Thank you again!
I am not a maestro. Please do not put me on a pedestal. I am happy to try and help anyone.
You should not be teaching if you don't know how to. You'd better run to a fine teacher, and stop looking on TH-cam.
Michale Trimble, nice tenor of the past, is against nasal mask singing too.
I wholeheartedly agree with you Sergey!! I have been watching some of his videos on mask resonance, and his method makes sense.
Sergey Kh: I love Michale Trimble's videos 'cause he explains things in basic form!
love Michael Trimble! learned so much from him
You might want to bother paying attention to what he's saying. As he makes clear, nasal singing and mask singing are not the same thing: th-cam.com/video/AjG1QrlWnac/w-d-xo.html
@@twlewis01 Exactly! The problem is most people, when you tell them to sing in the mask, they end up putting the sound in their nose. Trimble is absolutely for mask resonance, he just uses the real mask which is above the nose, from the bottom of the eyes up.
Wherever Joan and Pav sing is quite great IMO.
Amazing video.i have watch all your videos.i am a professional tenor and i almost lost my voice and give up singing until i found by a.friend a teacher and i relearn singing but in this way that you saying.core squillo and no mask.chest voice all tge way and proper breathing with specific exersice.so.after 8months very hard training now i see the results.singing from another planet.my teacher is from nino picaluga school.very few in the world teaches.this schooling...and it is a shame that most of the singers afraid or not trust this way of training .
opera singer rother, in the line of Tettrazinni school and squill IS mask, but chest support open throat throughout the voice. I think I understand what you are saying. Apogio
I am a young soprano, and i've recently had to overcome some things and it had me thinking of transforming my voice. Trusting the pharengeally school can you tell me more? It would be an honour for me to talk to you on this subject.
I would like to know about your teacher and another teachers who teach this method.
Squillo is through the mask!
Sutherland is a tough case for this study because a surgery early in her career removed so much that, according to her, she had to create a " false resonance". What she did with it was incredible for her specialty. Singer's sing with different gifts and deficits to varying degrees of success, but I think most honestly try to do their best...
@Nicholas Ennos you need a brain surgery
I heard her live in 1960 and was not greatly impressed. I think she was a soprano who decided to move up. She had a bright and beautiful voice in 1960 that she did lose but most women are about through in their 50's for their best singing.
@@rothvinbosley1335
THAT IS NOT TRUE!!! WOMEN IF THEY HAVE GOOD TECHNIQUE CAN SING BEYOND 70'S. MY VOICE TEACHER WAS ONE OF THEM!!!!
@@ariassongs I am sure a very few singers sound good at age 70 but not many. One of the greatest singers was Flagstad and in an interview with a record producer, he said he had to shape the arias to her lack of the very highest notes as she was in her 60's. Many of these modern singers have no real low or high notes in their 30's!! And when they get into the 40's sound very bad to me. They should try to sing on key at least? We have the current Met operas on youtube and can easily compare!
@@rothvinbosley1335
FLAGSTAD DAMAGED HER VOICE BY SINGING TOO MANY WAGNERIAN ROLES PROBABLY WITHOUT REST IN BETWEEN, AS THEY WERE DEMANDED OF HER. MANY OTHER SINGERS CAN SING BEYOND 60 & 70 IF THEY TOOK GOOD CARE OF THEIR VOICE, AND KEPT IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION.
I have NEVER heard Sutherland's approach equated with 'masque' singing! Mushy vowels, but never 'stick it in the mask, honey' (as one teacher I knew told her students). Laser beam high notes- at 20- but pretty? Hardly.
Bit hard on Sutherland , in the House her voice was Three times bigger than Pavarotti's she is reigned back here, I heard them together many many times, I first heard Sutherland in the early fifties, she was incredible I can tell you that, she sang from the Chest ut de Poitrine in the true sense like all great singers.
Other people commenting have probably already stated this, but both videos featuring Sutherland are pretty amazing considering her age at that time. She still maintained youthful quality that had both depth and shimmer.
2:30 "Mask singing is not." Brutal, Ice cold delivery. Made me laugh.
So love Robert Merrill ❤️❤️❤️
There is only one method to sing:
From the vocal cords into the face.
In this ca. 20 cm is the sound built.
When the throat and the nose is free and well perfused everything sounds right.
Umm.. can you explain more
You’re delusional. I also saw your comments about Callas on another video that have shown how arrogant and vile you are. Besides your comment here is absolutely delusional, there are a TON of different singing methods as evidenced by countless teachers and singers (Like Melocchi and Del Monaco).
I wish all tghe best to your teaching to keep the great singing alive.its not an easy way...but someone that stays.in this path he will make a beautifull and longlasting instrument
Sutherland could be heard with her enormous voice sounding as if it came from everywhere in the house and was singing incredible high notes above C until her early 60's, so she must have been doing something right. Just my opinion.
You are a vocal specialist so I don't presume to argue with you. She is my favorite singer so I am speaking from likes and not technique. I enjoy hearing what you have to say, though.
Marco Tariello can you hear the difference in vocal freedom and efficiency in these two examples?
th-cam.com/video/PXiawmR-OB0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/sq3H42NjmIU/w-d-xo.html
The singer with the better vocal production can even play more with the dynamics, because her voice will project and with clarity even when singing very soft. The other singer can’t play with the dynamics as much because her sound is bottled up, which forces her to sing more in the same loudness to be heard well
Earlier she had a brighter placement. Bonynge wanted her to have a more covered placement for longevity and it must have worked as she was singing better than anyone else up until her 6o's. I prefer the covered tone, although I would have loved to have heard her early Alcina and Lucia performances. Sutherland said her notes en alt were all sung not in the mask but shot out of the top of her big head.
John Roberts the “covered” (muffled” tone has nothing to do with longevity. You wouldn’t speak muffled why would you sing like that? Women also do not “cover” their voices. The vocal cover is a muscular switch that occurs in the male passagio to balance the up and forward pull of the larynx so they can stay in chest voice at the break. Women don’t cover. And the cover has nothing to do with making a hooty muffled sound and not anything remotely to do with vocal longevity. The “brighter” sound is actually just more clarity to the voice by lack of constriction and nasality. There’s actual more darkness to the sound in a non nasal voice because you can’t sing nasal and have depth to the sound. But when properly produced you have depth and piercing brightness. That’s chiaroscuro. Her chiaroscuro is weakened in this muffled sound. There have been countless singers to sing far better far longer than Sutherland so I’m not really sure you get this notion from that it increases longevity. Can you explain why constricting your voice and lowering the soft palate to resonate more in the nose would contribute to vocal longevity? There’s no scientific explanation for such an idea
It’s also interesting to note how singers feel when singing but it must be said the voice can’t shoot out anywhere but the mouth or nose. And preferably not the nose lol
I am using the terminology that Maestro Bonynge used. If you want to call him ignorant then go ahead. I am just quoting him and the sound does have a covered sound so the term is useful in describing what you hear. I know he knows more than me and understands his wife's voice. I am a HUGE fan of Sutherland and have two lectures about her on TH-cam. I don't think we will ever agree about this.
Great point about the pharyngeal sound! Not the best example in my humble opinion regarding Pav/ Sutherland. They both were pharyngeal singers. Sutherland had blocked sinuses most of her career. Excerpt from a great book:
Joan Sutherland seems destined to defy all followers of nasal and sinus resonance, emitting her most beautiful and ravishing sounds with these resources completely blocked, and she can certainly set us thinking about their value for singing. If we look at her generous lower jaw and long solid neck, we realize she must have had great pharynx-resonance at all times. When she sings we see that her head is thrown back, showing us her wonderful neck surrounding her spacious throat, which is wide open with this head position. Singers who rely mostly on forward production and projection of the sound tend to throw their heads forward, thereby contracting the throat. Her recordings from 1955 have the same qualities as those after the operation in 1959; the Joan Sutherland sound is present and unaltered.
Daniela Bloem-Hubatka (2012). The Old Italian School of Singing: A Theoretical and Practical Guide. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-8895-7.
Everyone sings pharyngeally. It is how the singer manipulates their pharynx and mechanism that reflects how the sound is emitted. Sinuses and pharynx are two different places. Sinuses have nothing to do with singing.
When people make a mask sound they are manipulating the larynx and vocal tract to emit a masky sound. See my playlist on the mask.
The standing of Joan Sutherland as a singer or the other qualities of her sound are not in dispute. I am demonstrating the possibilities of a better quality production that is not marred by a covered masky sound. Her earlier singing was a lot clearer.
Sutherland sang with more space on the higher notes and collapsed the sound as she hit her middle and lower notes. Thanks for the comment.:D
Joan Sutherland was a gift from God. She is defined by Peters and Pavarotti as the greatest voice of all time.. She had a phenomenal instrument and worked hard (over 5 years with her husband) to obtain such an amazing technique so as to whiz through the demanding coloratura, high and held notes with the greatest of ease, never ever pushing and utilizing the greatest array of dynamics and messe di voce , her filati were unbeatable.. This total relaxation of the vocal tract enhancing the open throat coupled with such amazing breath control allowed her to sing well into her 60s and beyond. She was also human so like everyone else she had defects...so yes, she had sloppy pronunciation but if you hear her early recordings her dicition was very audible. Later she decided to favour line over diction. I disagree with this , I think there is a happy compromise which enhances both. Yes she was not a great actress but she really shined in comic roles and above all in Lucia, which was staged by Zefferelli who was stunned by the quality of her vocal instrument, she is unsurpassed. It remains the greatest mad scene of Lucia of all time... she even sang it at the Met in 1985 when she was over 50 and while the first part before the mad scene was sang well, albeit already a bit funnelled, the mad scene was emotionally charged. Suddenly you heard every word. While she ran all over the stage and up and down the stairs in a deluded state she never missed a note and still hit an E flat in the finale of the aria that practically never ended..(on youtube) I also believe Haendel was perfect for her voice and was always spot on. Her Turandot, albeit only in recording, was one of the most refined and musically faithful versions I've ever heard. Roughly At the same age, Leontyne Price gave her final performance in Aida and while her voice was a glorious instrument the strain to support it was evident with notable problems in pitch and sustained notes espescially via ungraceful portamentos. I don't say this to criticise or compare Price with Sutherland, I say it to highlight that no one is perfect especially when aging. Moreover we should cherish each singer's unique positive qualities and accept inevitable negative traits unless you don't like almost all of what the singer does. No matter how you might hate that muffled sound especially in the middle range of Joan's voice you can't deny the greatness of her instrument and technique which cements her status as one of the greatest of all time.. P:S don't forget at her London debut in Lucia, Both Schwarzkopff and Callas were in the audience, haven been tipped off by the conductor, Serafin that she was a phenomenon.
@@sarinarausa975 Schwarzkopf's opinion is worthless.
You can clearly see when pavarotti closes the muscle behind his nostrils that gives well projected vocie and not nasal sound
Vocal technique is a highly subjective matter and there seem to be so few genuine pedagogues and so many self-inflated critics! It’s highly unlikely that any of you could make sounds or express this great music on a level anywhere near these fine artists. Try just surrendering to the experience and ENJOYING!
Oh dear god. I thought these discussions had come to an end. There never ever exists MASQUE SINGING
"A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing" - Alexander Pope
So, it is not my ears and my opinion only. I always thought Joan Sutherland vocalize the music, it did not matter what language she sang in, she never really sang the words.
I am not sure you have made your point clear enough. The Amore Grillo example was very much to the point. The argument you present, however, is worth exploring. Much thanks.
This one vs other is very funny, and makes no sense to oppose the two (you need both). It suffices to hear Pavarotti (and Sutherland) at the end 9:13 and especially the high C# (where is that one projected?) to know that beautiful, forward singing, with high frequencies in the forehead above the eyes level (proper mask) can only be achieved with proper support (there's a great amount of working that "fiato" to get there, trust me) - the mouth is also wide open horizontally and vertically (which gives both higher frequencies and low larynx, huge pharyngeal space). If you lack the right support, the sound will resonate lower in the mask (as if it came through the mouth) or even worst from the throat ( ingolato, etc), or a bit better and upper in the mask (between mouth and nose level), etc. and many places in between. The best resonance in the mask up there is only achievable with the right workout and support - the feeling is one of freedom, flying over the breath, and a sensation that you can keep the sound going forwards (you loose very little air) - at the same time, there is loads of pressure in the abdomen to maintain the columns of air (like a spring well extended, which can keep throwing projectiles up up up up). Mind you, there's a huge difference between nasal singing and mask singing. Italian singing is this: fiato and search la altezza del suono - proper mask. See all the great ones (Del Monaco, Gigli, Pavarotti, Volpi, Zeani, Caballe, etc. etc.) There is a lot of confusion coming from terminology, but always search what the great ones are doing, and not necessarily what they are saying. When you discover the sweet spot in your singing, you'll know :-)
It is all about to sing with constriction or not!
There are always people out there who claim, with absolute confidence, that their particular technique is the only correct one. They are almost never people who have the kind of career that Sutherland had, and one would think they would learn a bit of humility before criticizing the technique of someone who had such an amazing, long international career as she did!
The truth of the matter, despite what anyone says, is that voices are all very unique, and there is no absolute right or wrong technique for singing. The trick is finding the technique works best for a particular individual, and places the least strain on that individual's voice. I have seen more damage done to voices by trying to force them into a particular technique for which their voice is ill[ suited than I can say.
And look, all this talk of masque versus pharyngeal singing is, in reality, so much nonsense. Because we can't see what we are doing when we sing (unlike, say, playing a violin), we wind up teaching by using metaphors, visualizations, and descriptions for the sensations people experience when they sing, sensations that can vary enormously from one swinger to the next.
Totalmente de acuerdo, no pudiste describir mejor lo que pienso sobre este tipo de discusiones
How do you think about Franco Tenelli? He talks about support and chiaroscuro alot, but what he had post is quiet different from those great tenor's voice.
I do not think much about him. He seems to make up terms never conceived by anyone else. His ideas make no sense and are purely subjective, based on nothing i know. He talks about these known concepts in weird ways. I couldn't make sense on anything he says. His teaching and students demonstrate he knows very little. His voice is very thick and constricted. You can hear a lot of squeeze when he sings. His voice also lacks the proper muscular development. He has no chest function. With the constriction, there is no vocal clarity.
GeneralRadames Thank you for the comment, I think I'll skip his video from now on.
BTW I love your channel, it makes me stay away from wrong teaching. It really helps a lot.
That was my aim. Teachers give us information and tools to sing. We in the end decide what we do. Listen to your instinct, to good singers, and keep watching. :D
GeneralRadames his videos seem ridiculously convoluted, but I saw his video on types of appoggio and though he explains really poorly I think there’s some scientific basis hidden in the mess. Like he talks of dynamic appoggio and static. What he seems to be describing is a static antagonism of diaphragm to exhale muscles versus a more dynamically controlled opposition. Things like this. He makes things incredibly confusing and you’re right his sound is meh
Have you got that video on static and dynamic? I have never heard these terms used before. He makes them up. I can watch it if you provide the link? I can try to work out what he means.
In essence when singing, we have to maintain the diaphragmatic action, keeping the expansion going. Otherwise the throat could close.
I really appreciate these channels popping up
Was Aida excerpt conducted by von Karajan, the voice wrecker?
Nonsense in your Pavarotti/Sutherland duett. He himself said that he learned to sing by listening to and singing along her to her, he greatly admired her. And rightfully so. Her sound is wide and focused at the same time.
Not Sing. He said he Learned to breathe and support from her. Who cares about facts.
A professor told me that I sang in the mask and that it was very good. I'm so confused Because some people say that sing in mask is the correct form and others say that is wrong.
I can't understand. how can I sing in the correct way?
It’s fine to sing in the mask and there are nasal resonators there. They have a different sound but as long as you are using a healthy technique sing what feels right for you.
Same here The problem My teacher told me is when we lost Quality in low notes so the idea is to alternate chest voice and mask voice to finally develop chiaroscuro
@@Monnarchmonnarchy what a lack of humble ... Pitty person
Lol he is a professor, that's your first problem.
@@reanna269 but sometimes we need to learn the correct way like this Italian or bel canto,, i mean their quality of sound is super rich and not having antension
Both Caruso and Pavarotti spoke of the importance of masque, but NEVER at the cost of the chest, diaphragm and open throat.
Pavarotti told that never sent his voice in the masque!!!
Casimir Alexander I think perhaps you should review your statement. Perhaps they were speaking of good masque resonance, which is a result of what the General is teaching us here😐.
@@femistokll_Moskalkov He also said to always keep the sound behind the eyes, even on the lowest notes. That is the true mask. The problem is the term "Mask" is not something these old singers used, especially in Italy and the term has come to mean singing in the nose pretty much, it's just been bastardised, mainly because of Alfredo Kraus i believe. But, that isn't even the mask, it's the space from the bottom of the eyes up, as pavarotti described, he just didn't call it the mask. Even Lauri Volpi would talk about the third eye. My teacher who studied with both Pavarotti and Corelli always tells me never to sing in the mask, but then he always talks about certain areas of resonance in the face for certain vowels. He doesn't refer to it as the mask, but it is the mask, it's just the true mask, not the nose.
Il confronto tra casi estremi di canto con una predominanza alla maschera e risonanza faringea non è valido. Per anatomia e spazi in cui l'aria si espande, in ogni cantante l'aria si espande nella faringe, in misura maggiore o minore, e solo abbassando la laringe. E anche l'emissione di aria è inevitabile che sia diretta (in misura maggiore o minore) verso i risonatori della maschera e persino quelli cranici. Ciò può essere dimostrato in un'autopsia osservando l'anatomia. Pertanto, l'emissione è misto, sebbene in alcuni cantanti predomina una tecnica o un'altra. Inoltre, per dire senza mezzi termini che il canto alla maschera è sbagliata e alla faringe è la cosa giusta ... questo non è un assioma. Qui entra in gioco 1) il risultato del suono, 2) il gusto personale dell'ascoltatore. Per fare un esempio: Kraus canta con una predominanza della maschera, se questo è vero il risultato del suo canto è molto buono, modula il canto, la voce viene ascoltata in tutto il teatro e attraversa l'orchestra come una spada. E se mi piace il colore della tua voce, cosa mi importa della sua modalità di emissione? Ergo gli assiomi teorici non possono condizionare la valutazione di una voce; e ci sono anche voci buone e cattive emesse con una tecnica o con un'altra.
The mask and cranial areas do not contribute to the amplification of sound. Resonance i.e amplification of sound occurs at the larynx and pharynx. The spaces of these areas.
You need to watch my other videos.
th-cam.com/video/2N5q85G3ydk/w-d-xo.html
Grazie! Splendidamente e perfettamente dichiarato!
I enjoyed this video - but Joan Sutherland had a voice that by the 1980's she was using to show off "size" not crystalline purity.
Her voice was being produced to show off it's "thickness" and "big round heft" which is ,unfortunately , very rare and almost extinct nowadays.
Hers was a voice that astonished people when heard live.
I DID hear her in the 80's in Norma and other operas.
Your use of the word "thickness" makes me think of others, whose "thinner" sound was more brilliant -- Kathleen Battle comes to mind. But whether the voice is "thick" or "thin", and whether you like one over the other I think is a personal preference.
Personally, I love them both depending on the role. To my ears Sutherland's "big round heft" as you put it (and I agree) is a more luscious sound and is capable of more nuances of expression than singing Handel for example. My opinion is that Handel (as in the case of Kathleen Battle) is more about the purity and clarity of sound rather than any underlying deep emotions. That being said, I must add that the beauty of the singing in a performance of Handel's Messiah brought me to tears.
th-cam.com/video/SUOTq_xGWpE/w-d-xo.html
@Nicholas Ennos a castrato is a guy who is castrated and sings in the soprano range.. errrr... so who is the castrato? hahahaha
@Nicholas Ennos you are crazy amd delusional... 🙄🙄🙄
@@gd3172 he is all over Joan s videos... He needs help
I think one could lose one's voice earlier too. To hear Bartoli try to sing Casta Diva is just nuts! A singer needs to know what material to sing. I know some of the all-time greats seemed able to sing anything but most have to stick to what they can sing well and often. In a book by Domingo, he said he had one performance of a Wagner and he said never again! But some in the 1880's sang a lot of that and went into belcanto as well. Lehmann was one for sure.
I actually didn't get it. Well... for example in the comments below people write that Luciano's voice is smaller than Joan's... khm... why then everybody can hear every word coming out of Luciano's mouth and barely catch what Joan's singing? I mean uh... my Italian isn't great but I really understand Luciano's every word. Even those which are, you know, like a short vowels 'tween the notes.
Sound of her voice is heard probably as a deeper voice, but I dare to conclude you cannot hear the text clearly. What's the sense to sing if no one can hear your text?
My teacher doesn't teach me to sing "in the mask" but the articulation alongside with proper pharynx tuneup and diaphragm work gives a stable and flying voice. But to make one's articulation work you have to make him/her send their voice forward, to be clearly heard in a last theatre row. Otherwise voice remains in the pharynx and voila...
A little bit messy but I hope you'll understand my idea.
Leo Ants Sorry, I don't understand your idea. It is a contradiction.
@@mickey1849 what I mean is that "in the mask" method can give strength and depth to one's voice but it doesn't give proper articulation. My teacher says that when you first learn to articulate properly, your voice will find "the mask", or as some Russian vocal theoreticians say, "the little box". And this video proves that, doesn't it? 🤔
Leo Ants Well anytime I hear "mask" red flags go up everywhere. The vast majority of clear intonation is going to happen in the back of the throat, where the soft palate is. Combine that with a completely open pharyngeal space and there is your clear intonation and articulation. Whatever it sounds like buzzing out of the middle of your face is simply a result of that, not the cause of that. "Little box..." I might be willing to go with that terminology. But not "mask/masque." I could imagine a "little box" in the back of my throat🎁, where all kinds of good things come out of it. Corelli says the voice is here, a "ball of energy" in the back of the throat. I am in lockstep with his conclusion.
Antonio Scotti es uno de los mejores barítonos de todos los tiempos
He was a fine singer. His sound is a bit wooden, His singing is not so spontaneous. I prefer others of his generation. De Luca, Battistini, Ancona,Ruffo, etc. Go to my Baritones Playlist. I have some up. And I will post more as time goes by.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers Scotti was not nasal!!! He is a heroic baritone like Mattia Battistini
You can hear that singers like Caruso and Pavarotti aren’t merely singing a concert to themselves in their heads. The mask singers are pointing all of the sound into their own skulls and not sending the sound outwards into the audience. The mask singers lack chest voice from the bottom to the top of their voices.
Joan is amazing
Tomba 2 Yes, only one vowel and one good octave (the upper one)
@@draganvidic2039 I know EVERY single flaw of her voice and always have but still find her singing amazing.
Jan Peerce's nasality in the mask is more obvious and audible. Some are more subtle to hear.
Rex Wee Peerce was a cravat tenor. Some people are just not going to like that style. He was Lanza's favorite singer. Lanza also occasionally sang with a cravat. It was not his best sound.
Enrico was resonating in the mask beautifully but had way better chest support, apoggio.
I've never been a fan of soprani voices (exceptions being Anna Moffo and Christina Deutekom) so I've wondered if my prejudice was in the way of my appreciating Joan Sutherland...which I have never done, but she was so much celebrated by the self-acclaimed cogniscenti, I've wondered that I might how my ears might have been missing what others embraced. My hearing discerned only a melange of vowels lacking any denotation of "words" achieved by the occasional presence of a consonant. Anyone else share my confusion or able to direct me to a recording where "La Stupenda" earns her nickname? Pip pip
I am sure she earned her fame. There were just things she could of improved on. When there are no words, no clear enunciated vowels, we lose a sense of emotional, meaningful connection. It just becomes pretty noise.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers It was some of the most beautiful and fearlessly consistent, and strong "noises" I have ever heard. People bought tickets to hear her sing, knowing that they would hear those "noises" that were more beautiful than language ever can be. One would think that people who claim to love music don't actually believe that musical sound also has emotional content through sound. No one ever expected Sutherland or her voice to reveal deep human mysteries. She revealed angelic and archangelic mysteries instead.
It is interesting to me that you include Jan Peerce with Robert Merrill. Peerce was I believe Toscanini's favorite tenor. I'm inclined personally to prefer what you call pharyngeal production, but people whose taste can hardly be dismissed have at times embraced the particular express qualities of a more nasal production, which can be more speech-like or yell-like, which is perhaps desirable for its verismo qualities. Perhaps you could call it the New York sound? The sound of Peerce or Tucker or, later, (non-New Yorker) Sherrill Milnes. And lumping the classic "mask" singing of Sutherland with this nasal sound doesn't seem right to me. At its best, the nasal placement can create an exciting intensity of diction, while the "great" mask singers do quite the opposite.
estimado General Radames este canal esta conectado con this is opera?
NO. They copied me.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers at least they copied someone with good criteria.
Hahahahaha... xD This is Pecho. v:
I I've been taught not to sing in the mask and I'm confident that it is the correct way to achieve perfect singing in Opera however what I'm puzzled by is the success of some tenors and baritones are here who appeared to be singing in the mask yet who can produce a very good sound in fact an excellent sound
I wonder if it's just a matter of chance are people using a mixture of techniques and are able to do so because their physique is different from other people's.
I wonder whether for instance my favourite tenor de Stefano sang into the mask as sometimes I hear a nasal sound the same with other tenants such as even bergonzi It's well known that de Stefano technique was not correct but in spite of that he was a wonderful artist & singer and had a long career at the top.
pero Di Stefano a los 40 ya no podía cantar y es el sonido mas abierto de la historia del canto
I’m so confused. If you don’t sing in the mask where do you sing? I’m not attempting to be argumentative. I genuinely want to know. :-)
@@chicagolc7022 in the technique I have learned we sing as if the breath and voice is going in to the hard palate,
I'm pretty sure Corelli ,Pavarotti etc sang this way, You can hear my singing teacher the tenor Jeffrey Talbot and my fellow pupil
Colin Lee who had a big career singing Bel canto roles
For heavens sake, listen and watch Alfredo Kraus
His singing became more and more wooden the more he tried to place the sound. There is a stark difference between his earliest recordings and his later ones.
I'd rather study in person. I wouldn't trust the sound quality on a computer. I'm not sure I can even afford lessons 😪. I need 3 a week minimum. To bad you're not in southern California
Scott Foreman hi Scott, a great money saving tip for you may be to have a lesson once a week and record it. then listen to it to practice. it helps you solidify the corrections you were given and techniques you worked on more accurately than just relying on your memory of the lesson or notes in the sheet music. it is a very effective cost reduced alternative to 2 or more lesson per week, which many singers feel like they need to take to improve.
Until I knew what the teacher wanted of me and I was secure with that, I'd quite honestly be reluctant to sing in between lessons. In my humble opinion, singers should be having 3+ lessons a week and should be able to afford it rather than paying teachers an hour what many singers make a week! The voice is a muscle and once a week isn't enough! This is just my opinion. Caruso Tetrazzini Muzio, Price, Peters, Sills didn't study once a week!!!! Most if not all were mentored or sponsored to study. What's happened to this? Are we seeing bad singing today because of it? Is it just the technique or singers rushing to be famous? I was actually told by a famous teach who at the time charged $90 in the 80s, if I couldn't afford I shouldn't come back or choose another career path!!!! However she was extremely impressed with the raw talent I had. I walked away and looked elsewhere.
Scott Foreman I do agree that lessons would ideally be more affordable but we have to accept the business nature here- better lessons cost more. as long as there is a variation in lesson quality, and a sufficient demand for good lessons, the prices will always vary accordingly. I believe everyone should practice at home. it’s the in between spaces and processes that bring progress. a teacher should be teaching in a manner appropriate for the students level so that they can and should safely and effectively practice outside of lessons. otherwise, the lessons are not fit for the student.
Scott Foreman I understand ethos comment is months old... but it sounds like a lot of roadblocks as to why you "can't" do something. That's the number one cause of failure for voice students is the negative self talk. Mental toughness goes hand in hand with proper vocals technique, and I'd recommend starting with your mindset toward singing first, in my humble opinion.
Peerce dozzinale quant’altri mai.
check out the book The Science of Voice by Dr. Douglas Stanley
Just listen to a mono pirated recording of Sutherland and Pavarotti and you will see how much larger Sutherland's voice was.
What is not being debated is the size of the voice. What is clarity and tone of the voice.
A question: the singers in the trovatore excerpt are good examples of pharyngeal singing, right? I was confused about it, because of the text.
And Rosa Ponselle, who is not included but I want to mention her, sounds tot my ears in the midrange rather nasal. Is IT true that she uses mask resonance?
And who is singing as Amneris?
Edit: oh, one of the two sings in the mask, my error.
Essentially there is no mask. It is a term used in pedagogy. The "masky" sounds or sounds that are not clear and purer are alterations of the larynx pharynx. Very simple. Adding constrictions will add noise or bi noise in singing.
Ponselle added a little growl to the sound. So did Titto Ruffo. But they had better function and actions going on. It is all relative. We can all strive for better production. There is no perfect in singing. However, it is good to strive for perfection.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers yes, i know there is no mask in singing, though Carlo Bergonzi and Pertile talked about the mask. But thanks for the information regarding Ponselle.
Next to Pav, Sutherland sounds ridiculous and a very bad actress, focused on her sound, while Pav is meaning the words for real
PAVAROTTI IS A NATURAL PROTEGE, WHERE SHE IS NOT!!!! SHE IS VERY MECHANICAL!!! AWFUL SINGING!!! COULD NEVER UNDERSTAND A WORD SHE IS SAYING!!! I AM SO GLAD I HAVE OTHER SINGERS TO LISTEN TO BESIDES HER!!!
Antoine Garnier There's a much more simple explanation. It's the sound difference between proper pharyngeal singing and a lack of proper pharyngeal singing, which the General is trying to teach us🥳 /// But, after sleeping on it for a night I decided to come back and further comment on what you said about Pavarotti singing "for real." Yes, I believe you are right. Pav is doing his best to support her and make her look good in every way, with no regard for himself. It's no secret "Why" either. When she invited Pav to tour Australia with her in Summer 1965 it was a big break for him of sorts. Moreover, his American debut in Miami was directly a result of her recommendation when the principal bailed and there was no understudy. I feel the same as you: it's marvelous to see him "real" here, and supporting his sponsor in every way, with no thought for his own ego whatsoever☺️. Whatever faults Pavarotti can be accused of, I don't think ingratitude is one of them👏. Watching him with the Three Tenors, I would never get the same feeling about him I get here.😙
So if mask singing is bad, why is it then modern teachers teach mask singing? Is there downside with chest singing, for example, a chest singer wears out faster than a nasal forward placement singer? Or is placement singing more pleasant to listeners than chest singing?
I think people have a perception of sensations when they sing. When they have to teach someone to sing they try to get people to repeat a sensation or things they have heard from others. Unfortunately, there is a danger in placement. Sound is the result of function it is not a cause of it.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers Exactly, thank you! It isn't like, say, playing a violin, where a teacher can observe every nuance of finger position in the left hand, and the complete movements of the shoulder, elbow and hand of the right arm, the bowing arm. And since we can't actually see what is going on internally we wind up using all sorts of visualizations and descriptions of sensations (sensations that can be highly variable from one singer to the next), etc. to try to get at the production we are looking for.
Sutherland is one of the very greatest opera singers ever. I’m not buying the criticism, though I will admit her diction was atrocious until late in her career.
I’m not a Jan Peerce fan, but since you included him, I’ll just say that at a master class I viewed in Phoenix a few years ago, Sherrill Milnes praised him highly.
BTW, you weren’t saying Robert Merrill used bad technique, are you? Other baritones would come into the Met on their off days just to hear him sing.
Nevermind that Sutherland actually had a solid middle and top and sang larger than Pavarotti. This is observation made by someone who has not listened to these singers live. Sutherland towered over Pavarotti by all accounts and her voice had one of the richest tones. Other than her muffled diction which was intentional (she didn't want to mess with the legato), it didn't matter live. Her ticket sales and record sales outstripped everyone's including Callas when they were still alive.
Thank you for your feedback. I am aware of Sutherlands abilities. It is not the point of the video.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers You're a lot nicer than MisterOpera. That guy flips out if anyone disagrees with him. 🤷♂️
Yes, Sutherland did have a large voice (I heard her live) which combined with her fluency in coloratura produced a riveting effect. Also, I'm not the only one to notice that on recordings conducted by someone other than her husband, Richard Bonynge, her diction was often clearer than usual. This was true both early and late, f.i. both in Handel's Acis & Galatea conducted by Adrian Boult and in Handel's Athalia conducted by Christopher Hogwood her words are really much easier to understand. Likewise as Puccini's Turandot (Zubin Mehta).
Catrina It's useless to get in power struggles with infants who want their way. Let them think what they think. Who cares? Hopefully, one day they'll just go away and annoy somebody else.
I think Sutherland is perhaps the greatest opera singer I ever heard, but she did not “tower” over Pavarotti. He was a fabulous tenor with a finely focused voice that included a notable ping. He could be heard clearly, even in duets with her.
I know that because I heard them live in La Fille du Regiment back in 1972 when the Met still toured.
Sutherland was not a "mask" singer. The throat was as wide-open as a parachute on a racecar after the finish line; the voice ended up being flung Through the mask but as a by-product of super-precise use of the pharyngeal space (plus unparalleled breath support).
Also: this is mixed to make the voices sound the same size, which was not the case. Stai Attenti!
Explain the aural difference in the examples I provided then? Because you clearly ignore these example differences to push your opinion.
Explain why Sutherlands voice in the middle and lower parts of her voice becomes mushy and the enunciation lost?
An open throat does not have distortion of production but clarity of enunciation due to the unimpeded flow of function and sound.
Mushy diction is a distortion of sound. Due to a distortion of function or the physicality of the vocal tract.
Mushy sound is not pure. Most of great singers had purity of enunciation and pronunciation. You could write down the words that they sang.
Cantando en la máscara la voz puede sonar un poco engolada y nasal, pero con menos esfuerzo se consigue más. Generalmente los cantantes que recurren al aperto ma coperto tienen carreras más largas. Algunos son de técnica mixta, y otros claramente van al aperto, pero siempre al emitir la voz, sea cual sea la forma de la impostación, el sonido cae en los resonadores, solo que en el aperto se oye más la voz pura, más clara y voluminosa, sin enriquecerse tanto con los armónicos que le dan los resonadores nasales, pero a la vez, paradójicamente, cuando el cantante no está al cien por cien, la voz se destimbra y muchas veces el vibratto se descontrola; tal vez porque generalmente esta técnica la usan los cantantes que tienen voces más grandes. Los comentarios sobre el fraseo que hay por ahi no son correctos, Kraus es el ejemplo de impostación en la máscara y de fraseo claro y elegante. Cantantes como Corelli que decían no enmascarar la voz, al subir al agudo con la forma del bostezo en vez de la sonrisa del tonto, conseguían una resonancia más craneal y una voz más imponente, pero con entubamientos, estrechamientos al pronunciar las vocales palatales, y un canto más valiente, pero menos seguro. ¿Qué decir de Sutherland, la cantante de la técnica perfecta? Claro que a medida que avanzaban los años la voz se endureció y el enmascaramiento, que era más que correcto hasta bien entrados los años 70, llegó a ser excesivo, pero cuántas cantantes desearían tener su mi bemol a los sesenta con treinta años, por no hablar de la consistencia, afinación y coloratura de su voz. Sin aprovechar de alguna manera la resonancia no hay sonido que pueda con una orquesta muy densa: se dice que la Callas utilizaba el teatro como caja de resonancia, y que por eso ensayaba tan obsesivamente...
Coño, un comentario en español bien escrito, con conocimiento y sentido. Con alguna cosa no estoy de acuerdo, pero se agradece, que hay de cada cursimastuerzo por ahí...
Pablo Carrascosa-. Excelente comentario, tanto por su argumentación como por bien expresado, algo raro en estos foros.
Excelente comentario
Tenga su like caballero
Gran comentario. Creo que lo importante es distinguir entre la emisión de la voz y la amplificación de la misma. La máscara puede usarse como resonador igual que el pecho y la cabeza. Otra cosa es no dominar la técnica y acabar cantando con la nariz como les pasa a muchos cantantes actuales que suenan gangosos.
Dios pero que comentario tan bueno! Tanto por los argumentos que ofrece en su opinión, como por la forma amena en que estructura el contenido para hacerlo ameno y verdaderamente disfrutable.
Did you ever hear Sutherland in her Prime ? In the house ? She had a huge voice z you know nothing .
I made no reference to the size of voice. Or did I speak badly about her or her singing. I am just demonstrating the differences when people make masky sounds and clearer sounds. It is an educational video that seems to have gone over your head. It is a comprehension issue on your part.
GeneralRadames what is a “ Maskey sound ?
GeneralRadames Sutherland was horrible except in her first years. People just don’t want to learn or reconsider their old canarybird favourites... (Yes a big bird I know that)
@@RadamesAida2Operaloversnope don’t try to tap dance out of it . Her voice was supported , and projected through the hall .
Caruso has beginning to sing in the mask...after few year he has changed his technic and few yaers leater ...loosing is voice ;)
Caruso never lost his voice. He simply died at 48.
@@johnhoie1 he changes his vocal technic and after few years, he's begun ta have any problem ! He underwent several operations to treat his vocal problems, but they were not always successful. In 1920, he underwent surgery to remove a polyp from his vocal cords.
@@es9882 I’m pretty sure that’s not true. Caruso did not have surgery until he became ill in late 1920. He never sang publicly after that.
And the surgeries he underwent were not on his throat.
@@johnhoie1 OK YOU'RE THINKING THAT YOU'RE A GENUIS BUT he LOOSE His VOICE. He changes his technic with and like TITA Ruffo . and few year later the problem's beginning
@@es9882 Way to go personal and antagonistic.
If reading a book makes me a genius, I plead guilty. Dorothy Caruso wrote a book about her husband’s final years (she married him in 1918), and I read that. There is no mention of any surgeries before his final illness.
As for him losing his voice, listen to Ombra Mai Fu and Rachel, Quand du Seigneuer, recorded in September 1920. He was magnificent.
What do you mean Caruso sings in the pharynx? And what is the pharynx?
Im confused.. Sutherland sing mask.. which according to you is wrong... but she was titled as the La Stupenda... maybe your painting a black and white picture on singing but there maybe more nuances on singing technique... mmm... are your videos your opinions and based on your preferences and not the consensus of the opera word? just verifying
yes, indeed i do hear the lack of clarity of the singing of Joan Sutherland. Indeed I can here the difference... there are a wide variety of voices in the opera world which we can classify on how we as audience hear them... Im still confused... but as DNA goes.. not one DNA is the same... so are the singers from every different background.. some are popular, some are underrated, and some are overrated... Maybe the distinction of mask and pharyngeal singing doesn't really matter as long as the singer can keep his/her voice in a long run.. which may require specific technique unique to a singer... this is an opinion by the way... I'm not an expert..
also.. audiences are different... some do not like mask and some dont mind... however its another business if one claims that one is correct and the other is incorrect... what were the basis of GeneralRamades to say that one singer has the correct technique or the other was not... so far as I know there were multiple ways of teaching voice technique which may one contradicts the other.. for example breathing technique.
People adore kraus and he sings strained masky and nasal too. Sometimes all it takes is a few critics to say one singer is amazing then a whole crowd of sheep is parroting how amazing they are without objectively listening to how the singer actually sings.
Ignore the stupid nicknames like “la stupenda” and just listen to the video. The difference is crystal clear if you listen objectively. Sometimes the popular opinion is not right and sometimes it’s not even an opinion at all. There are factual means to judge faults in singing based on our biology and the production of sound. When you try to place your voice in the face (which has been proved to be impossible to actual resonate in anywhere but in the throat and nose, but the nose muffled the sound because it’s a poor resonator and why nasality is an objective fault and in voice pathology is actually characterized as a resonance disorder) you can run into many issues. The larynx is pulled out of its proper position, the throat can tighten and constrict, and you’re forced to do unnatural things to try and balance out such faults which just make things worse. You can get a noisy unclear whiny bottled strangled muffled sound. The correctly produced voice is clear, efficient and resonant and isn’t clouded by such faults that remove efficiency and clarity and real power from the voice. Just listen to the video.
You wouldn’t speak like this so why would you sing like this? th-cam.com/video/BljEQFD594s/w-d-xo.html
The speaking and singing voice are one and the same. The operatic singing voice is just the normal voice but with the throat big and widely expanded and holding that expansion. Among a few other things.
Stone amen.
Tuve la suerte de ver a Kraus varias veces. La voz relativamente pequeña se oía perfectamente y por igual en todo el teatro, y se distinguía claramente en los números de conjunto, por encima de colegas con voces mucho más grandes. En cambio, también he visto a muchos cantantes heroicos con emisiones abiertas, y su sonido se iba debilitando a partir de la fila diez y ascendía a la galería con mucha más dificultad. Voces tonantes en la fila cinco no se oyen en el cuarto piso, eso no me parece que sea cantar bien.
If Carreras is singing the correct way, how come his voice developed a wobble? Also, Jan Peerce continued singing even at his 70s, even the freshness was still there. I guess whatever works for each singer...
You can’t look at vocal issues long term in such simple ways. Sometimes people with bad technique preserve well and sometimes better singers don’t preserve as well. There are too many factors. There is personal health, the nature of the actual persons voice, lifestyle, adequate and or lack of rest, eventual muscular decline and imbalance, disease, continuous training or neglecting of that, incorrect training or training too much of one muscle over time, gender, diet, vocal hygiene etc etc etc. the voice is a human instrument and subject to human mortality and fragility.
Often what happens when one develops a wobble is over time one muscle group of the voice gets too strong over the other, and the vibrato action, which consists of an alternation of muscles, becomes unbalanced hence the wobble. I’m old age the cords become less flexible and sometimes you will just develop a wobble regardless of how good you are. With training it’s possible to recorrect in lots of cases or at least lessen. Even gigli who had near perfect technique and never really strayed developed a bit of “wobble” in old age as his lyric voice became heavier. Carreras from what I understood eventually pushed his voice too much.
But you have to judge the technical aspects in a specific point in time. A wobble is not always indicative of bad technique. You can have relatively great technique and free vocal production and still develop a wobble due to many things. Tito Schipa has a slower vibrato in certain areas of his voice probably just due to the nature of his very small instrument and the nature of his cord dimensions made him naturally have more variation in vibrato despite his great technique. And you can have a relatively normal vibrato with poor technique. But really knowledgeable ears can still pick up on faults. And a knowledgeable ear can pick up on changes in vibrato speed in a good singer like Schipa and realize they aren’t necessarily faults, even if with some training could be more fixed into a more standardized or equalized vibrato production. Knowledgeable ears can tell when the voice is or isn’t in such good control. A wobble and caprino imply the voice is to an extent not well controlled. A slower vibrato is not always a wobble
He had cancer, and it is miraculous he could still sing after cancer, due to his correct tecnique.After recovering from severe cancer, the muscles were weak to support the once good voice...
Carreras sang the wrong fach and pushed his voice too much which will lead to his problems.
He had cancer. That will affect your voice. He was lucky to be able to remain singing.
John Roberts the cancer isnt the problem is his really poor techniche
I have too much wondering about opera singing techniques. I am just a junior and dont know what is wrong and what is right in opera singing....
That is why you need a teacher.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers yes, but how do we find a good teacher?
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers could you tell me what do you think about the female singer in this video?
th-cam.com/video/NcVG0FNv5Cc/w-d-xo.html
The truth is there is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to singing, despite the fact that there are many out there who will insist that their method is the only correct way to sing. Voices are all very unique, and the trick is to find a technique that is best suited to one's individual voice and places the least strain on it. Took me years to figure this out!
Not to be a stickler for grammar, but I believe you meant both "affects' and "pharyngeal." Secondly, I thought you didn't believe in placement. Because singing in the mask, versus the pharynx, is a placement choice, no?
I didn't notice the Misspelling of pharyngeal. I am aware of the incorrect use of effect. However, I cannot change it once published. Thanks anyway.
Placement is a common term used to achieve certain sounds. It is a standard Nomenclature for vocal pedagogy. The sounds of mask singing are the results of attempting to place the voice.
All singing is pharyngeal. When people attempt to go for certain sounds and actions they manipulate the throat to do so. So placement is in essence a pharyngeal and mechanism manipulation. As explained in one of my videos.
You can watch my Placement playlist.
th-cam.com/video/2N5q85G3ydk/w-d-xo.html
I understand that people try to place their voice for a number of reasons.
1. For resonance.
2. For ring and squillo.
3. So the sound is "forward" and not throaty.
There may be other reasons. These seem to be the main reasons why.
1. I have shown that these areas are not resonators. They do not amplify sound. I have provided scientific information on that.
2. Ring and squillo come from a muscular function not position. The Chest voice function Thyro arytenoids.. If you sing in chest voice you will natural produce the right type of squillo.
Squillo can be manipulated and encouraged more. Generally at the loss of scuro. It is about balance. I think it is better to just sing with the function. If a singer reduces chest function in their singing and sings headier they will have less squillo. If they maintain a full chest participation they will optimise squillo.
3. Throaty singing is not throaty because it is in the throat. As all singing is in the throat. It is due to constriction and unbalance. It sounds throaty because of wrong actions.
Many throaty singers are throaty because they are trying to sing more forward. Their tongue then goes back into the throat and even depresses onto the mechanism. Everyone is different with their own unique issues. So it is hard to generalise.
I try not to dismiss what people say. I think everything will have an element of truth to it. I try to objectively find reasons why things are. And question why so many people do it.
It is logical to say if so many advocate something it must be right? It is hard to stick to certain belief at times when the tendency is the other way. I question my thoughts constantly. I think reason removes many doubts.
If the pharynx produces 90 plus percent of resonance and the larynx is the mechanism of function or initial vibration. I am going to give this area more focus. I want to keep this area as free and open as possible.
Everything happens in the throat. Vowels(shaped tone),vibration(function), resonance(amplification). If I chopped off the top part of my head the sound would not change.
This is the point of my videos on mask. In the end it is about going for the right sound. The sound should be clear, vowels clear. Dark and bright. Full and rich. Expansive and resonant. Not marred by bad vibrato or constrictive noises. Etc.
Thanks for your comment.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers how can I find someone who can teach me the correct way to sing. I'm not an opera singer and I don't want to be, but I don't want to sing like a little kid and "belting" F5s like musical theatre tenors seam to try to do. My teacher is supposedly an opera singer, she she can't sing in chest voice she is all headvoice (or even falseto-like) with twang. And always makes me lighten my voice. But i don't want to sing light.
@@Ignasimp We can try some lessons if you like? I teach over Skype. You can email me if you are interested. radamesaida2@gmail.com
GeneralRadames Wow! I didn't know you can't go in and change things on the video once it's published. What a bummer!😞 I'll be more understanding in the future😉.
How can I develop a pharyngeal technique? My teacher always makes me sing with a "high placement" and a smile and a very light coordination. I don't want to sound like a kid when singing I want to sound like a man. But when I try it on my own I get to push or have an engolata sound. Anyone could help me?
Always be yourself!!! Never imitate anyone.. your voice will develop and darken naturally. when you have acquired enough technique and confidence.. in all these cases the correct clear phonation doesn't come from singing in the pharanx. It comes from an open relaxed throat, placing your voice forward on a speech based position ( just think it, don't form it ) and sustaining the focus of an un pushed vocal line as small as a hum 'mm' with the support of your body...to get a darker sound without constricting your vocal tract, just relax and let all the tension release downwards while maintaining the focus of the vowel forward and small (so it doesn't slip backwards into the throat) in a legato line with your appoggio (body support mainly abdominal muscles doing all the work )
Scotti don't sing in mask nasal, he is only a heroic baritone like Mattia Battistini
Oh yes, the Pav-Suth and all's clear. Or muffled. Depends on the source. 😉
Scotti had a small voice with a not so strong bottom
Mai sentite tante scemenze sul canto e con la pretesa di pontificare, dall’ alto di cosa poi? Quindi appoggiare in maschera sarebbe meno funzionale che appoggiare sulla laringe?!? Quindi A. Kraus non ci aveva capito niente, J. Bjiorling, A. Pertile ecc. peccato non abbiano trovato un maestro come lei sulla loro strada, avrebbe potuto dare loro qualche consiglio su come cantare in gola!!! Pazzesca la spocchia di alcuni che non hanno mai cantato in vita loro su un palcoscenico... lasci stare il canto lirico e si dedichi a qualcos’altro
Where do you have your studio General Radames?
Actually, I teach on Skype only. I have students all over the world.
@@RadamesAida2Operalovers You teach on Skype only? And you think over an internet connection that you are able to sufficiently hear what someone is doing when they sing? You are a fraud!
When Peerce sing properly,his voice souned like di Stefano or Hadley's（or Eugenio Fernandi）.That's interesting.What a pity！
Xuejie Xie Peerece sang Lenskys Aria in his 80’s and was better then Domingo ever was .
@@Ettoredipugnar Domingo is so nasal.But he is the only one can sing Otello among the THREE TENORES.If he wasn't nasal,his voice sounds like Franco Corelli.
Xuejie Xie I saw Domingo as Otello he was horrible .
@@Ettoredipugnar I think the size of his "instrument" can support the role, but his nasal voice is terrible.
@@Ettoredipugnar Basically there were a lot of operas where he worked with Sherrill Milnes, and when Sherrill start singing, you couldn't hear what Domingo was singing.
Is this pharyngeal singing the same as the lowered larynx singing championed by Corelli and del Monaco? They were enormous talents, but their careers were not as long as Sutherland’s. Not sure if that was technique or simply singing very loudly too often.
MDM had a terrible car wreck that effected his career; he was a master technician. Corelli had good technique; his biggest flaw was scooping up to higher notes, and this means you’re not already filled up with air and open enough. Over time, that small flaw harms the voice. Neither sang with nasality. They sang open, covered chest voice in their entire range unless a very high, pianissimo note was required. Then they allowed the larynx to shift and add a little head voice.
They had long careers, Del Monaco retired at the age of 60, and Corelli give his last concert at the age of 60. What more do you want then that? You do not need to sing until you are 80. Tenor roles are meant for young men and characters. No one in their 50's sounds as good as they did in their 30's, you cannot avoid aging no matter what vocal coaches are trying to sell you.
@@ZENOBlAmusic Well-said!
Mai sentito che una emissione faringea sia corretta
A false distinction. And actually Pavarotti is the one with with the more forward sound, more buzz in the mask.
In any case, I think it’s arrogant to line up all these great singers, who have all had great careers, and pick and choose which one has the “right” way of singing.
David Perkins completely agree! Some methods suite other singers better. It’s all about anatomy. There’s no need to bash other singers technique, especially when it clearly works for them. He put this video out but I couldn’t separate the good technique from the bad, because it was all good.
I think it is arrogant on your part to not make an effort and understand the video and to add things that I never said.
The video is about mask sound. "Not forward sound". I compared singers singing together to clearly demonstrate vocal difference that mar the voice and not enhance it.
It is quite clear a covered masky sound inhibits vocal clarity and vowel enunciation.
There are better ways to sing. I didn't say anything about a "right" way.
Singing is based on anatomy, function and resonance. It is clear that those that do not sing with a masky wolf tone sound far better. As evident in this video.
How do you know if Pavarotti felt a buzz in the mask?
In great singing, sound is disembodied. One indication of poorer singing is a buzz in the mask. A Buzz due to constrictive bynoise.
Anatomy dictates that the function for all singers are the same.
Unfortunately, the vocal instrument is very flexible and can make all sorts of sounds. This doesn't mean, like all other musical instruments there are not ideals. Based on reason and common sense.
Well enunciated vowels and clear sounds are a basic reasonable ideal.
You have not backed up your statement of a "false distinction'. Everything you wrote is based on saying things I never said and making statements with no explanation or back up.
David Perkins I think you're full of it. The only way we improve is by listening and making careful and measured analysis. Keep your head in the sand. You're doing fine.🦩
@@mickey1849 No, thanks. I agree with Zubair Hossain's comments below.
David Perkins Well so did I. The first thing Zubi says is there is no such thing as "singing in the mask." I immediately agreed with that, and still do. However, he makes a claim that if one is singing properly he will feel the sound "hit" the mask. The General then replies that is not necessarily true. You cannot apply that as a rule for every singer. Up to now, Zubi has still not disagreed with him. I agree with the General. Proper pharyngeal singing will produce a disembodied sound. Don't look for it to "hit" the mask. Zubi says a lot of cool stuff. But it's a lot. I suppose it's important to be clear on where one agrees with Zubi and where one doesn't. Again, Zubi doesn't disagree with the General--up to now. Do you? At any rate, we're all talking and thinking. This is a wonderful way to move forward😁. The General has a logical mind and a logical and rational approach to how he approaches the analysis at hand and peoples' comments too. I wonder if perhaps he has been legally trained? At any rate, it's a pleasure to explore voice this way! /// My apologies David, if the "I think you're full of it" line came on a bit too strong😐.
Again, as with other posts:
if the referenced singer(s) was not heard live in order to have generated the opinion, then this is all moot.
Principally so because recordings lie for almost all singers. Unlike today's standards, the majority fo the singers displayed in this video sounded significantly better in person.
Richard Tucker was a massive star in his day, for every good reason. Sometimes, strong voices record abysmally, sometimes not. Del Monaco and Nilsson could never be captured accurately, for instance
It is all moot. Trolling at its worst.
I do not think that Pavarotti was a pharyngeal singer. Kind of confused by this video. I’ve studied voice most of my adult life and have only ever heard that mask singing is correct and allows for the most longevity. Only after really learning to relax my jaw and singing from the corners of my mouth up did my top really and I mean really begin to open up. At the end of the day, though, every voice is different. Also, there’s a difference between in the nose and through the nose. No doubt, in days gone by singers probably were chestier and “pharyngeal”, as you say. A lot of them also probably smoked three packs a day. As time goes on, we like to think that we learn better ways to do things. Mask singing, for me, anyway, is far superior.
Just because time moves on it does not mean that there is automatic improvement. This is especially true in the arts. Take popular music as an example, are popular singers better today than in the 60's and 70's? Has technology and knowledge improved popular music? The answer is, no. Technology has just made it easier for less talented people to succeed. An example of this is autotune, everything today is autotuned, earlier singers could easily sing without autotune.
Longevity is a fake measurement invented by lazy managers. It so much easier to promote aging artist than to invest effort into new artists. This really took off in the Pavarotti and Domingo era, after the 80's they were past their prime but it was easier to promote them, then to start trying to create the same popularity for a new artist.
Pavarotti did sing with the older method he just had a small voice.
How exactly has the singing improved today, from the 50's and 60's? There are no dramatic singers, today's technique seemingly cannot create Verdi and wagnerian singers. The popular singers today go through a huge vocal crises every few years. There is no prove that the new technique of singing actually gives the voice longevity. All people age, you cannot get away from aging, no one sounds as good in their 50's as they did in their 30's.
@@ZENOBlAmusic we have different opinions. No worries.
You are just not a fan of La Stupenda, considered one of the great voices of the century by many, many, many opera fans the world over. There is no law that you have to be a fan. It is a free country.. I worship her. I don't care if she sings " incorrectly" I love her more than anyone else. Peace.
John Roberts the whole point of the video is to point out a vocal flaw.... it has nothing to do with being a fan or not of Sutherland. It also does not matter what many think in relation to the video. The video is an objective demonstration of a vocal fault. Almost every singer; even the best has some thing one can point out that could be fixed to improve the efficiency, power, clarity, function etc of the voice. In Sutherland’s case, it is quite obvious as has been pointed out several times, that constricting the voice and putting it in the nose detracts from the voice’s optimal functioning and resonance. The video even points out that in the higher point of her range she sometimes actually does not have these faults and you hear that’s where the sound opens up with clarity and efficiency. You are overcomplicating the matter and relying too much on subjective taste, when the video is not concerned in the least with a subjective opinion. Again, it is an objective video that points out an unarguable flaw in her voice that detracts from the voice’s optimal functioning. In speech pathology, doing what she does in singing is considered a resonance disorder. Objectively, it serves to hinder the voice’s resonance efficiency and clarity. It is also related to why her diction is not clear. The video is not hating Sutherland nor her fans and anyone is free to like who they like.
It doesn't hurt to objectively analyse singers. We can enjoy their singing, but we can also appreciate better singing by understanding why. Some people are quite emotional when it comes to their favourite singers. Giacomini fans, and Horne fans have indicated this very well.
Not really, Nothing is that black and white. This is not Hollywood with their Good and evil polars.
There is a scale. Horne and Sutherland did good things. But they also did wrong things. Or, they could have done things differently
So you can see the point I was making. Yet your reasoning could not allow you to accept these facts?
Success is not always due to rationale reasons. Paul Potts is somewhat successful. Andréa Boccelli is very successful. Does it suggest they are great singers?
Sutherland's singing was at a higher level than most. She did things wrong and she could have been better than what she was. It really doesn't mean she didn't have that fault.
Sometimes people sound good despite their faults. Or, maybe, the hearing of the listener is not as developed as their writing skills. This is the point of these videos. To educate the ear.
GeneralRadames Did you hear the General clearly, knucklehead?🙄
Pavarotti sang in masks ... singing in masks is the correct way .... it is absurd that even today there is this great confusion about singing. The older ones sang with masked sounds: Lauri Volpi, Gigli, Pertile, Pavarotti, Loforese etc.
I never liked Sutherland
This is such BS. Pavarotti's voice was so forward, it tool paint off the back of the house
no it’s not bs. sutherland is the one singing “in the mask” here, not pav.
Stephen Beale Nope.
Pav’s voice wasnt “forward” in the sense of forward Mask singing that is popularly taught today. That “paint peeling” quality is a result of proper chest coordination or also know as “Squillo” or “squillante”. Squillo is what helps penetrate the orchesstra and carry you to the back of the house.
You have a point a out the squillo, but it certainly wasn't in his throat!
John Badenhorst Not here!
Só no seu mundo que o Pavarotti cantava na faringe, amor, é possível ter espaço e cantar na máscara, e é possível cantar na faringe e estar sem espaço, então simplesmente você está errado, parece um dentista falando de cirurgia cardíaca, que é algo que definitivamente ele não sabe como fazer
Sempre se canta na faringe. É onde estão presentes os formantes que irão amplificar a voz. Não importa se você sente a voz vibrando no zigomático, na testa, na cabeça, no peito ou no pé. A faringe é o principal ressonador da voz. A questão é o quão optimizado está o espaço para que a voz possa ser amplificada de forma eficiente. Quando se manipula os músculos da laringe para sentir aquele "ardor" nos seios da face você termina acionando os músculos constritores (que deveriam estar isolados para uma voz livre de tensão) e a laringe acaba sendo elevada estreitando assim o trato vocal. As ondas sonoras não vão para lugar algum que não seja o aparato vocal . É contra as leis da física. Som precisa de um contentor de ar(faringe) com abertura(boca) para ressoar. Os espaços do crânio nem contém ar nem possuem abertura. Empurrar o som na máscara não acrescenta nem contribui em nada para o canto.
@@tecnicoconcursado os sons mais agudos ressoam(da pra perceber)dos seios da face e mais acima,na parte de cima do cranio.
Da pra perceber Lauri Volpi com um som de tinido metalico, enquanto Di Stefano têm um som mais aberto e na garganta.
5:50 singing mosly off key isn't attractive either
Do you even know what mask singing is, at this point ? (no)
Yet Sutherland sang perfectly, with strength, breath, pitch and support until she was 70. Mask singing, my foot!
joan wasnt dramatic soprano, callas was it.
Neither was.
Sutherland didn't sing on the mask but on the nose. The most overrated singer of all time. And her acting skills... Well, the icing on the cake.
robert111k I don't think anybody's gonna overrate her on her looks though.🤣
Having worked very closely with someone who collaborated with Pavarotti, I can assure you that he would have thought you are totally full of crap with these stupid comparisons.
Pasunsoprano He is not going to criticize his friend.
Your advice is so dangerous.
It's not correct or incorrect, that is ignorant. You have no idea what you are talking about and Lord help anyone who believes you!
It is correct in relation to purity of sound. Nasal tones, Masky tones, Throaty tones are distortion of the resonation process due to constriction of the function or distortion of the vocal tract.
Historically, these "wolf tones" as describe in the scientific literature are not desirable.
You can watch my other videos on the topic. All put together in my playlist section under mask singing.
I provide evidence supported by reference materials. As an ignorant person that is the best I can do.
It is ignorant to say something and not support it with reasons why.
I have to quote Giulietta Simmionato "Non essiste voce di petto" and as Fedora Barbieri never used voce di petto when sang Mrs Quickly
She actually did. Both of them had excellent lower registers. What they meant as "voce di petto" in that video you're referring to was something else - an improper throaty technique. You just have to listen to their singing to know neither of them were against chest voice as we understand it.
You can't tell anything meaningful from ancient recordings.
Never heard or read so many absurdities and so much misinfornation about singing.
So many you cannot state them?